FishtailnZ

I disagree. The STi is rated at 293hp, the SLK350 at 268, but the SLK350 weighs less and has a better drag coefficient (which is a lot more telling that some may realize as speeds climb). The STi also has more parasitic loss through it's awd system than the SLK's rwd setup. They both trap about the same in stock configuration in the quarter mile. They both pull to 150+mph. So why again would the STi have to "suck *****" *L* to lose in a roll on competion of 60 to 140 or so? IMO, with the facts noted above, it would be close in such a race and could go either way - ball sucking notwithstanding .

heezyo2o

Damn guy, how old are you. Your posts are really quite annoying.

Reading comprehension owns you. Where did I say that I missed some shifts. It's an automatic guy so hard is to tap the gear lever at redline.

Also, I never said that the STI missed some shifts. If he did miss a shift, I would simply get on the brakes and line up again. He wasn't particularly the fastest shifter, but where did I mention that he missed a shift which would have an affect on a run.

--phill--

when i had my tiny renault cliosport 172bhp cup (running around 175hp with some mild mods) i was even with the 350 upto 120mph then we slowed down.

only difference is mine was fwd lower loss rolling from 40 and 1005kg kerb weight ! (no back seats but nor has the 350 )

clio 178 hp per tonne
350 188hp per tonne but then again the auto box is slower than manual shifting in the clio so figures about right.

above this i wouldnt have dare gone any faster as its so light and floaty the 350 would have pulled some at this point for sure.

USA impreza 260hp STI is also 180 pertonne but the UK version STIprodrive would eat a 350 for lunch at 202bhp pertonne with 310hp and 320lbft as standard

jturkel

my roommate has an STI. we have lined up many times, and he always killed my C32 from a dig, granted he is a great driver and has always owned an AWD car. when the STI was stock, i would eventually pull back after the dig. from a roll, i would start pulling decently at around 80 to 90 or so. a downpipe and exhaust to those cars can add up to 40 hp. im not too sure how an STI with an exhaust would lose to an ML63, ESPECIALLY from a dig. i would imagine that the ML63 would spin a little bit. and if the STI knew what he was doing, he should have easily been able to jump from a dig, especially considering he had an exhaust. but i would believe the ML63 would pull back from a roll or at higher speeds. those STIs cant hold their own at higher speeds.

amgdriven

FYI

ML63 is AWD

PhilipM1

New STi, 300hp Turbo. At wich point does a TURBO loose any kind of POWER in the higher RPM? Only when its shifting. If it has a blow off. Wich his did. But again, hes going to stay in third for most of it. I believe the story. If it was a BS story, he would have won. Not tied. Although, im pretty sure he was a regualr WRX. The STi would have have spanked you. No offence. It would happen. As soon as he downshifts, TURBO. No lag. Hes already in the 3500+ RPM range. Hes going to fly foward.

DarkCreep

The blow off valve would cause him to loose SOME power since his ECU wasn't made for it but not enough for you to notice. Barely any loss in power.

But nice story though! I wish I could race them someday.

turbo kraut

there you said he did....... i would have sworn you said you did, but maybe it was the fact that you are an idiot and started in second or third why i thought you were talking about missing

oh an i am 30 and have been into cars since i was about 8..... so i am not some kid that thinks he knows his stuff i pretty much do....... and i have driven many sport coupes, sport cars, luxury vehicles...... yours might not be slow, but not a sports car.... glad you think your car is great and all..... but like most euro cars, they are quick but no heart stopper

and ask me if i know how to drive
here is a quick 0-60 vid of my a4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_WsTXRz3VEs
apr stage 1(91 oct) stratosphere dv

stock 170 hp about 200 lb trq
now 205ish hp 245 lb trq

and i am about 6'4" 245, had a guy with me that is 6' 215 and another that is about 5'11 150.....so i had some weight on top of the heavy **** car

Wallance

Hm... i believe the story... furthermore, the slk350 will win. i have a 06 slk350 (7G) and my frd has the 06 STI (6 speed, not WRX for sure) and we have raced on the freeway /open road many times and i dun think i ever lost. 0-60, it's a pretty even match maybe he can pulled like 1/4 car length ahead of me untill he shifts and it will be a tie again, i dun think he is a bad driver, so only little delay in shifting, but after 60 or higher, he will have no chance of catching me. i will just be going and going and he won't be able to accelerate much after that. we race both stock and modded (mine has no performance mod but body kit and bigger wheels which might even slow me down, he has blow off value + full exhaust) but the slk still wins, and i am sure for so many times he must have times with perfect shifts, so yea

heezyo2o

With all due respect, you sir are insanely retarded. The reason I asked of your age is because you come off as some 16 year old from your posts.

If you bother to read the thread and posts, I say that he wasn't the fastest shifter, but no where did I say that he missed a shift during a run. He lagged a bit at times which gave me an edge, but that doesn't count as a missed shift. If he did indeed miss a shift, I would have been in front of him by at least a few car lengths.

You calling me an "idiot" because I start from 3rd gear is ridiculous. Since you apparently have reading comprehension problems, I'll repeat that these runs were not initiated from a dig. These runs were on the freeway and were started from around 50mph. From those speeds, what gear would you have liked me to start from you F-in moron.

Say what you will about the car, I'm not here to defend it. I'm just here to state my experience I had on the road with another car. I too have driven a good amount of cars. Do a search on my screen name if you wish, and you'll see that I've driven a number of different vehicles in the past couple of years. I know how the SLK fits in the grand scheme of things along with how it compares to other cars in things other than straight line speed.

heezyo2o

What does this have to do with things. I didn't bother to watch the video as I don't see the point in it. Am I supposed to be impressed?

jturkel

that doesnt sound right. like i previously said, my roommate and i race quite a bit. even when he was stock, he would rip me out of the hole to 60 mph and im in a c32. when he was stocked, i would pull on him at 85+ mph. oh, and if the wrx or sti has a different bov and it isnt tuned for it, the car will run richer and will actually run slower.

Improviz

....it does have higher parasitic driveline losses, which would hurt the Scoobie from a roll.

And the fact is that these cars' trap speed is the same (as tested by C&D):
C&D: Scoobie traps at 102:

C&D: Benz traps at 102:

Scoobie from a dig can launch at 6,000 rpm and just scoot off the line, which gets it a huge advantage in 60' time, which helps its 1/4 mile time. But from a 60 mph roll, this evaporates. For a better indication of how they'll do from a roll, look at the two cars' times from 60 mph to the 1/4 mile trap of 102:
Scoobie: 13.1 - 4.9 = 8.2 seconds
Benz: 13.9 - 5.4 = 8.5 seconds

As you can see, the two cars' 60-102 mph times are within 0.3 seconds. And a small difference like this in time-speed is pretty negligible in a time-distance race. I would, in fact, expect the two to be pretty even based on this.

And Road & Track's results were even more favorable to the Benz:
R&T: Scoobie traps at 99.6: 60-100 mph split: 8.7 seconds.

R&T: Benz traps at 103.9: 60-100 mph split: 7.4 seconds.

In this case, the Benz was the faster of the two 60-100.

So, before you guys start accusing people of lying in the future, you might want to take a look at some actual numbers. The traps and splits plainly show that these two cars are close, particularly from a roll.

reggid

too bad you can't count..............lol. Seriously it was atleast about 7-8sec like the other guy said in the comments

Wallance

yea maybe u are right that the bov will slow it
but yea all i am saying is, the sti doesnt have the top speed or higher end acceleration so after around 120 or 140km/h he will fall behind.
i just did a run yesterday again

reggid

the story is quite believable for stock vs stock. The STI is heavier, has AWD (less rwhp for same crank hp), has exterior features not kind to aero, has 1 less gear.

Stock EVO and STI are about midrange power (advantage of their turbo over NA cars) so when at upper rev range in 4th and 5th at over 100mph they don't have any advantage over a NA car with close to the same peak power rating and the NA car is operating around its best range (where all its power is).

amgdriven

Why would an ECU need to be programmed for a blow-off valve? Being that my 93 talon TSI had one, I know what it does. It does not gain nor lose any horsepower....but keeps the boost consistent between shifts by stopping back pressure from slamming back to the turbine. This in turn helps your turbo last longer and helps with 1/4 mile times.

advans

I agree matt.

d23

well... too be honest our 350s aren't built to go head to head with the sti... if you want a good match against the sti it might be the 55. However, I raced an STI on a highway last week, the STI had an FMIC and some loud exhaust... I tried to tailgate him for a couple miles and I still can keep up with it... probably on highway we still can "follow" them, but forget the 1/4 mile battle

Oh yea, btw last night I raced an SLK32 on a redlight, and I won by the distance of a car. I don't know whether he got a heavy passanger against me myself in the car, or it was just my luck, because I thought the 32 amgs are faster than the 350s. And weird thing is he got the stockies and I was using my 20" rims on. Or probably he didn't push it to the max

dsb

Here's another vote for OP. I've owned both the 350 and the 55. A friend owns the STI and it was a close race in the 350. Of course, he had a couple car lengths on launch but the longer the race, the better the 350 performance. From a roll, it would be real close and just like my experience, as the speed increases the 350 would begin to pull.

Now for the 55 vs the STI. I've raced him several times again. He has a full exhaust and ECU now (not during the race with the 350.) I still beat him and even off the line it's pretty close... as in he doesn't get a huge jump like before. What's funny is the feeling of speed. Everyone that's been in my car and his car swears the STI feels faster. I wouldn't doubt the STI having a higher acceleration G-force between shifts. The 55 speed is progressive and the shifts are very quick. Therefore, the 55 feels fast but the STI feels faster.

ChicagoX

Good description.

I've felt similar turbo-induced G's in an RS6 that would pin your head to the seat on full boost, yet was actually a bit slower than my Kompressor car from 50-120.

badger

This doesn't support my argument much, though I still maintain that a properly driven STi would have rocked your SLK:

You can't compare the 300 hp (or 293 hp for MY2006+) to the SLKs 268hp. Both cars are being measured for horsepower at the flywheel, not at the ground. The STi loses a significant amount of power in the transfer to AWD. The SLK only has to put power to 2 rear wheels, which in this case would give it an advantage as it didn't need the grip to pull off the line. That said, the STi would still take ya. It has more than enough power to take ya and the time stats to back it up.

ChicagoX

The approx 10% difference in HP is more than overcome by the 7g tranny.

Try it - you'll be surprised.

Sti's are nothing special from a roll. From a dig, different story.

350Zman

Wow...This reminds me of the STi vs Z wars lol.......Up top you can beat an STi....Ive done it when I was bone stock in my 350z.....I believe the SLK350 is faster than the Z if Ive read right so I dont see why it couldnt keep up with an STi if a Z can......From a dig no chance whatsoever vs the STi...But over 100 you will see the advantage switch a bit to the SLK350.....Top end both Sti and Evo take a slight hit though the newer EVO 9 MR seem to be beast from top to bottom....They trap around 106 mph in the 1/4 and keep pulling hard to its top speed..

brabusw209amg

The STi driver probably doesnt know how to drive. At least do a brake boost before going at it. I use to own an EVO 8 with turbo back exhaust, 22 psi boost, intercooler piping, tuned, cams, etc etc - came out to 330 awhp. I kept up with a 996 turbo, beat M3's, CLK55, C55's, from 80 on. At 130, you really see the car go slower and slower. This is why I drive a CLK55 amg now. V8 power!! Those 4 banger turbos are fun though. Extremely fun with cams. Cams are needed for those top gears.