I'm rarely on that site anymore. Dan didn't change cams/gears, and was not using a ported turbo/manifold when he ran 11's. He's just a damn good driver. Hell, a friend of mine ran 12.2 @110 on a stock turbo with only $1500 in mods on his SRT-4.

http://vid181.photobucket.com/albums...k_turbo167.flv

 

 

Interesting considering everyone else in the 11s is equipped that way or running a stage 3 or 50 trim. And that video is a 12.2 with a killer 60ft.

 

If this is true, the driver of the GTO (must have been a 6spd.) probably couldn't shift to save his life.

First of all, a procharged 5.7 GTO would be making at LEAST 460rwhp and at least as much torque. A 6.0 that was procharged would be making AT LEAST (with rich, conservative tune) 510-520ish rwhp. Most procharged 6.0 GTOs are making around 600+ rwhp and 610ish rwtq, with some reaching up to 700+ rwhp and ~750 ft. lbs. rwtq with good supporting mods. Now, the guy you raced obviously must have been a ****ing dolt behind the wheel or just not used to the torque and horsepower made by the procharger.

One of the GTO's weaknesses is that the rear end can only fit so wide of a tire (around 275 drag radial tire or 285 street tire without serious modification to the wheel wells). The GTO simply doesn't have the room available to put some serious meat on there, and therefore, a high-torque and high-horsepower GTO can really only be taken advantage of when the driver behind the wheel knows what he's doing.

The time the GTO driver posted, a 13.9, is worse than most LS1 (5.7) GTO drivers post during their very first race down the 1/4 mile strip. A stock 5.7 GTO (Manual) is easily capable of 13.2 all day long with a good driver. A stock 5.7 GTO with an A4 tranny can easily post 13.1 to 13.0 all day long with a good driver.

Stock, manual and automatic 6.0 GTOs pull 13 flats all day long, and the best recorded stock automatic 6.0 GTO time was 12.8ish, IIRC, but that time was not on ls2gto.com.

The "much lighter SLK" cannot beat them easily. Stock for stock, it could be a driver's race, with the GTO probably pulling at high speeds because of its much flatter, higher torque curve through almost all RPMs. GTOs pull like freight trains at almost any speed. Also, mod for mod, a GTO would woop an SLK's ***. So don't find comfort in your "lighter weight."

By the way, for their size, SLK55s are even fatter pigs than GTOs are. What kind of a compact two-seater V8 weighs 3400 lbs? That's laughable. My brother's ****ing LS1 Trans Am, with minimal weight reductions, weighs about 3400 lbs.

Damn straight. Finding so much ignorance didn't surprise me. The confidence, however, that these chodemasters had in their bull**** information did surprise me.

I'm not even going to deal with you. Your post makes as much sense as your username does. fnbfjeadr.d

 

I guess then the car mags must have put pretty good drivers ONLY in the SLK55s they tested, which ran in the hi 12's, and saved their lousy drivers for the GTOs when they ran them around a second higher....right?

Car & Driver tests SLK55:
0-60: 4.3
1/4: 12.7 @ 111 mph

Car & Driver tests LS2 (400 hp, 6.0L) GTO: (pdf)
0-60: 4.8
1/4: 13.3 @ 107

That's 0.6 seconds and 4 mph...the 5.7 they tested was 0.2 slower.

Dream on.

What was it you were saying about ignorance? The SLK55's torque curve kicks the crap out of your LS2, friend. Do a bit of homework.

Retractable hard tops add weight. What's your excuse?

 

If you're getting your information from car mags, you have issues to work out.

Our excuse is that we have two more seats and our cars are much bigger. We don't have sports coupes, we have Grand touring cars.

 

Lame and ad hominem excuse often used by people who don't like the results the car mags get. Real people in real cars ran those numbers, friend, and just because you do not happen to like them hardly invalidates them.

Car & Driver tests SLK55:
0-60: 4.3
1/4: 12.7 @ 111 mph

Car & Driver tests LS2 (400 hp, 6.0L) GTO: (pdf)
0-60: 4.8
1/4: 13.3 @ 107

That's 0.6 seconds and 4 mph...the 5.7 they tested was 0.2 slower.

Well, maybe you should stick to racing them, then. My Grand Touring CLK55 AMG weighs in at 3450 pounds, and has a lot more standard equipment than your 4000 pound GTO.

So what's your excuse now?

 

First, I will offer no excuse now. Second, if your AMG CLK55 really weighs 3450 lbs, I either openly congratulate AMG and MB for building a mercedes that's not a tank, or you did some weight reductions. Third, the GTO weighs 3725 lbs, not 4000.

Oh, and I'm not going to take up the task of disproving the accuracy of magazine times, but it is well-known that magazines are swayed easily and come up with bogus figures ALL THE TIME, based on what the public wants to hear. Also, if anyone here has replicated the 4.3 second 0-60 time and 12.7 1/4 mile time in a stock SLK55, I'd like to see some proof of such commendable driving. I'd say the quarter mile time is very possible, but the 0-60 time is a little harder for me to believe.

 

Checked on C&D, the one they tested weighed 3787, but you're correct, 4000 pounds is definitely a few hundred pounds off the mark.

Rumor and innuendo != proof. The times/traps I've got in cars I've owned have been in the same ballpark as the times these mags have got, and cars I've beaten/lost to have performed as I would expect cars which got the times they reported to perform.

There are slips posted in the SLK55 forum, and TheRicker can vouch for their speed, having run one in a C6 'vette. They're quicker than you're giving them credit for being.

Why? If a GTO runs a 4.8/13.3, then if you shave 0.6 off of that, you get 4.2/12.7. Typically a reduction in 1/4 time is matched by 0-60 time, right?

 

slk32 is faster than a 6.0 GTO and.. ?

I guess this is a MB forum and so the GTO wont really make it . lol..

sorry for the interruption carry on

 

I would like in on this conversation, but I want a little more, as well.

I offer to run ANY member you have in the Seattle area with my 2004 (the slower 5.7L model) GTO. I will record it and post the video for all to see. The result, I assure you, will be an AMG seeing GTO tail lights. I am willing to do this for one reason, there are some very knowledgeable people in this thread, unfortunately, there is also a boat load of misinformation and absolute bull****. If anyone cares to take me up on my offer and be the sacrificial lamb, let me know. I'll buy you a beer afterwards.

 

Stock 5.7L GTO auto goes low 13s? My bro has one with I,Ex. My stock Clk55 beats him by 2 cars 0-60. Clk55s do low 13s.

 

Unless your car is very heavily modded, in which case your challenge is utterly meaningless, any stock AMG built after 2003 will eat you up.

Edit: google search turns up THIS Spyral, who does, in fact, have a VERY heavily modded 2004 GTO:
Well, whoop-de-sheeit, wtf would this prove exactly?? That you can practically rebuild the whole damn engine and add nitrous on top of that and make it faster than a stock AMG? Woo-hoo! We are all sooo proud of you!

 

Umm, you quoted MY post, which has numbers for a 6.0L GTO, not a 5.7.

 

Why can't you GTO owners just admit the SLK is faster? The facts are all over dragtimes for crying out loud. I've smacked around several of them in my SLK55 when I had it. I don't even waste time on them in the SL65, I'm after bigger and better prey.

 

If I still had my SLK55 I'd take you up. I'd race pink slips and would even be nice enough to drive you home afterwards.

 

How nice of you! Now just find me an owner in the PNW with the cajones to take me up on my offer. My car is somewhat modified. It makes a little power. I have a few dollars invested, but it is a daily driver, my only car in fact. I wouldn't race anyone for pink slips. Not even a stock 1980 civic. Anything can happen in a race, I just find it amazing that all the MB owners are saying these cars are slow. I think most are misinformed and can't understand that killing these cars is not that easy. As for the drag times, my VERY traction troubled car cracked some decent times and some very decent trap speeds. 130+, to be exact. I am not the fastest GTO out there, far from it, just a moderately modified and decently fast car. I would love to put an MB to the test. I feel they would fail..miserably. Prove me wrong, that is all I ask.

 

I see you found my little corner of the internet! Good job. Now, does anyone want to take me up on my offer?

Yes, the car came with 350hp at the crank from the factory. Luckily, I am not at the factory and that number has been increased, to almost double...at the wheels.

 

What it proves is that I am an enthusiast who enjoys modifying his car. I would also say it makes it faster than most modified AMG's. Prove me wrong, on the street, not on a message board. I am waiting for someone to take me up on this offer. Until then, all your posturing and mudslinging is simply a way to circumnavigate the question at hand; can your car beat my car?

Thank you for being proud of me, that was my goal in life.

 

There must be a buy one, get one free MBWorld membership coupon posted on mullets.com

 

Actually those low, low 13s from "stock" LS1s are most likely with DRs under absolutely perfect condtions.

An SLK55 will definitely beat an LS2 GTO and walk it at triple digits. Like a 4 second differential to 150mph. Think LS2 C6 Z51.

 

Funny, you consider the GTO owners "mullets." That is how we view Camaro owners. What do you guys think of Camaro owners?

I see this site is full of gutless wonders. If anyone gets a set of ***** somehow (does AMG sell an upgrade?), let me know and I will run you. Fair and square.

 

Have you weighed it? A quick google search shows both 3450 and the 3,6xx range or was that newer models with more equipment (side airbags, etc)?

 

I, like Spyral, would like to issue a challenge to any MB in the DC/NOVA area. I have the privelage of owning an 05 M6 GTO. It does have the 6.0 so that should help even things up a little bit. I too will buy a beer for my competitor. Any takers? Jeremy

 

I would win! Enough Said