Improviz

Ninja hit man. I also pimp part time.

You?

Improviz

I'd say a fraud, a liar, and yes, maybe even a douche, but close enough.

So, if you forget the lying stuff, and only take into account his past behavior towards you, then yes, I guess to you, he's a nice guy.

To me, he's a lying, ****-talking jerk, a wannabe, and a fraud...oh, yes, a douche too.

OJ was nice to people too, yes? Does this change the fact that he's a murderer? So wtf does the fact tha SL Brabus may have been nice to you have to do with the fact that he's a proven liar and a fraud?

Answer? Not a bloody thing.

Of this I have no doubt. But you know what? He's still a douche.

HLG600 a put-words-in-people's mouth type of person? Apparently, as I never said this.

And I think that the data I have provided, from multiple sources, shows that you're wrong. Unless you'd care to explain to me how it is possible that a car could gain 100 horsepower and lose 3 mph in the 1/4 mile, or how the same car with "450 horsepower" could trap at the same speed and run the 1/4 mile in the same amount of time as an E55 with 349 horsepower, yadda yadda ya...

Or are you simply ignoring the data? Because it certainly seems so...but you might comment as to the above if you expect people to take it seriously. I posted multiple instances of Brabus cars with far more rated horsepower than AMG cars running slower than the AMGs.

Can you explain this? Does physics not apply to Brabus? Should a "450 horsepower" Brabus E Class with a 6.5L V8 not outrun a 349 horsepower AMG E Class with a 5.5L V8?

Well, it doesn't.

So you might want to believe that they're a fabulous company, but the data show that they overrate their horsepower.

I'm certainly wasting my time providing performance figures to you, because they seem to have absolutely no effect whatsoever on what you seem to believe about cars, in the same way that SL Brabus' actions seem to have no bearing on your opinion of him.

Sure, Brabus knows what they're doing...BUT they seem to have this nasty habit of overrating their cars' horsepower by 100 or so...which I guess is every bit as forgiveable as posting fraudulent data, yes?

I'll be the judge of that. And it wasn't of minimal significance to you, I might add, when AndrewAZ was claiming his M3 would pull your car by buslengths.

In fact, it seems to have been so significant to you that you spent several posts debating the point.

Which is why, I take it, you are here?

Vouch all you like, but the fact remains that he is a proven liar, and if you're nutty enough to vouch for a proven liar who lied to your face, then your opinion is really of no importance to me, because I think that in sticking up for him after this fiasco, you demonstrate a stubborness that borders on pathological, along with very questionable judgement.

No, you should just stick by the little fraud...after all, what is a nice hoax among friends? I'm sure you loved the guy who claimed to own the Lambo too, and Clay as well, yes? I mean, if you can't trust a liar and a fraud, who can you trust?

Actually, I am not.

Strawman, but I'll answer it: had I believed that the BMW would have put buslengths on you, I'd have probably said so and produced some numbers to show it.

Sorry, but if you're going to forgive and defend over the top bull**** behavior like SL Brabus' just because he was nice to you, then in my book you're no better than he is. That was a ****ty, childish, immature stunt on his part, and makes him worthy of derision, not defense. The fact that you feel otherwise is quite pathetic.

HLG600

1. Please don't think you have any right to make any comments on my judgement. That is on par with me calling you a deep-seated emotional obsessive with a serious psychological problem of never being able to let anything go.

2. I am here because I love MB Automobiles. However, taking a personal grudge over internet talk is a complete waste of my time and energy.

3. I find it amusing how you call my support of SL Brabus pathetic, while it is you who is holding a grudge over internet talk. Going all out on a forum with a passion is rather pathetic, in your sense of the word.

4. A strawman point? That comment was to point out the "strawman" nature of you arguing if I would have been so supportive granted it was my car he was criticizing.

5. As for Brabus test data, records are scarce at best compared to the data of AMG cars, both tested and recorded by owners. If you doubt Brabus and their E500 6.5 so much, give them a call and inquire how this is so.

6. Me putting words in your mouth? By stating multiple times that they overrate the cars by 100 hp and inflate performance figures...is that not "all talk" according to you?

ten2 four

oh god not another fight.
Nathan

Improviz

Oh, so you're the only one here with a right to be presumptuous? Not.

You're the one defending a proven liar, fraud, and, don't forget, douche, sir, not me.

By which you mean "not letting HLG600 have the last word", I take it...

Feel free to cease and desist at any time, then, because you seem to be devoting a fair amount of time and energy to it.

"Internet talk" being defined as SL Brabus' lying to you, starting a thread containing a BS tale of having gone to the strip when it wasn't open, running a time his car is not capable of running, and posting a forged timeslip?

You're rather fond of non sequiturs, aren't you? How does your defending a fraud and a liar equate to my exposing said fraud and liar, then chastising you for defending him?

It doesn't.

In which case you just shot yourself in the foot, because in the thread to which you refer, you were engaged in a debate, on an Internet forum, about the performance of your car and how it would compare to another car--something for which you now criticize me for doing.

This is known as "hypocrisy", which is why, of course, I pointed it out to you, but I guess this point was lost on you.

In other words: "Don't pay any attention to the magazine tests showing the Brabus cars to be well down on rated horsepower. Don't pay attention to magazine tests showing W210 E Class Brabus cars with "450 horsepower" running the same time and ET as W210 E55s with 350.

I published two tests of this car, a Brabus 6.5 L rated at "450 horsepower". Both tests were slower than AMG E55s with 350 horsepower as tested by the same publications.

And this was one case. There were numerous others, with numerous cars.

But you're really not into evidence, now are you? You just keep sidestepping what the tests show, as if they're not there. Unfortunately, they are.

Kind of tough to debate when you have no factual data to back it up, isn't it? Maybe you should just give up and quit while you're behind, because you have absolutely nothing to refute the test results.

Why should I, when the data clearly show (to those who don't have a mouthful of sand, that is) that the Brabus cars are getting beaten by AMG cars with 100 less rated horsepower?

Maybe physics, like honesty, doesn't count for much in your world, but in mine, it rules. And it takes a given amount of force to accelerate a given mass to a given rate in a given amount of time.

These vehicles had the same mass. According to Brabus, their car produced 100 more horsepower than the AMG car. And yet, the AMG car is faster. In two tests, conducted by two publications on two different continents.

And this is one example. Motor Trend also published a head to head comparison of a Brabus 55k CLS with 550 rated horsepower against a stock CLS55 with 469 rated horsepower. The stock CLS was faster, and had 3 mph more trap speed.

Again: this is impossible if the Brabus is producing rated horsepower.

So how about you stop simply waving your hands in a lameass attempt to dismiss the facts, and address them for a moment?

How is it possible for these cars to be consistently outaccelerated by cars with far fewer rated horsepower? Magic? Little pixies pushing back on the cars? Will of God? Unicorns?

Yes, putting words in my mouth. Saying a company's cars are measurably not producing their rated horsepower is not the same as saying they're "all talk", it is saying that their cars aren't producing the horsepower at which they are rated.

HLG600

The K8 had heavier, and much larger wheels, detrimental to an automobile's performance. I don't see CLS55 on "dubs" running similar times either. Call me crazy, but judging by you track record, I was hoping you would give Brabus a call.

The difference between my thread and yours was that mine was a friendly debate and discussion while you are holding a grudge against SL Brabus. I know, I know, he is a fraud, that is your repsonse to that. Anyway, it is evident that you and I clearly disagree and have a few choice words to describe one another with. You're opinions on me are assumptions, I can guarantee that. It is also evident that we will remain in disagreement, regardless of what we say. So, this is my last post on this thread, I end this here. And no Improviz, no grudge will be held against you. I see absolutely no point in internet grudges, remember?

Cheers

Thericker

Dude (HLG600) Impro is 100% right about you, jeezus your a last word *****, and owned to boot just drop it bro....

Improviz

So larger wheels cost a vehicle 100 horsepower? Wow...so this means that I should be able to take out an E55 with 20" wheels.

Ummm, no. Sorry...go do some research on the E55 forum.

And wow, what a surprise: you totally ignored the 6.5 L "450 horsepower" Brabus E Class getting waxed by a 350 horsepower W210 E55, by two different publications, on two different continents.

And as I pointed out to you on multiple occasions and which you continually ignore and dance around: those are only two examples. Here are some more for you to try and spin:

Three tests of stock SL600, rated at 500 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/sl6002003-1.htm
Stock SL600 test in sport auto 4/2003
Gewicht 2001 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/sl60003-2.htm
Stock SL600 test in Auto Bild 18/2003
Gewicht 2000 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 14,1 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/sl60003-3.htm
Stock SL600 test in ams spezial 08/2003
Gewicht 1998 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,5 s

Compare those with these two tests of Brabus SL 6.3, rated by Brabus at 640 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...sv122003-2.htm
Nardo-Test in ams 24/2003
Gewicht 2040 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...sv122003-1.htm
Brabus SL 6.3 test in sport auto 8/2003
Gewicht 2040 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 12,9 s

Average times for Stock vs. Brabus:
Speed Stock Brabus
0-100: 4,4s 4,4s
0-200: 13,8s 13.4s

So, a supposed gain of 140 hp picks you up no net gain to 100 km/h, and a
whopping 0.4s to 200? Yeah, right.

Here's another:
Test of AMG 500E, rated at 374 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/amg500e601992-1.htm
Test in ams 19/1992
Gewicht 1805 kg
0 - 96 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 13,1 s
0 - 180 km/h 16,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 21,7 s

Test of Brabus 500E 6.0, rated at 408 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/bra500e601992-1.htm
Test in sport auto 07/1992
Gewicht 1789 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 10,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 13,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 16,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 21,9 s

Test of Brabus 400E 6.0, rated at 408 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/bra4001993-1.htm
Test in sport auto 6/1993
Gewicht 1743 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 10,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 13,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 16,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 22,5 s

So, we have three tests. Two Brabus cars rated at 34 more horsepower (nearly 10% more) than the AMG. Two Brabus cars which are lighter than the AMG. And yet the AMG is faster than either one.

Moving right along:
As posted before, here's a test of the Brabus-E V12 7.3 W210 from 1996, which was supposedly putting out 582 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/braev12731996-1.htm
Test in sport auto 10/1996
Gewicht 1850 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,0 s

Compare this to the test by the same magazine of the E55, which is rated at 476 horsepower:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/e55amg2003-1.htm
Test in sport auto 01/2003
Gewicht 1944 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,6 s

So...the Brabus car is supposedly putting out 100 more horsepower, weighs 100 Kg/200 pounds, which is the same as giving it another 20 hp...so now we're at 120 more. And yet the E55k beats it to 200 by nearly 3 seconds??

Come on. This thing isn't putting out anywhere *near* 582 horsepower. More like in the high 400s.

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/bracv81995-1.htm
Test of C Class 5.8L Brabus, rated at 408 hp, in ams 19/1995
Gewicht 1605 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,7 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 20,4 s

The Brabus CLK 5.8 test (again rated at 400 hp) I posted before:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...58st1998-1.htm
Supertest in sport auto 12/1998
Gewicht 1592 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,5 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 20,3 s

The test of the C Class 5.8L SL Brabus posted earlier:
Weight: 1657 Kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,1 s

The CLK55 AMG tests I posted:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...mgst2000-1.htm
CLK55 supertest in sport auto 05/2000
Gewicht 1593 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 19,8 s

http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/clk55amg1998-1.htm
CLK55 AMG test in ams 25/1998
Gewicht 1591 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 19,3 s

Again we see the same pattern: Brabus has 50 more rated horsepower, but two different CLK55s beat it.

Now, here's a challenge for you: each of the following cars' horsepower ratings are from 50-100 apart. Find me one case where the lower horsepower car was tested as fast as the higher one, let alone beat it:

Mercedes W208 CLK430 (275 rated horsepower), Mercedes W208 CLK55 AMG (342 rated horsepower)

Mercedes W210 E430 (275 rated horsepower), Mercedes W210 E55 AMG (342 rated horsepower)

BMW 330i/ci (230 rated horsepower), BMW M3 (333 rated horsepower)

Lexus GS300 (230 horsepower), Lexus GS430 (300 rated horsepower) (previous gen for both cars, don't have model run number).

And so on, and so on, and so on....in all cases, you will find that the car with the higher rated horsepower was universally tested faster.

Yet with the Brabus stuff, we see that in the majority of cases, it's the other way around, even when the horsepower difference is far higher than in any of the examples I just presented.

So I could hear their spin along with yours? Numbers tell the tale, dude...this is the no-spin zone, and neither your spin, nor theirs, is going to cut it. The numbers above clearly illustrate a pattern of overrated horsepower.

Ridiculous. The fact is that SL Brabus made many posts which were clearly lies, fabricated a story about going to LACR and running against a mythical CLS63 when the track was not even open, forged a timeslip, and then tried to cover his tracks by lying even more. This was a blatant attempt to hoodwink and lie to each and every member of this forum.

He has not apologized. He has not 'fessed up. He skulked away like a little puppy dog, and has refused to take responsibility for his contemptable actions.

You defend him, because he was nice to you, and because you presumably have no problem with forgery, lying, and deception. Well, I don't care if he watered your lawn, did your taxes, washed your car, baked you cookies, sent you flowers and cards on holidays, or blew your dog; he perpetrated a fraud, wherein he lied to each and every member of this forum, and committed forgery.

As to your thread with AndrewAZ: you now split hairs because I nailed you being hypocritical, but anyone can go read the thread and see that in it, you were doing exactly the same thing: debating the performance of one car against your car. I stepped in with an assist, and posted facts to help you. My mistake.

What got me involved in this was when SL Brabus attacked me for posting accurate test data about Brabus showing those cars to be slower than AMGs, AMGs which had far lower rated horsepower. He picked a fight, and got his clock cleaned. Then, he stupidly fabricated a timeslip and invented a bogus track story in a vain, foolish attempt to salvage some credibility, and ended up doing himself far more damage in the process.

Bravo.

But don't try to twist things around with silly spin here, friend: the threads are there, and your rationalizations aren't going to rewrite history. SL Brabus started it, not me, and he got what he very richly deserved for trying to BS people into thinking his car could hang with cars that it could not possibly hang with.

If I were stupid enough to go to a Z06 forum and commit the same actions, I would deserve the drubbing, but the key differences between me and SL Brabus are A) I'm honest and ethical; B) I'm knowledgeable and realistic about the performance capabilities of my vehicle; C) I don't troll.

He does. So if you want to commit intellectual hari kari by defending this fraud, this liar, this SL Brabus character, then by all means, do so. Your loss, not mine.

In your opinion. Problem is, you haven't written a single word in criticism of SL Brabus' actions, only defense, which, shall we say, tends to undercut your credibility somewhat.

Outstanding.

MercedesFTW

Um...who cares lol?

AsianML

Oh snap! I'm a part time *****. I need a job, you likey what you see?

Improviz

Are you a female Asian supermodel? If so, I might be able to find you something.

Air Marshall Eldritch

What is going on here? This is the shortest post you have ever written.

Stiggs

I feel a "Dateline Child Predator" episode coming on real soon!

Improviz

Gotta rule out the Asian supermodel scenario before I argue!!

Improviz

Damn!! Add "who is over 18 years old and has at least five forms of photo ID" to the following sentence:

ultraseven

I don't know, but this could be a candidate for your best post of the year. Simply retort at its finest. Ever thought about writing for a major automobile publication?

BTW, the term is "harakiri", not hari kari : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seppuku

Fast55

A mistake by Improviz????? I'm putting this in my calendar.

Vic55

I found a pic of Improviz:

Well, allow me to retort

Improviz

Thanks!

Oh, I'd love that (provided I didn't have to take a pay cut!! )....probably stating the obvious here, but I do love to write!

Ack! Must've been thinking about this guy:

Improviz

ROFLMAO!!!!! Love it! Pulp FIction is one of my favorites..."And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee!!"

HLG600

First and foremost, I apologize. Guys, I said I was finished posting on this thread, and had no intentions to do so until something dawned on me. Improviz, you have been stating that Brabus has the tendency to overrate their vehicles by 100 hp or so. The vehicle of reference in our discussion has been the Brabus W210 E V12, which is rated at 582 bhp, yet you estimate is "in actuality" putting out power in the high 400s. I believe you came through this with a mathetmatical calculation dealing with QTR mile times.

However, Inspector Gadget missed a key point. That point is top speed. I recall reading that 500 bhp is needed to overcome prevailing drag at 185 mph. (Source: Car and Driver, November 2005) Improviz, you say that the the Brabus tuned V12 puts out power in the high 400s, right? So how is it possible that the Brabus E V12 achieved a documented 205 mph? Please, do tell. Because according to the statement in this article, that Brabus E V12 should be scratching 185 mph with the power levels you stated it had, in actuality. Call me crazy, but a documented 205 mph is significantly greater than a theoritical 185.

HLG

Carl Lassiter

Improviz

So far, you have refused to address a single one of the road tests cited, wherein Mercedes AMG cars with far less rated horsepower than your beloved Brabus outran the Brabus cars in acceleration runs, both in time-speed and time-distance, all the way up to 200 km/h (125 mph).

I cited numerous *documented* cases.

You've ignored them and danced around them like a clown.

And now you come back with the typical losers' argument: "Hey, everyone: ignore all of those multiple documented cases Improviz provided, and instead look at a lame, incorrect argument I've pasted together with data from one car that I'm trying to apply to a different car!"

This is the last time I'm going to play this game. But here's your fatal mistake: the article you cited, the test of the Bugatti Veyron, did say that that car, the Bugatti Veyron, does use 500 horsepower to go 185 mph. You are foolish and ignorant to believe that this can be transposed to a car with a better drag coefficient.

The Veyron weighs about 700 pounds more than an E Class. It has far wider tires, which increase rolling resistance. And, most importantly, it has the coefficient of a brick by comparison, 0.41 to the W210 E Class's 0.29.

You are trying to jam a square peg firmly into a round hole.

False, and there you go putting words in my mouth again. I gave no such aggregate figure for the brand as a whole; I only stated that they are clearly overrating their horsepower figures, in some cases by the same, in others less.

Allow me to retort: bull****. This is ONE of the vehicles of reference in our discussion, and is the only one you wish to reference. How about referencing the numerous others I referenced?

Um, no, not this one, although I do use such an equation from time to time which I got from Road & Track, and which has proven to be remarkably accurate in correlation with their road test results and rated horsepower--except, for some odd coincidence, in the case of Brabus.

Inspector Gadget? Hey, Mr. Wannabe Einstein: at least Inspector Gadget here is intelligent and learned enough to know that a vehicle's drag force is dependent upon its frontal area and coefficient of drag, and that not all cars have the same frontal area and coefficient of drag. For example: what you very conveniently failed to note is that the article you're citing, the test of the Bugatti Veyron, is of a car with a drag coefficient of 0.41 (unless one takes the steps to run top speed, which at this point in the test--the point at which he was running at 185--they had not yet done; read it again).

In other words, contrary to your rather misleading assertion, the article does not state that "500 bhp is needed to overcome prevailing drag at 185 mph" for ALL cars; this is *specifically* in reference to the Veyron!

This is a far cry from the W210 E Class's Cd, which was a vastly superior 0.29.

So, Mr. Wannabe Einstein, you say you'd like a Physics lesson: fine. Are you seated comfortably? Good, then let's begin!

First, here is a nice reference for you.
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/topspeed.htm

Air resistance (lbs) = fA x Cd x 0.00256 x speed squared (speed in mph)

So, to go 185 mph in an E Class, what do you need? Three things: rolling resistance, air resistance, and rear wheel horsepower (and, of course, the gearing to get there, which we'll assume the Brabus car had).

Rolling resistance: 3750 pounds*0.013 = 48.75 pounds

Air resistance: if memory serves, W210's frontal area is about 22 ft^2. (I know mine is about 20, so 10% increase sounds about right in any case)

So, to go 185 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 22 ft^2*0.29* 0.00256 x (185)^2 = 559 pounds.

So then required bhp to go 185 is (559 + 48.75)*185/375 = 300 rear wheel horsepower, about 365 crank w/18% driveline loss. Which means that the same publication, Car & Driver, were correct when they asserted in their first W210 E55 (349 horsepower) test that the car, unregulated, would have a true top speed around 185 mph.

See that there, Einstein: it helps if your car doesn't have a bricklike 0.41 drag coefficient.

So, how much horsepower does it take to make up that extra 20 mph? Why, let's play plug and chug again, Mr. Wannabe Einstein?

Answer: to go 205 mph, the car would meet an air resistance of 22 ft^2*0.29* 0.00256 x (205)^2 = 686 pounds.

So then required bhp to go 205 is (686 + 48.75)*205/375 = 402 rear wheel horsepower, about 490 crank w/18% driveline loss.

Which is, I believe, right smack dab in the high 400's. And what was it that I wrote about this car? Ah, yes....

Hey, HLG600: I seem to be having trouble with this one...wouldn't 490 be in the high 400s??

You will also note that this was not done with a calculation, as you claimed, but was rather an off-the-top-of-the-head estimation, a pretty good one as it turns out.

Any more idiocy you'd care to contribute?

Good.

Now how about responding to the dozen-odd documented data points I provided in my last post to you??? You know, the DOCUMENTED road tests showing Brabus cars with higher rated horsepower running slower than AMG cars with less?

Remember those? The ones you keep ignoring?

Here are some questions you refused to answer.

1) how is it possible for cars with anywhere from 35-100+ more horsepower to be outaccelerated by cars with 35-100 less horsepower? Does physics not apply in the Land of Brabus, but only with all other manufacturers?

2) can you produce one example of a BMW or Mercedes car with 75 or more fewer rated horsepower running better acceleration numbers than the higher-rated car?

HLG600

Wannabe Einstein...cutest thing I heard all day. And I thought Inspector Gadget was humorous.

You think by introducing a whole new set of cars means anything? Tell me, was the EV12 not the focus of our first dicussion? I doubt the Brabus V12 is off its mark by 100 horsepower. To be limited at 205 mph means that given more capable tires, the vehicle could surpass that. Now, if the car was making hp in the upper 400s, and this is a heavy 4 door saloon we are talking about, it could not be capable of such things.

All I have argued in this obsessive thread is:

A) I do not feel SL Brabus is a douche. My perspective is that I spite only those who directly offend myself, my family, or a close friend. He did not do any of the above, hence I do not spite him.

B) I was defending the W210 EV12. If it made the limited power you claimed, it would not be such a top speed animal now, would it?

You evolvled this into a full fledged data showcase, I just had two points to make. Still, my usual in-between-schoolwork time killer has been very interesting these past few days.

Carl Lassiter

996 GT3 (381bhp) 190mph

Porsche claimed it and Autocar got it.

Sorry had to do it, HLG. I enjoy your posts and consider you an interesting and good natured member of the forum. Hope school's going well