2 Kills in 2 days!! C6 and GTO
08-01-2006, 11:54 AM
#26
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Pmoffatt
The Z06 was probably not trying but I believe what happened to you as well. I don't believe the SLK55 is faster but again thats probably why you don't like the calculations. In the 'real world' things are different but not by that much that the basics don't apply. BTW, the six speed automatic is not the future it is being put in now. I am not so sure about the stock GTO's being slower. I do know a couple of people around here with stock ones that would be willing to line up with you.
I am not arguing about the gearing I am simply stating the facts. The simple reason that this is so important is that gearing is very easily changed either aftermarket or at the factory production line. The main power plant of a vehicle is much harder to change. A manufacturer and/or an individual can make up for gearing easily. However when you start with a weak power plant such as is in the SLK55 it becomes an uphill battle. So to answer your question the gearing gains are not as important because that is the easy part. I would much rather have higher horsepower than gearing for that simple fact. Actually even though you were being a little smart that is exactly what is happening here. The SLK 55 is faster than most cars in 1st because of the gearing. The other thing that makes it important is that the AMG line is highly touted on engine power and the fact their individual engines are made by hand from one person. However the AMG engine is not the star in the show here as it is weak. The transmission and gearing are what is important and makes this car fast.
Yes the quickness of a car depends on a number of factors. Where did anyone say it didn't?
I do have to say that your response on this post was more emotionally based than anything. It reminds me of a child saying I saw it! I did! I did! I did! (which in fact no one questioned what you saw/did). Try not to take it so personally and try not to mock people seriously talking cars. If you don't like talking about vehicle mathematics, objective discussions and 'armchair racing' maybe you shouldn't post to a car bulletin board. If you can't post something constructive in a discussion at least don't post a childish mock.
I am not arguing about the gearing I am simply stating the facts. The simple reason that this is so important is that gearing is very easily changed either aftermarket or at the factory production line. The main power plant of a vehicle is much harder to change. A manufacturer and/or an individual can make up for gearing easily. However when you start with a weak power plant such as is in the SLK55 it becomes an uphill battle. So to answer your question the gearing gains are not as important because that is the easy part. I would much rather have higher horsepower than gearing for that simple fact. Actually even though you were being a little smart that is exactly what is happening here. The SLK 55 is faster than most cars in 1st because of the gearing. The other thing that makes it important is that the AMG line is highly touted on engine power and the fact their individual engines are made by hand from one person. However the AMG engine is not the star in the show here as it is weak. The transmission and gearing are what is important and makes this car fast.
Yes the quickness of a car depends on a number of factors. Where did anyone say it didn't?
I do have to say that your response on this post was more emotionally based than anything. It reminds me of a child saying I saw it! I did! I did! I did! (which in fact no one questioned what you saw/did). Try not to take it so personally and try not to mock people seriously talking cars. If you don't like talking about vehicle mathematics, objective discussions and 'armchair racing' maybe you shouldn't post to a car bulletin board. If you can't post something constructive in a discussion at least don't post a childish mock.
1) The SLK55 runs a 12.7 sec Quarter mile. The LS2 equipped GTO is a 13.2 sec car. Result: GTO loss. Period. End of story.
2) The SLK55 powerplant is not "weak". What are you smoking?
Since when is 355 Hp & 376 ft lbs of torque "weak" - especially from a 5.4L N/A powerplant? Pal, thats more torque & Hp than the larger 5.7L LS1 powered C5 & GTO. Hmmm, more power & torque from smaller discplacement. That is called more power/cubic inch = greater efficiency.3) A car's performance is more than just its powerplant (as Falco & others have indicated). The SLK55 runs the same Quarter as a MN6 C6 while having a smaller displacement V8 putting out a little less power & torque AND having a a higher vehicle weight (ala folding hardtop). That is called engineering (ie excellent gearing, traction control, and car balance). AMG's "weakest" powerplant just pulled GM's muscle car & signature sports car.
4) Modding a gearset or a powerplant is not "easier" than the other. Adding CAI, exhaust, tuning the car's ECU, etc are just some of the non engine modifications that add power & torque and are just as, if not more simplistic, than swapping a gear set. At the end of the day, its irrelavant as the cars in this post were all stock anyways.
5) Falco didn't run a ZO6.
He ran an auto C6 & an auto GTO.6) Gearing - I'd say 7 spd is all the gearing a car is going to need to help it through the quarter. Anything more & too much time is lost in changovers. So yes, an 8 spd gearbox (in my opinion) is likely going to hurt Quarter Mile performance rather than aid it.
-Matt
08-01-2006, 01:06 PM
#28
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy Wars
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
No, he was correcting you becuase you are grossly misinformed. Lets do a quick recap:
1) The SLK55 runs a 12.7 sec Quarter mile. The LS2 equipped GTO is a 13.2 sec car. Result: GTO loss. Period. End of story.
2) The SLK55 powerplant is not "weak". What are you smoking? Since when is 355 Hp & 376 ft lbs of torque "weak" - especially from a 5.4L N/A powerplant? Pal, thats more torque & Hp than the larger 5.7L LS1 powered C5 & GTO. Hmmm, more power & torque from smaller discplacement. That is called more power/cubic inch = greater efficiency.
3) A car's performance is more than just its powerplant (as Falco & others have indicated). The SLK55 runs the same Quarter as a MN6 C6 while having a smaller displacement V8 putting out a little less power & torque AND having a a higher vehicle weight (ala folding hardtop). That is called engineering (ie excellent gearing, traction control, and car balance). AMG's "weakest" powerplant just pulled GM's muscle car & signature sports car.
4) Modding a gearset or a powerplant is not "easier" than the other. Adding CAI, exhaust, tuning the car's ECU, etc are just some of the non engine modifications that add power & torque and are just as, if not more simplistic, than swapping a gear set. At the end of the day, its irrelavant as the cars in this post were all stock anyways.
5) Falco didn't run a ZO6. He ran an auto C6 & an auto GTO.
6) Gearing - I'd say 7 spd is all the gearing a car is going to need to help it through the quarter. Anything more & too much time is lost in changovers. So yes, an 8 spd gearbox (in my opinion) is likely going to hurt Quarter Mile performance rather than aid it.
-Matt
1) The SLK55 runs a 12.7 sec Quarter mile. The LS2 equipped GTO is a 13.2 sec car. Result: GTO loss. Period. End of story.
2) The SLK55 powerplant is not "weak". What are you smoking?
Since when is 355 Hp & 376 ft lbs of torque "weak" - especially from a 5.4L N/A powerplant? Pal, thats more torque & Hp than the larger 5.7L LS1 powered C5 & GTO. Hmmm, more power & torque from smaller discplacement. That is called more power/cubic inch = greater efficiency.3) A car's performance is more than just its powerplant (as Falco & others have indicated). The SLK55 runs the same Quarter as a MN6 C6 while having a smaller displacement V8 putting out a little less power & torque AND having a a higher vehicle weight (ala folding hardtop). That is called engineering (ie excellent gearing, traction control, and car balance). AMG's "weakest" powerplant just pulled GM's muscle car & signature sports car.
4) Modding a gearset or a powerplant is not "easier" than the other. Adding CAI, exhaust, tuning the car's ECU, etc are just some of the non engine modifications that add power & torque and are just as, if not more simplistic, than swapping a gear set. At the end of the day, its irrelavant as the cars in this post were all stock anyways.
5) Falco didn't run a ZO6.
He ran an auto C6 & an auto GTO.6) Gearing - I'd say 7 spd is all the gearing a car is going to need to help it through the quarter. Anything more & too much time is lost in changovers. So yes, an 8 spd gearbox (in my opinion) is likely going to hurt Quarter Mile performance rather than aid it.
-Matt
1. GTO's and maybe SLK 55's run high 12's. You need to go to the track instead of Road and Track for your info. In fact if I remember correctly you said as much about someone else in another post for just blindly accepting numbers. Now you are saying to do just that.
2. That's mis-information. The GTO and Corvette LS1's were running 400 before they upgraded to a larger displacement. What you are saying is just wrong. 355 is the advertised horsepower and it is a DIN figure. Typically DIN is higher than SAE Net to begin with and typically MB engines when you find out their rear wheel horse power have a hard time matching back to advertised figures. I have a dyno chart from Renntech showing exactly that on an SL65 I will gladly share. Your proposition is false because the base you are using is the advertised horsepower. I have seen Renntech dyno sheets showing a typical 17-18% loss to the wheels. LS1's and GM cars are typically 14% from published dyno reports. Again I am going to point out this becomes more of a holy war and the next response to my post I fully expect you to counter by saying the scientific measurement of horsepower at the wheels does not matter.
3. Sigh. Typical of what I have seen. Yes there is a lot to do with how a vehicle in the end performs. However with that being said you can not break the laws of physics and say that all other factors including weight to horsepower don't matter. My second point is 'engineering', looking at and working the numbers would tell you that but you are abject to doing just that. It seems you are speaking from both sides. It is great engineering but how dare anyone actually try to look up the numbers and figure it out. However when there are numbers that coincide with my thought (12.7, 13.2) they are unquestionable.
4. While I am not questioning what Falco said/did/saw I am questioning whether in general against those cars that it is true. I'll tell you what. I am in CA and so are you. Every Friday in Rancho Cucamonga there is a track night on Fridays. Meet me and I will arrange a few stocker GTO's and C6's to run with you or a stock SLK 55 AMG of your choice. I'll put a 'c' note on it to put my money where my mouth is. I am saying let's settle this the only way possible, on the track and either put up or shut up.
5. Who cares? We were talking about both.
6. Yes it is. Any good gear head will tell you other than something easy like an air box when it comes to major improvements, major work gearing is easier both to do and on your pocket book. We have to be talking about the same thing though. An exhaust change doesn't constitute major engine work.
7. Your opinion is interesting.....where is your data for your conclusions? I hate to tell you but the car that holds the land speed record is eight gears. We also were not talking exclusively about the 1/4 mile. I highly doubt your proposition that one more gear change is going to destroy your performance. You do realize that was the same thing a lot of people said about the 7G-Tronic? That it had too many gears and would hurt performance. Your opinion is your opinion but I don't think it is based in anything.
08-01-2006, 02:28 PM
#29
As of my post, user Pmoffatt has seven posts on MBWorld, six of which are in this thread defending GM. While I can understand the points made and am in fact a fan of the LS2 GTOs (hey, I'm from Detroit!), I think it's clear that this person is merely a troll. Oh - and trying to refute published figures from respected numerous independent automotive publications just makes you look even more like a fool. They can't all be in collusion to make the SLK55 look faster than it is
By the way, I should mention that I have a good friend who lets me drive his GTO frequently. I taught him heel-and-toe in it (nicely placed pedals, Mr. Lutz!). It's a fun car - but it will never hold a candle to the SLK55 in all the ways that matter to me, including performance, long-term depreciation, quality of build materials and many other metrics.
By the way, I should mention that I have a good friend who lets me drive his GTO frequently. I taught him heel-and-toe in it (nicely placed pedals, Mr. Lutz!). It's a fun car - but it will never hold a candle to the SLK55 in all the ways that matter to me, including performance, long-term depreciation, quality of build materials and many other metrics.
Last edited by m3_eater; 08-01-2006 at 02:31 PM.
08-01-2006, 07:30 PM
#31
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Pmoffatt
I'm not 'grossly' misinformed. I am the only here who actually backed up what I am saying by math. My take on this is I had to have hit a nerve or something with that because you guys are acting like there is a holy war going on after that
1. GTO's and maybe SLK 55's run high 12's. You need to go to the track instead of Road and Track for your info. In fact if I remember correctly you said as much about someone else in another post for just blindly accepting numbers. Now you are saying to do just that.
2. That's mis-information. The GTO and Corvette LS1's were running 400 before they upgraded to a larger displacement. What you are saying is just wrong. 355 is the advertised horsepower and it is a DIN figure. Typically DIN is higher than SAE Net to begin with and typically MB engines when you find out their rear wheel horse power have a hard time matching back to advertised figures. I have a dyno chart from Renntech showing exactly that on an SL65 I will gladly share. Your proposition is false because the base you are using is the advertised horsepower. I have seen Renntech dyno sheets showing a typical 17-18% loss to the wheels. LS1's and GM cars are typically 14% from published dyno reports. Again I am going to point out this becomes more of a holy war and the next response to my post I fully expect you to counter by saying the scientific measurement of horsepower at the wheels does not matter.
3. Sigh. Typical of what I have seen. Yes there is a lot to do with how a vehicle in the end performs. However with that being said you can not break the laws of physics and say that all other factors including weight to horsepower don't matter. My second point is 'engineering', looking at and working the numbers would tell you that but you are abject to doing just that. It seems you are speaking from both sides. It is great engineering but how dare anyone actually try to look up the numbers and figure it out. However when there are numbers that coincide with my thought (12.7, 13.2) they are unquestionable.
4. While I am not questioning what Falco said/did/saw I am questioning whether in general against those cars that it is true. I'll tell you what. I am in CA and so are you. Every Friday in Rancho Cucamonga there is a track night on Fridays. Meet me and I will arrange a few stocker GTO's and C6's to run with you or a stock SLK 55 AMG of your choice. I'll put a 'c' note on it to put my money where my mouth is. I am saying let's settle this the only way possible, on the track and either put up or shut up.
5. Who cares? We were talking about both.
6. Yes it is. Any good gear head will tell you other than something easy like an air box when it comes to major improvements, major work gearing is easier both to do and on your pocket book. We have to be talking about the same thing though. An exhaust change doesn't constitute major engine work.
7. Your opinion is interesting.....where is your data for your conclusions? I hate to tell you but the car that holds the land speed record is eight gears. We also were not talking exclusively about the 1/4 mile. I highly doubt your proposition that one more gear change is going to destroy your performance. You do realize that was the same thing a lot of people said about the 7G-Tronic? That it had too many gears and would hurt performance. Your opinion is your opinion but I don't think it is based in anything.
1. GTO's and maybe SLK 55's run high 12's. You need to go to the track instead of Road and Track for your info. In fact if I remember correctly you said as much about someone else in another post for just blindly accepting numbers. Now you are saying to do just that.
2. That's mis-information. The GTO and Corvette LS1's were running 400 before they upgraded to a larger displacement. What you are saying is just wrong. 355 is the advertised horsepower and it is a DIN figure. Typically DIN is higher than SAE Net to begin with and typically MB engines when you find out their rear wheel horse power have a hard time matching back to advertised figures. I have a dyno chart from Renntech showing exactly that on an SL65 I will gladly share. Your proposition is false because the base you are using is the advertised horsepower. I have seen Renntech dyno sheets showing a typical 17-18% loss to the wheels. LS1's and GM cars are typically 14% from published dyno reports. Again I am going to point out this becomes more of a holy war and the next response to my post I fully expect you to counter by saying the scientific measurement of horsepower at the wheels does not matter.
3. Sigh. Typical of what I have seen. Yes there is a lot to do with how a vehicle in the end performs. However with that being said you can not break the laws of physics and say that all other factors including weight to horsepower don't matter. My second point is 'engineering', looking at and working the numbers would tell you that but you are abject to doing just that. It seems you are speaking from both sides. It is great engineering but how dare anyone actually try to look up the numbers and figure it out. However when there are numbers that coincide with my thought (12.7, 13.2) they are unquestionable.
4. While I am not questioning what Falco said/did/saw I am questioning whether in general against those cars that it is true. I'll tell you what. I am in CA and so are you. Every Friday in Rancho Cucamonga there is a track night on Fridays. Meet me and I will arrange a few stocker GTO's and C6's to run with you or a stock SLK 55 AMG of your choice. I'll put a 'c' note on it to put my money where my mouth is. I am saying let's settle this the only way possible, on the track and either put up or shut up.
5. Who cares? We were talking about both.
6. Yes it is. Any good gear head will tell you other than something easy like an air box when it comes to major improvements, major work gearing is easier both to do and on your pocket book. We have to be talking about the same thing though. An exhaust change doesn't constitute major engine work.
7. Your opinion is interesting.....where is your data for your conclusions? I hate to tell you but the car that holds the land speed record is eight gears. We also were not talking exclusively about the 1/4 mile. I highly doubt your proposition that one more gear change is going to destroy your performance. You do realize that was the same thing a lot of people said about the 7G-Tronic? That it had too many gears and would hurt performance. Your opinion is your opinion but I don't think it is based in anything.
#1 GTOs do not run high twelves. C6 Vettes & SLK55s do. And yes, Dinko on this very Forum ran a 12.7 Quarter trapping 110 mph his FIRST time at the track. Run a query next time before opening your trap. Here is his timeslip on DragTimes.com, http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
#2 Uh no, its not misinformation. Its published FACT. The LS1 powerplant fitted to both the C5 & GTO was rated from GM at 350 Hp/350 Tq (this is power at the flywheel). C5 Vettes put down, on avg, 290 rwhp = 17% parasitic drivetrain loss. The C6 (and 2006 GTO) are fitted with the LS2, 6.0L powerplant producing 400 Hp/400 ft lbs. Go the Corvette Forum & get educated before posting more lunacy here.
Furthermore, if you click on the same Dragtimes.com site for the SLK55, you will see Jessie's dyno: http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-8848.htmlThis correlates directly with the LS1 rwhp of 350 @ the flywheel.
#3 A) Nobody said the laws of physics were being broken. I (and others) told you GEARING can offset other factors & I gave you several CONCRETE examples of cars with higher power & torque, which also weigh more, but are, in fact either slower, or the same speed through the Quarter Mile (the GTO & C6 Vette). Hello?
#3 B) I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Try using correct syntax so we can all understand your query.
#4 You can't be serious? You want me to take my 490 rwhp Kleemann & run some stock C6 or GTO?
Even if I did have a stock SLK, WHY would anyone go to some track to duplicate what has already been done MULTIPLE times (see SLK55 stock drag times listed above) and PUBLISHED multiple times? The result would be the exact same. A complete waste of time.
Brilliant proposal.
#5 More gibberish but I "think" you are trying to communicate both Quarter mile & top speed as it relates to gearing.
We are talking QUARTER MILE acceleration. If you are talking top speed, you are in the wrong thread.#6 I pointed out there are other modifications OUTSIDE of engine work that contribute to more power & they don't cost as much as swapping out a new differential. Thanks for the "gearhead" comment. I've been wrenching & modifying cars for over 25 yrs, but thanks for the hot tip!
#7 Again, we are talking about Quarter Mile acceleration which is germane to Falco's original post. Where the hell did top sped EVER enter into the discussion? Geezus, stay on topic or I'm going to start talking about BRAKING.
Last edited by Yellow R1; 08-01-2006 at 07:52 PM.
08-01-2006, 07:51 PM
#32
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by m3_eater
As of my post, user Pmoffatt has seven posts on MBWorld, six of which are in this thread defending GM. While I can understand the points made and am in fact a fan of the LS2 GTOs (hey, I'm from Detroit!), I think it's clear that this person is merely a troll. Oh - and trying to refute published figures from respected numerous independent automotive publications just makes you look even more like a fool. They can't all be in collusion to make the SLK55 look faster than it is
By the way, I should mention that I have a good friend who lets me drive his GTO frequently. I taught him heel-and-toe in it (nicely placed pedals, Mr. Lutz!). It's a fun car - but it will never hold a candle to the SLK55 in all the ways that matter to me, including performance, long-term depreciation, quality of build materials and many other metrics.
By the way, I should mention that I have a good friend who lets me drive his GTO frequently. I taught him heel-and-toe in it (nicely placed pedals, Mr. Lutz!). It's a fun car - but it will never hold a candle to the SLK55 in all the ways that matter to me, including performance, long-term depreciation, quality of build materials and many other metrics.
See ya,
-Matt
08-01-2006, 09:19 PM
#33
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by Pmoffatt
I'm not 'grossly' misinformed. I am the only here who actually backed up what I am saying by math. My take on this is I had to have hit a nerve or something with that because you guys are acting like there is a holy war going on after that.
1. GTO's and maybe SLK 55's run high 12's. You need to go to the track instead of Road and Track for your info. In fact if I remember correctly you said as much about someone else in another post for just blindly accepting numbers. Now you are saying to do just that.
2. That's mis-information. The GTO and Corvette LS1's were running 400 before they upgraded to a larger displacement. What you are saying is just wrong. 355 is the advertised horsepower and it is a DIN figure. Typically DIN is higher than SAE Net to begin with and typically MB engines when you find out their rear wheel horse power have a hard time matching back to advertised figures. I have a dyno chart from Renntech showing exactly that on an SL65 I will gladly share. Your proposition is false because the base you are using is the advertised horsepower. I have seen Renntech dyno sheets showing a typical 17-18% loss to the wheels. LS1's and GM cars are typically 14% from published dyno reports. Again I am going to point out this becomes more of a holy war and the next response to my post I fully expect you to counter by saying the scientific measurement of horsepower at the wheels does not matter.
3. Sigh. Typical of what I have seen. Yes there is a lot to do with how a vehicle in the end performs. However with that being said you can not break the laws of physics and say that all other factors including weight to horsepower don't matter. My second point is 'engineering', looking at and working the numbers would tell you that but you are abject to doing just that. It seems you are speaking from both sides. It is great engineering but how dare anyone actually try to look up the numbers and figure it out. However when there are numbers that coincide with my thought (12.7, 13.2) they are unquestionable.
4. While I am not questioning what Falco said/did/saw I am questioning whether in general against those cars that it is true. I'll tell you what. I am in CA and so are you. Every Friday in Rancho Cucamonga there is a track night on Fridays. Meet me and I will arrange a few stocker GTO's and C6's to run with you or a stock SLK 55 AMG of your choice. I'll put a 'c' note on it to put my money where my mouth is. I am saying let's settle this the only way possible, on the track and either put up or shut up.
5. Who cares? We were talking about both.
6. Yes it is. Any good gear head will tell you other than something easy like an air box when it comes to major improvements, major work gearing is easier both to do and on your pocket book. We have to be talking about the same thing though. An exhaust change doesn't constitute major engine work.
7. Your opinion is interesting.....where is your data for your conclusions? I hate to tell you but the car that holds the land speed record is eight gears. We also were not talking exclusively about the 1/4 mile. I highly doubt your proposition that one more gear change is going to destroy your performance. You do realize that was the same thing a lot of people said about the 7G-Tronic? That it had too many gears and would hurt performance. Your opinion is your opinion but I don't think it is based in anything.
1. GTO's and maybe SLK 55's run high 12's. You need to go to the track instead of Road and Track for your info. In fact if I remember correctly you said as much about someone else in another post for just blindly accepting numbers. Now you are saying to do just that.
2. That's mis-information. The GTO and Corvette LS1's were running 400 before they upgraded to a larger displacement. What you are saying is just wrong. 355 is the advertised horsepower and it is a DIN figure. Typically DIN is higher than SAE Net to begin with and typically MB engines when you find out their rear wheel horse power have a hard time matching back to advertised figures. I have a dyno chart from Renntech showing exactly that on an SL65 I will gladly share. Your proposition is false because the base you are using is the advertised horsepower. I have seen Renntech dyno sheets showing a typical 17-18% loss to the wheels. LS1's and GM cars are typically 14% from published dyno reports. Again I am going to point out this becomes more of a holy war and the next response to my post I fully expect you to counter by saying the scientific measurement of horsepower at the wheels does not matter.
3. Sigh. Typical of what I have seen. Yes there is a lot to do with how a vehicle in the end performs. However with that being said you can not break the laws of physics and say that all other factors including weight to horsepower don't matter. My second point is 'engineering', looking at and working the numbers would tell you that but you are abject to doing just that. It seems you are speaking from both sides. It is great engineering but how dare anyone actually try to look up the numbers and figure it out. However when there are numbers that coincide with my thought (12.7, 13.2) they are unquestionable.
4. While I am not questioning what Falco said/did/saw I am questioning whether in general against those cars that it is true. I'll tell you what. I am in CA and so are you. Every Friday in Rancho Cucamonga there is a track night on Fridays. Meet me and I will arrange a few stocker GTO's and C6's to run with you or a stock SLK 55 AMG of your choice. I'll put a 'c' note on it to put my money where my mouth is. I am saying let's settle this the only way possible, on the track and either put up or shut up.
5. Who cares? We were talking about both.
6. Yes it is. Any good gear head will tell you other than something easy like an air box when it comes to major improvements, major work gearing is easier both to do and on your pocket book. We have to be talking about the same thing though. An exhaust change doesn't constitute major engine work.
7. Your opinion is interesting.....where is your data for your conclusions? I hate to tell you but the car that holds the land speed record is eight gears. We also were not talking exclusively about the 1/4 mile. I highly doubt your proposition that one more gear change is going to destroy your performance. You do realize that was the same thing a lot of people said about the 7G-Tronic? That it had too many gears and would hurt performance. Your opinion is your opinion but I don't think it is based in anything.
Last edited by AMG_55; 02-10-2007 at 09:05 PM.
08-02-2006, 02:45 AM
#37
Newbie
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even If
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
OK, try & stay with us here & PAY ATTENTION.
#1 GTOs do not run high twelves. C6 Vettes & SLK55s do. And yes, Dinko on this very Forum ran a 12.7 Quarter trapping 110 mph his FIRST time at the track. Run a query next time before opening your trap. Here is his timeslip on DragTimes.com, http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
#2 Uh no, its not misinformation. Its published FACT. The LS1 powerplant fitted to both the C5 & GTO was rated from GM at 350 Hp/350 Tq (this is power at the flywheel). C5 Vettes put down, on avg, 290 rwhp = 17% parasitic drivetrain loss. The C6 (and 2006 GTO) are fitted with the LS2, 6.0L powerplant producing 400 Hp/400 ft lbs. Go the Corvette Forum & get educated before posting more lunacy here. Furthermore, if you click on the same Dragtimes.com site for the SLK55, you will see Jessie's dyno: http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-8848.html
This correlates directly with the LS1 rwhp of 350 @ the flywheel.
#3 A) Nobody said the laws of physics were being broken. I (and others) told you GEARING can offset other factors & I gave you several CONCRETE examples of cars with higher power & torque, which also weigh more, but are, in fact either slower, or the same speed through the Quarter Mile (the GTO & C6 Vette). Hello?
#3 B) I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Try using correct syntax so we can all understand your query.
#4 You can't be serious? You want me to take my 490 rwhp Kleemann & run some stock C6 or GTO? Even if I did have a stock SLK, WHY would anyone go to some track to duplicate what has already been done MULTIPLE times (see SLK55 stock drag times listed above) and PUBLISHED multiple times? The result would be the exact same. A complete waste of time.
Brilliant proposal.
#5 More gibberish but I "think" you are trying to communicate both Quarter mile & top speed as it relates to gearing. We are talking QUARTER MILE acceleration. If you are talking top speed, you are in the wrong thread.
#6 I pointed out there are other modifications OUTSIDE of engine work that contribute to more power & they don't cost as much as swapping out a new differential. Thanks for the "gearhead" comment. I've been wrenching & modifying cars for over 25 yrs, but thanks for the hot tip!
#7 Again, we are talking about Quarter Mile acceleration which is germane to Falco's original post. Where the hell did top sped EVER enter into the discussion? Geezus, stay on topic or I'm going to start talking about BRAKING.
#1 GTOs do not run high twelves. C6 Vettes & SLK55s do. And yes, Dinko on this very Forum ran a 12.7 Quarter trapping 110 mph his FIRST time at the track. Run a query next time before opening your trap. Here is his timeslip on DragTimes.com, http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
#2 Uh no, its not misinformation. Its published FACT. The LS1 powerplant fitted to both the C5 & GTO was rated from GM at 350 Hp/350 Tq (this is power at the flywheel). C5 Vettes put down, on avg, 290 rwhp = 17% parasitic drivetrain loss. The C6 (and 2006 GTO) are fitted with the LS2, 6.0L powerplant producing 400 Hp/400 ft lbs. Go the Corvette Forum & get educated before posting more lunacy here.
Furthermore, if you click on the same Dragtimes.com site for the SLK55, you will see Jessie's dyno: http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-8848.htmlThis correlates directly with the LS1 rwhp of 350 @ the flywheel.
#3 A) Nobody said the laws of physics were being broken. I (and others) told you GEARING can offset other factors & I gave you several CONCRETE examples of cars with higher power & torque, which also weigh more, but are, in fact either slower, or the same speed through the Quarter Mile (the GTO & C6 Vette). Hello?
#3 B) I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Try using correct syntax so we can all understand your query.
#4 You can't be serious? You want me to take my 490 rwhp Kleemann & run some stock C6 or GTO?
Even if I did have a stock SLK, WHY would anyone go to some track to duplicate what has already been done MULTIPLE times (see SLK55 stock drag times listed above) and PUBLISHED multiple times? The result would be the exact same. A complete waste of time. Brilliant proposal.
#5 More gibberish but I "think" you are trying to communicate both Quarter mile & top speed as it relates to gearing.
We are talking QUARTER MILE acceleration. If you are talking top speed, you are in the wrong thread.#6 I pointed out there are other modifications OUTSIDE of engine work that contribute to more power & they don't cost as much as swapping out a new differential. Thanks for the "gearhead" comment. I've been wrenching & modifying cars for over 25 yrs, but thanks for the hot tip!
#7 Again, we are talking about Quarter Mile acceleration which is germane to Falco's original post. Where the hell did top sped EVER enter into the discussion? Geezus, stay on topic or I'm going to start talking about BRAKING.
Even if you have good points your childish personal attacks make them null and void. It seems to me that a MB is a high class car. However with a post like yours it seems like you are not in that league. Your constant personal attacks without cause make you low class. You are really one angry little man. It makes me doubt from your writing that you are in the same class as someone who could afford a MB.
If personal attacks and derrogatory comments are your only way to communicate your points, then you don't have any points to make. The first thought that comes to my mind is that even if you truly do own a MB you are either new money and angry at the world or are a truly little person that needs to try to be a bully to make himself look better with a Napolean complex. This is not new to you though as I see you do the same thing with many of your posts and generally anyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion and you have done it quite frequently to other people as well.
Quite frankly after watching your style and seeing a very visible personal defect in the way you relate information I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I suspect though that it wouldn't be much of a contest however because one of the reasons you might be such a bully and so angry in your posts is that you are lacking in that area. That would make a great deal of sense as you seem to be overcompensating in every other area.
You know what? I really don't care. I can go to bed laughing because you are an angry bully, someone who knows it all, someone who always has to be right, short, old little dissatisfied man. In the end I really don't care about you, your opinions and your low class hill billy insults. This is not just me as I have seen you treat other people in your posts the same way.
As low class as you are with your comments and rudeness I doubt you have the money for a MB. You act more like the person washing the cars then the driver.
So in conclusion I am not going to post or even ever come back here again. Whether your points are right or wrong make no difference to me or I suspect anyone else as you have to be rude and use constant insults to make yourself a big man. So take your shortcomings and spend them on someone who cares that you are old, are a bully, have a Napolean complex, have a short dick, are short in stature and make up for your sexual frustration on a MB board and on other people.
Last edited by Pmoffatt; 08-02-2006 at 02:46 AM. Reason: because
08-02-2006, 11:22 AM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,725
Received 558 Likes
on
368 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Dude, money and class don't always ride in the same boat. Bam Margera drives a Murcielago Roadster.
I'm not inferring anything about Yellow R1, I'm just saying "you're wrong."
And GTO's are slow!!!
Comegetmecomegetmecomegetme.
I'm not inferring anything about Yellow R1, I'm just saying "you're wrong."
And GTO's are slow!!! Comegetmecomegetmecomegetme.
08-02-2006, 06:00 PM
#39
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Pmoffatt
Even if you have good points your childish personal attacks make them null and void. It seems to me that a MB is a high class car. However with a post like yours it seems like you are not in that league. Your constant personal attacks without cause make you low class. You are really one angry little man. It makes me doubt from your writing that you are in the same class as someone who could afford a MB.
If personal attacks and derrogatory comments are your only way to communicate your points, then you don't have any points to make. The first thought that comes to my mind is that even if you truly do own a MB you are either new money and angry at the world or are a truly little person that needs to try to be a bully to make himself look better with a Napolean complex. This is not new to you though as I see you do the same thing with many of your posts and generally anyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion and you have done it quite frequently to other people as well.
Quite frankly after watching your style and seeing a very visible personal defect in the way you relate information I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I suspect though that it wouldn't be much of a contest however because one of the reasons you might be such a bully and so angry in your posts is that you are lacking in that area. That would make a great deal of sense as you seem to be overcompensating in every other area.
You know what? I really don't care. I can go to bed laughing because you are an angry bully, someone who knows it all, someone who always has to be right, short, old little dissatisfied man. In the end I really don't care about you, your opinions and your low class hill billy insults. This is not just me as I have seen you treat other people in your posts the same way.
As low class as you are with your comments and rudeness I doubt you have the money for a MB. You act more like the person washing the cars then the driver.
So in conclusion I am not going to post or even ever come back here again. Whether your points are right or wrong make no difference to me or I suspect anyone else as you have to be rude and use constant insults to make yourself a big man. So take your shortcomings and spend them on someone who cares that you are old, are a bully, have a Napolean complex, have a short dick, are short in stature and make up for your sexual frustration on a MB board and on other people.
If personal attacks and derrogatory comments are your only way to communicate your points, then you don't have any points to make. The first thought that comes to my mind is that even if you truly do own a MB you are either new money and angry at the world or are a truly little person that needs to try to be a bully to make himself look better with a Napolean complex. This is not new to you though as I see you do the same thing with many of your posts and generally anyone who disagrees with you or has a different opinion and you have done it quite frequently to other people as well.
Quite frankly after watching your style and seeing a very visible personal defect in the way you relate information I am not going to get into a pissing contest with you. I suspect though that it wouldn't be much of a contest however because one of the reasons you might be such a bully and so angry in your posts is that you are lacking in that area. That would make a great deal of sense as you seem to be overcompensating in every other area.
You know what? I really don't care. I can go to bed laughing because you are an angry bully, someone who knows it all, someone who always has to be right, short, old little dissatisfied man. In the end I really don't care about you, your opinions and your low class hill billy insults. This is not just me as I have seen you treat other people in your posts the same way.
As low class as you are with your comments and rudeness I doubt you have the money for a MB. You act more like the person washing the cars then the driver.
So in conclusion I am not going to post or even ever come back here again. Whether your points are right or wrong make no difference to me or I suspect anyone else as you have to be rude and use constant insults to make yourself a big man. So take your shortcomings and spend them on someone who cares that you are old, are a bully, have a Napolean complex, have a short dick, are short in stature and make up for your sexual frustration on a MB board and on other people.
The only one "childish" in here is you. And BTW, there are/were no "personal attacks" in my posts, just facts, which you can't seem to handle. There was no name calling, no childish references to male genitalia (which you seem to have some obession with), and no character attacks. Yet, you somehow seem to know my financial status & actually venture to spew out yet even more ignorance? Do us all a favour, either stay on topic & stop your childish whining or quit posting.
08-02-2006, 08:11 PM
#41
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by vette
so whats the highest trap speed a bone stock slk 55 has had?
)-Matt
08-02-2006, 08:18 PM
#42
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
none
I call BS, a 400 Horsepower Goat and Corvette will kill the cute little SLK, as vicious as it may be with its 355 Horsepower.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
08-02-2006, 08:54 PM
#43
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SFV, CA
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SLK55
Originally Posted by Exodus
I call BS, a 400 Horsepower Goat and Corvette will kill the cute little SLK, as vicious as it may be with its 355 Horsepower.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
simply look at the tests done by numerous mags. i won't argue as it has been done above. Oh, and I could car less about Merc or AMG, I have no allegiance to brand, I just like quality and engineering.
08-02-2006, 09:00 PM
#44
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
troll
Originally Posted by Exodus
I call BS, a 400 Horsepower Goat and Corvette will kill the cute little SLK, as vicious as it may be with its 355 Horsepower.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
Go away troll ...
08-02-2006, 11:53 PM
#45
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 C6 MN6, 02 C5(sold), 05 CLK55, 98 ML320
Originally Posted by Thericker
That'll be great! Win, lose or draw I never get bored of racin'
if you did run, please state the mods done to both cars
08-03-2006, 01:49 AM
#46
Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 Aston Martin Vantage
Originally Posted by Exodus
I call BS, a 400 Horsepower Goat and Corvette will kill the cute little SLK, as vicious as it may be with its 355 Horsepower.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
Of course, heaven forbid an AMG lose to an American car of any kind.
With the blind defense for the GTO and C6, I would think it be more appropriate to say, "Heaven forbid the mighty C6 and GTO would lose to a cute little SLK AMG."
08-03-2006, 01:57 AM
#47
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 C6 MN6, 02 C5(sold), 05 CLK55, 98 ML320
Originally Posted by pcviewer
With the blind defense for the GTO and C6, I would think it be more appropriate to say, "Heaven forbid the mighty C6 and GTO would lose to a cute little SLK AMG."
08-03-2006, 02:00 AM
#48
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: South Florida
Posts: 86
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
07 C6 MN6, 02 C5(sold), 05 CLK55, 98 ML320
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
111 mph I believe. They do not trap as fast as a C6. A C6 will start pulling the SLK55 as speed increases. I believe C6s trap around 114 mph (it varies between auto, vert, & MN6 but its pretty consistent - C6s are just faster cars upstairs )
-Matt
)-Matt
i really wonder if the C6 Z51 would outperform the SLK 55 on the track or as some people say "the twisties".
08-03-2006, 02:03 AM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
no doubt
Actually with equally good drivers I don't think thats even a valid question. ZO6 no question about it.
The SLK is great handling car ... but its nothing like the superb true sports cars out there.
The SLK is great handling car ... but its nothing like the superb true sports cars out there.
08-03-2006, 10:55 AM
#50
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by Jesseliu
Actually with equally good drivers I don't think thats even a valid question. ZO6 no question about it.
The SLK is great handling car ... but its nothing like the superb true sports cars out there.
The SLK is great handling car ... but its nothing like the superb true sports cars out there.
-Matt
