C43 Vs W210 E320 Vs RX-8
12-29-2006, 08:18 PM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 Audi urS6 Quattro
C43 Vs W210 E320 Vs RX-8
First off a disclaimer: I understand that tommyGunn is banned, but what has happened during this race is amazing I am not exagurating about anything in the following kill story, there is genuinely something wrong with TommyGunn's E320. The sole modification to his car is a Gruppe M intake, and that's it. The stock 0-60 is supposed to be 7.6 seconds. The C43 on the other hand, has green filters, and has been recently serviced and inspected, the car is running at 100%. And the Rx-8 was there for the fun.
The Story: We decided to meet up at the Jones Beach Strip to do some 0-100 runs too see how the cars stack up. Now the E320, always felt unnaturally quick and it really reminded me of the acceleration of the C43, hence we decided to put this to the test. First run (Rx-8 not yet present): The E320 spins off the line, and we do over as the E instantly falls back. 2nd run: The E320 gets good launch, as does the C43, unbelivably the E320 hangs dead even with the C43 until 60, and about 1/2-1 car back by 80. From 80-100 the e320 just gradually fell back. We ran 4 more times, with the same results. Then the Rx-8 showed up, same results with the E v the C, with the Rx-8 holding with the E dead even all the way till 100.
In short, there is something very wrong with that 96 inline 6 E320. There is no way that the engine can be internally stock. Is it possible that it couldve been bored out to 3.6 liters (as the 96 e320 had the non bored out version of the engine in the C36/ euro E36.) The car is going to be dynoed next week to see how much power the car is putting down. The exhaust looks stock, but for some reason it has 3'' piping... Above 70-80 the C43 rained supreme, but e320 kept dead even till 60 everytime.
The Story: We decided to meet up at the Jones Beach Strip to do some 0-100 runs too see how the cars stack up. Now the E320, always felt unnaturally quick and it really reminded me of the acceleration of the C43, hence we decided to put this to the test. First run (Rx-8 not yet present): The E320 spins off the line, and we do over as the E instantly falls back. 2nd run: The E320 gets good launch, as does the C43, unbelivably the E320 hangs dead even with the C43 until 60, and about 1/2-1 car back by 80. From 80-100 the e320 just gradually fell back. We ran 4 more times, with the same results. Then the Rx-8 showed up, same results with the E v the C, with the Rx-8 holding with the E dead even all the way till 100.
In short, there is something very wrong with that 96 inline 6 E320. There is no way that the engine can be internally stock. Is it possible that it couldve been bored out to 3.6 liters (as the 96 e320 had the non bored out version of the engine in the C36/ euro E36.) The car is going to be dynoed next week to see how much power the car is putting down. The exhaust looks stock, but for some reason it has 3'' piping... Above 70-80 the C43 rained supreme, but e320 kept dead even till 60 everytime.
12-29-2006, 08:27 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Fallon, NV
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
BMW and Mercedes
bottle? 
I dunno.....sounds strange to me, although the C43 doesn't pull as hard from a stop as some cars do. Still, I would expect to have at least a couple lengths by the time I hit 60 mph....if not more depending on launch technique. Isn't the rule of thumb something like 1 CL for every 0.3 second difference in 0-60 time? I can't imagine that ANY e320 would break under 7.0 seconds w/ simply an intake (if that). On a bad day, a C43 might run 6.0-6.2....I normally am well < 6.0 sec w/ 77k on the clock and street tires w/ moderate wear. Just for reference.....
Also, I'm surprised the RX-8 hung at all.....I had a run w/ one this afternoon actually, and he never got w/n a car length of me all the way to around 60 (where I cut things off.....no fly by from him either).....and he never pulled once on me. Maybe your friend's C43 has something going on?
I dunno.....sounds strange to me, although the C43 doesn't pull as hard from a stop as some cars do. Still, I would expect to have at least a couple lengths by the time I hit 60 mph....if not more depending on launch technique. Isn't the rule of thumb something like 1 CL for every 0.3 second difference in 0-60 time? I can't imagine that ANY e320 would break under 7.0 seconds w/ simply an intake (if that). On a bad day, a C43 might run 6.0-6.2....I normally am well < 6.0 sec w/ 77k on the clock and street tires w/ moderate wear. Just for reference.....
Also, I'm surprised the RX-8 hung at all.....I had a run w/ one this afternoon actually, and he never got w/n a car length of me all the way to around 60 (where I cut things off.....no fly by from him either).....and he never pulled once on me. Maybe your friend's C43 has something going on?
Last edited by FLYNAVY; 12-29-2006 at 08:33 PM.
12-29-2006, 09:55 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
bottle?
I dunno.....sounds strange to me, although the C43 doesn't pull as hard from a stop as some cars do. Still, I would expect to have at least a couple lengths by the time I hit 60 mph....if not more depending on launch technique. Isn't the rule of thumb something like 1 CL for every 0.3 second difference in 0-60 time? I can't imagine that ANY e320 would break under 7.0 seconds w/ simply an intake (if that). On a bad day, a C43 might run 6.0-6.2....I normally am well < 6.0 sec w/ 77k on the clock and street tires w/ moderate wear. Just for reference.....
Also, I'm surprised the RX-8 hung at all.....I had a run w/ one this afternoon actually, and he never got w/n a car length of me all the way to around 60 (where I cut things off.....no fly by from him either).....and he never pulled once on me. Maybe your friend's C43 has something going on?
I dunno.....sounds strange to me, although the C43 doesn't pull as hard from a stop as some cars do. Still, I would expect to have at least a couple lengths by the time I hit 60 mph....if not more depending on launch technique. Isn't the rule of thumb something like 1 CL for every 0.3 second difference in 0-60 time? I can't imagine that ANY e320 would break under 7.0 seconds w/ simply an intake (if that). On a bad day, a C43 might run 6.0-6.2....I normally am well < 6.0 sec w/ 77k on the clock and street tires w/ moderate wear. Just for reference.....
Also, I'm surprised the RX-8 hung at all.....I had a run w/ one this afternoon actually, and he never got w/n a car length of me all the way to around 60 (where I cut things off.....no fly by from him either).....and he never pulled once on me. Maybe your friend's C43 has something going on?
12-30-2006, 12:52 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I am going to get banned very soon. Just becaust I'am tommygunn. But last night I killed a acura TL like he was standing still, and I ran dead even with Sti up to 120. Also the truth about the race against the c43. I was half a car ahead. He was behind my driver door up to 60 and at 80 we were dead even and then he pulled. heres a video of a 0-100 run in my car. It was done last night at jones beach. The c43 didn't want to play becaust it was 2am and he had work at 8.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLihlAYprw4
thats a 0-100. Everyone says i have a c36 engine under the hood because of the power. If I do. I'am the luckiest MBZ owner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLihlAYprw4
thats a 0-100. Everyone says i have a c36 engine under the hood because of the power. If I do. I'am the luckiest MBZ owner.
12-30-2006, 02:47 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Watched that video....hmm, well, if that thing can run dead even with an Sti up to 120, it must have had a bad run in that vid...the car is launched just shy of 4 sec. into the vid, and hits 100 at the 20 second mark. Which is a tad over 16 seconds to 100.
This is two full seconds less than a C43 in good tune would have done, and around three less than a well-driven Sti. Rolling-start the Stis aren't as fast, though, but he didn't specify whether his race was standing start or rolling...still, unless that video is *not* representative of what his car will do, a well-driven, in-good-state-of-tune, using-the-proper-gas, etc. etc. etc. C43 should pull it pretty good, up high, as should an Sti (again, if well-driven, etc. etc. etc.).
However, down low your E Class is indeed quite quick. It hit 60 at about the 10 second mark, indicating a 0-60 in the low (possibly mid, hard to tell w/that resolution!) 6 second range. This is much closer to the C43, so Militant Grunt's story seems very much inline with what I would expect.
But to take an Sti off the line, he'd have to botch his launch bigtime. Those cars are mid-to-high 4 second 0-60 cars if you Kamikazee-launch them without bogging or slipping the clutch too much and shift properly.
Still, that's a pretty quick car if indeed it hasn't been modded; stock, they ran about 7.6 0-60, so to pick up from 1-1.6 seconds, it's either been modded somewhere down the line, or is the ultimate factory freak.
Edit: Upon further reflection, I'd have to say that either they did, somehow, end up sticking the E36 motor in this thing, or your car's components are seriously out of spec--in the good sense--(not very likely, as this would be something like an extra 60-70 horsepower), or this thing has been seriously modded.
I have a hard time believing the factory freak thing, though, with that much of a gain over stock rated performance....on these things, manufacturing specs are much tighter than that. And I'm at a loss to understand how a C36 could've accidentally got stuck in there, given that, afaik, the engines are installed at AMG's factory, so I'm assuming that someone (before this guy owned it??) modded the **** out of this thing.
This is two full seconds less than a C43 in good tune would have done, and around three less than a well-driven Sti. Rolling-start the Stis aren't as fast, though, but he didn't specify whether his race was standing start or rolling...still, unless that video is *not* representative of what his car will do, a well-driven, in-good-state-of-tune, using-the-proper-gas, etc. etc. etc. C43 should pull it pretty good, up high, as should an Sti (again, if well-driven, etc. etc. etc.).
However, down low your E Class is indeed quite quick. It hit 60 at about the 10 second mark, indicating a 0-60 in the low (possibly mid, hard to tell w/that resolution!) 6 second range. This is much closer to the C43, so Militant Grunt's story seems very much inline with what I would expect.
But to take an Sti off the line, he'd have to botch his launch bigtime. Those cars are mid-to-high 4 second 0-60 cars if you Kamikazee-launch them without bogging or slipping the clutch too much and shift properly.
Still, that's a pretty quick car if indeed it hasn't been modded; stock, they ran about 7.6 0-60, so to pick up from 1-1.6 seconds, it's either been modded somewhere down the line, or is the ultimate factory freak.
Edit: Upon further reflection, I'd have to say that either they did, somehow, end up sticking the E36 motor in this thing, or your car's components are seriously out of spec--in the good sense--(not very likely, as this would be something like an extra 60-70 horsepower), or this thing has been seriously modded.
I have a hard time believing the factory freak thing, though, with that much of a gain over stock rated performance....on these things, manufacturing specs are much tighter than that. And I'm at a loss to understand how a C36 could've accidentally got stuck in there, given that, afaik, the engines are installed at AMG's factory, so I'm assuming that someone (before this guy owned it??) modded the **** out of this thing.
Last edited by Improviz; 12-30-2006 at 11:02 PM.
12-30-2006, 03:33 PM
#7
MBWorld Fanatic!
Banned means banned!! duh!!! 
And that E320 is FASSSSSTT!!!! Dear lord! Well compared to the numbers people seen in magazines, etc etc!! U know what I mean!! I also drive an E320 but 98...
I've ran a 2006 325i (auto) with a passenger with me and 3/4 tank from 80 till 120 and it was dead even!
I also ran a 2002 Nissan Maxima SE a few nights ago from 85 till 120 and it was also dead even! I thought he would have put a car or two on me but that wasn't the case!
Just thought I'd share those two runs!!
Iron Sheik
And that E320 is FASSSSSTT!!!! Dear lord! Well compared to the numbers people seen in magazines, etc etc!! U know what I mean!! I also drive an E320 but 98...
I've ran a 2006 325i (auto) with a passenger with me and 3/4 tank from 80 till 120 and it was dead even!
I also ran a 2002 Nissan Maxima SE a few nights ago from 85 till 120 and it was also dead even! I thought he would have put a car or two on me but that wasn't the case!
Just thought I'd share those two runs!!
Iron Sheik
Trending Topics
12-30-2006, 04:57 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Fallon, NV
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
BMW and Mercedes
wow....I must say that I am impressed w/ the vid. Though it is possible that you have a 3.6L m104 (they did make some E36's in europe) it is very unlikely that this would be overlooked....especially considering the difficulty with which it would have been imported. Anyone know if the Canadian market saw any 124 E36's? My guess would be that you have a different rear end which could possibly help you down low. Your pull from 0-40 mph is pretty impressive and looks a lot like my C43, though the sound is quite different (obviously.....to be honest though, if there was no sound I would probably think that the vid was of a C43). Thanks for the post, even if you are banned
12-31-2006, 01:28 AM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 Audi urS6 Quattro
Watched that video....hmm, well, if that thing can run dead even with an Sti up to 120, it must have had a bad run in that vid...the car is launched just shy of 4 sec. into the vid, and hits 100 at the 20 second mark. Which is a tad over 16 seconds to 100.
This is two full seconds less than a C43 in good tune would have done, and around three less than a well-driven Sti. Rolling-start the Stis aren't as fast, though, but he didn't specify whether his race was standing start or rolling...still, unless that video is *not* representative of what his car will do, a well-driven, in-good-state-of-tune, using-the-proper-gas, etc. etc. etc. C43 should pull it pretty good, up high, as should an Sti (again, if well-driven, etc. etc. etc.).
However, down low your E Class is indeed quite quick. It hit 60 at about the 10 second mark, indicating a 0-60 in the low (possibly mid, hard to tell w/that resolution!) 6 second range. This is much closer to the C43, so Militant Grunt's story seems very much inline with what I would expect.
But to take an Sti off the line, he'd have to botch his launch bigtime. Those cars are mid-to-high 4 second 0-60 cars if you Kamikazee-launch them without bogging or slipping the clutch too much and shift properly.
Still, that's a pretty quick car if indeed it hasn't been modded; stock, they ran about 7.6 0-60, so to pick up from 1-1.6 seconds, it's either been modded somewhere down the line, or is the ultimate factory freak.
Edit: Upon further reflection, I'd have to say that either they did, somehow, end up sticking the E36 motor in this thing, or your car's components are seriously out of spec--in the good sense--(not very likely, as this would be something like an extra 60-70 horsepower), or this thing has been seriously modded.
I have a hard time believing the factory freak thing, though, with that much of a gain over stock rated performance....on these things, manufacturing specs are much tighter than that. And I'm at a loss to understand how a C36 could've accidentally got stuck in there, given that, afaik, the engines are installed at AMG's factory, so I'm assuming that someone (before this guy owned it??) modded the **** out of this thing.
This is two full seconds less than a C43 in good tune would have done, and around three less than a well-driven Sti. Rolling-start the Stis aren't as fast, though, but he didn't specify whether his race was standing start or rolling...still, unless that video is *not* representative of what his car will do, a well-driven, in-good-state-of-tune, using-the-proper-gas, etc. etc. etc. C43 should pull it pretty good, up high, as should an Sti (again, if well-driven, etc. etc. etc.).
However, down low your E Class is indeed quite quick. It hit 60 at about the 10 second mark, indicating a 0-60 in the low (possibly mid, hard to tell w/that resolution!) 6 second range. This is much closer to the C43, so Militant Grunt's story seems very much inline with what I would expect.
But to take an Sti off the line, he'd have to botch his launch bigtime. Those cars are mid-to-high 4 second 0-60 cars if you Kamikazee-launch them without bogging or slipping the clutch too much and shift properly.
Still, that's a pretty quick car if indeed it hasn't been modded; stock, they ran about 7.6 0-60, so to pick up from 1-1.6 seconds, it's either been modded somewhere down the line, or is the ultimate factory freak.
Edit: Upon further reflection, I'd have to say that either they did, somehow, end up sticking the E36 motor in this thing, or your car's components are seriously out of spec--in the good sense--(not very likely, as this would be something like an extra 60-70 horsepower), or this thing has been seriously modded.
I have a hard time believing the factory freak thing, though, with that much of a gain over stock rated performance....on these things, manufacturing specs are much tighter than that. And I'm at a loss to understand how a C36 could've accidentally got stuck in there, given that, afaik, the engines are installed at AMG's factory, so I'm assuming that someone (before this guy owned it??) modded the **** out of this thing.
Also to note. Tommy Driving, me in the front and a passenger in the rear. While doing the video, we left the passenger on the street, and I filmed the run. When the C43 drag race occured I was in the C43 and the E had 1/4 tank and no one else but Tom driving.
12-31-2006, 12:36 PM
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
To clear some of this up, on the way back from Jones, we ran into a STI, it was not a run from the dig, it was rolls from about 80-120+, we ran the sti twice each time with the same result, the Sti pulled about 1 car length from 80-90, at 90 the STI stopped pulling. (There is a STi V ML55 video floating around, 4 banger turbos even with 300hp have no top end at all.)
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/amgc361993-1.htm
Test in sport auto 09/1993
Gewicht 1566 kg
0 - 80 km/h 5,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 12,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 16,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 21,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 30,5 s
140-200 split: 17.9 s*
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/amgc361993-2.htm
Gewicht 1565 kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 12,4 s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h 21,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 29,0 s
1 km, stehender Start 27,0 s
140-200 split: 16.6 s*
*I was interesting how it compared up high with an STi, so I figured out the difference between 140 km/h (87.5 mph) and 200 km/h (125 mph) for each car.
I also took the same times for the three Scoobie STi tests on the same site:
140-200 split: 16.6 sec
140-200 split: 17.9 sec
140-200 split: 13.0 sec
The third one was far faster than the other two, not sure what's up there, but the first two are about the same as a C36. So reaction time would basically make the difference in a race here.
Thing is, though, the C36 is lighter than an E Class would be, so there's still an extra 20 horsepower to be accounted for here, although this could just be due to a well-broken-in motor.
Prior to this we ran into a 06 TL. From 60-120 ended up in a 3-4 lead for the E320 by 120 (a steady pull). We we're coming back from jones and the TL flew by us at about 140. Caught up to him to play as he let off about a mile down. About 10 miles up from the toying with the TL we ran into the STI. Once I obtain a proper DVI camera from a friend I will film the C43 v E320 drag.
Also to note. Tommy Driving, me in the front and a passenger in the rear. While doing the video, we left the passenger on the street, and I filmed the run. When the C43 drag race occured I was in the C43 and the E had 1/4 tank and no one else but Tom driving.
Also to note. Tommy Driving, me in the front and a passenger in the rear. While doing the video, we left the passenger on the street, and I filmed the run. When the C43 drag race occured I was in the C43 and the E had 1/4 tank and no one else but Tom driving.
Is this Tommy guy the original owner of the car? If not, it might be worth hunting down the original owner, and/or investigating with Mercedes to see what's going on here....if this is some sort of one-off factory custom job, it'd be worth some money; if not, maybe the original owner modified it.....if it were me, I'd certainly put a bit of time in to figure out wtf is going on here!!
12-31-2006, 02:15 PM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 Audi urS6 Quattro
The story of the previous owner. The original owner died, the car was auctioned by a bank to a dealership, then a dealership leased out the car and then finnally it was sold to Tom in a dealership in Manhattan. So we just don't know what were the original intentional plans of the owner.
Last night we were replacing the fog lights in my friends C43 and we were comparing headers from the E320 to the C43 and remarkably the C43 headers has SMALLER skinnier headers than the E. I took a picture of the headers only to find out that there is some sort of name imprinted on them
"Leistritz" is imprinted on the headers along with the mercedes logo.
Last night we were replacing the fog lights in my friends C43 and we were comparing headers from the E320 to the C43 and remarkably the C43 headers has SMALLER skinnier headers than the E. I took a picture of the headers only to find out that there is some sort of name imprinted on them
"Leistritz" is imprinted on the headers along with the mercedes logo.
12-31-2006, 03:32 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Nice! We have a mystery car on MB World. Taking a measurment of power at the rear wheels should be the first move - to find out if TG's E320 is making the 300 hp ( ~ 240 RWHP) figure Improviz estimated. It very well could be a "strong" AMG 36 motor in there. Either that, or a custom job with some internal work.
Also, a quick google search revealed that Leistritz (the name on the headers) is an exhaust manufacturer.
http://www.miata.net/products/intex/leistritz.html
Also, a quick google search revealed that Leistritz (the name on the headers) is an exhaust manufacturer.
http://www.miata.net/products/intex/leistritz.html
12-31-2006, 03:42 PM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
A few more things...
The AMG 3.6 Litre is rated at 276 bhp. Factor in headers + intake, and we have ourselves a car edging over 300 bhp.
One point to consider about this not being the average "320" motor. If you recall a short while ago, TG posted alot of negativity regarding the failure of his PowerChip upgrade. Well, if this is in fact a factory-fluke AMG 36 motor in there, it would be no surprise that a chip for a 320 generated dismal results.
One point to consider about this not being the average "320" motor. If you recall a short while ago, TG posted alot of negativity regarding the failure of his PowerChip upgrade. Well, if this is in fact a factory-fluke AMG 36 motor in there, it would be no surprise that a chip for a 320 generated dismal results.
12-31-2006, 04:43 PM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Do the older AMG motors have plaques on them?
The new ones have plaques with the signature of the guy who assembled the motor....if the old ones have it, it would be pretty easy to determine whether or not this is an E36 motor or a heavily-modded 3.2L. My guess would be the latter...
Also, is there a part number on the block somewhere? I'd think that the 3.6L motor and the 3.2L motor have different part numbers.
Also, is there a part number on the block somewhere? I'd think that the 3.6L motor and the 3.2L motor have different part numbers.
01-01-2007, 04:38 PM
#18
MBWorld Fanatic!
The plaque campaign started in 01' if I remember correctly.I think one way to take some of the mystery out of the car is to contact Mercedes Benz.If you provide then the VIN # , for a small fee ( $100.00 I think ) they will send you all the original specs of the car as it left the factory.It's like the "birth certificate" for your Benz.
01-01-2007, 04:51 PM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 Audi urS6 Quattro
The plaque campaign started in 01' if I remember correctly.I think one way to take some of the mystery out of the car is to contact Mercedes Benz.If you provide then the VIN # , for a small fee ( $100.00 I think ) they will send you all the original specs of the car as it left the factory.It's like the "birth certificate" for your Benz.
01-01-2007, 05:03 PM
#20
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
The plaque campaign started in 01' if I remember correctly.I think one way to take some of the mystery out of the car is to contact Mercedes Benz.If you provide then the VIN # , for a small fee ( $100.00 I think ) they will send you all the original specs of the car as it left the factory.It's like the "birth certificate" for your Benz.
But one way or the other, someone spent some bucks on this thing getting it that quick!
01-01-2007, 07:12 PM
#21
Super Member
I doubt there are any internal mods on the E320 engine. For some reason those older MB's are very responsive to intake+exhaust. I have a friend who had a 95 C280, nothing spectacular, which had a cold air intake and Remus exhaust, and would turn an estimated high 14's/low 15's. We easily smoked a Pontiac Grand Prix GTP in it (that's a low 15's car), and he used to run even with my Buick when I just had a few mods on it (est. mid 14's) from 20-130mph.
01-02-2007, 08:46 PM
#22
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
95 Audi urS6 Quattro
258 at the crank when ran without traction control.. More in thread below.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...65#post1913765
01-02-2007, 11:39 PM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
Judging by the dyno runs, it doesn't look to be a AMG 3.6 Litre after all. But, what we have is a very strong 320. Roupin's comments appear to be accurate in that the MB I6's respond well to intake tuning.
Also, about the headers, another member posted in the W210 forum that they are the manufacturer for MB.
So now all TommyGunn needs is an aftermarket header, 100 cell catalyst, and free flowing exhaust to nail some 0-60 times in the 5 second range!
Also, about the headers, another member posted in the W210 forum that they are the manufacturer for MB.
So now all TommyGunn needs is an aftermarket header, 100 cell catalyst, and free flowing exhaust to nail some 0-60 times in the 5 second range!
01-06-2007, 12:34 AM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: New York City
Posts: 7,424
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
C55 ///AMG, 535xi
Judging by the dyno runs, it doesn't look to be a AMG 3.6 Litre after all. But, what we have is a very strong 320. Roupin's comments appear to be accurate in that the MB I6's respond well to intake tuning.
Also, about the headers, another member posted in the W210 forum that they are the manufacturer for MB.
So now all TommyGunn needs is an aftermarket header, 100 cell catalyst, and free flowing exhaust to nail some 0-60 times in the 5 second range!
Also, about the headers, another member posted in the W210 forum that they are the manufacturer for MB.
So now all TommyGunn needs is an aftermarket header, 100 cell catalyst, and free flowing exhaust to nail some 0-60 times in the 5 second range!
another thought. maybe the past owner have replaced some IK-16 sparks and magnecore wires!? or like militantgrunt have said, maybe a bored 3.2
01-06-2007, 12:06 PM
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, NH
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
none
The C43 exhaust manifolds are on the small side. A simple reason for this = big motor/small space. The 320 has more room and less cubes. If the C43's being small doesn't lift an eybrow enough for you, look at the primary cats glued right along the firewall and engine. Creates a nice convection oven for your TB/intake with the hood closed...
You should jump in when Coolcarlski gets the equal length 4-1 headers made without primary cats.
You should jump in when Coolcarlski gets the equal length 4-1 headers made without primary cats.
