w211 E55 VS CLK550 with exhaust
12-21-2009, 12:21 PM
#226
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
The other thing is that to get that 60' time you're mentioning would take lots of experience at a strip, and he's never ever mentioned going to a strip before now, so I'm extremely doubtful that he's got the experience to do this; as much as he yaks about his car and his kills, it's inconceivable to me that he wouldn't have mentioned this before now.
Do you think he actually did it? If so, do you think it's plausible that he never mentioned it before, lost the slip, didn't videotape it, and won't discuss the trap, or the track, or when he did it?
Because if you do, I've got a great land deal for you in FL right now.
Last edited by Improviz; 12-21-2009 at 12:26 PM.
12-21-2009, 12:29 PM
#228
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-21-2009, 12:57 PM
#229
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-21-2009, 03:32 PM
#231
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
Well, that's the thing. The E550 times/traps are all over the map (read back through the thread), and so it's far from certain as to whether any given CLK550 would trap that fast. With a strong motor (around 405-410 crank) it's not inconceivable for a car that'd probably be around 3950 or so w/driver, but at rated horsepower it wouldn't trap that fast.
The other thing is that to get that 60' time you're mentioning would take lots of experience at a strip, and he's never ever mentioned going to a strip before now, so I'm extremely doubtful that he's got the experience to do this; as much as he yaks about his car and his kills, it's inconceivable to me that he wouldn't have mentioned this before now.
Do you think he actually did it? If so, do you think it's plausible that he never mentioned it before, lost the slip, didn't videotape it, and won't discuss the trap, or the track, or when he did it?
Because if you do, I've got a great land deal for you in FL right now.
The other thing is that to get that 60' time you're mentioning would take lots of experience at a strip, and he's never ever mentioned going to a strip before now, so I'm extremely doubtful that he's got the experience to do this; as much as he yaks about his car and his kills, it's inconceivable to me that he wouldn't have mentioned this before now.
Do you think he actually did it? If so, do you think it's plausible that he never mentioned it before, lost the slip, didn't videotape it, and won't discuss the trap, or the track, or when he did it?
Because if you do, I've got a great land deal for you in FL right now.
1.9x
And a higher stall torque converter..... a 1.800 is spectacular on street tires for that car though....
Last edited by Deuuuce; 12-21-2009 at 03:38 PM.
12-21-2009, 03:48 PM
#232
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
One test doth not a norm establish. You can't take the fastest test and use it to establish a norm. You can't take the slowest test and use it to establish a norm. And the trap speeds were:
105.3
103.7
106
108.1
Average there is 105.76.
Great. And what evidence or reason to believe do you have that BLKCLK550 is capable of hitting a 1.9x 60' time in a CLK550, which FYI has 245 series rear tires and NO LSD with close to 400 lb-ft? That's a pretty stellar time for a CLK550, or CLK55.
Considering that this guy doesn't even have a slip, won't discuss his trap, location of track, date of run, or 60' time, and never wrote of this stellar run in these forums even though he's posted multiple kill stories against Nissans and all sorts of other tripe, you sure seem to be willing to grant hiim a helluvalot of credibliity that he hasn't earned imo. Why?
Show me a slip of any CLK550 or E550 cutting a 1.9x 60' time, and then we'll talk.
Last edited by Improviz; 12-21-2009 at 04:02 PM.
12-21-2009, 06:39 PM
#233
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
[QUOTE=Improviz;3863573]
There is no norm. You can only take the fastest and use that as benchmark. Heatsoak, poor knowledge of vehicle controls, DA and everything else (not to mention sometimes dubious sources) are hardly worth mentioning.
Isn't the E550 heavier anyway? Are there any gearing differences vs. the CLK550?
245s are plenty wide enough for a 1.9x 60ft, lots of mid-13 cars can cut those times including less powerful (albeit lighter) Fbodies. No LSD has absolutely nothing to do with a properly launched street car 60ft either. A heavier, less powerful pre-09 Charger R/T is a perfect example
I don't believe him either, but what the car is capable of is another matter.
No. As I said, if you look at the different tests done by different publications, trap speeds are as low as 103.7 and as high as 108.
One test doth not a norm establish. You can't take the fastest test and use it to establish a norm. You can't take the slowest test and use it to establish a norm. And the trap speeds were:
105.3
103.7
106
108.1
Average there is 105.76.
One test doth not a norm establish. You can't take the fastest test and use it to establish a norm. You can't take the slowest test and use it to establish a norm. And the trap speeds were:
105.3
103.7
106
108.1
Average there is 105.76.
Isn't the E550 heavier anyway? Are there any gearing differences vs. the CLK550?
Great. And what evidence or reason to believe do you have that BLKCLK550 is capable of hitting a 1.9x 60' time in a CLK550, which FYI has 245 series rear tires and NO LSD with close to 400 lb-ft? That's a pretty stellar time for a CLK550, or CLK55.
Considering that this guy doesn't even have a slip, won't discuss his trap, location of track, date of run, or 60' time, and never wrote of this stellar run in these forums even though he's posted multiple kill stories against Nissans and all sorts of other tripe, you sure seem to be willing to grant hiim a helluvalot of credibliity that he hasn't earned imo. Why?
Show me a slip of any CLK550 or E550 cutting a 1.9x 60' time, and then we'll talk.
Show me a slip of any CLK550 or E550 cutting a 1.9x 60' time, and then we'll talk.
12-21-2009, 06:55 PM
#234
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Sure you do, but yet you choose to post solely about your CLK and fail to mention this unseen M6 in your initial posts, signature etc. Post pictures, please. Better yet, if it's "fast" which I take to mean modded, I assume you know Eloy at RPi? A lot of the north east guys order from there.
Out of interest, what allows your M6 to "shut down" an M5? The 100lb (~2.5%) weight difference is often offset by driver weight, driver skill or the variances in individual engine power from the factory.
Again, from a highway roll I don't need slicks and neither does an E/CLS55 so a CLK550 certainly does not.
Out of interest, what allows your M6 to "shut down" an M5? The 100lb (~2.5%) weight difference is often offset by driver weight, driver skill or the variances in individual engine power from the factory.
Again, from a highway roll I don't need slicks and neither does an E/CLS55 so a CLK550 certainly does not.
12-21-2009, 07:05 PM
#235
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
There is no norm. You can only take the fastest and use that as benchmark. Heatsoak, poor knowledge of vehicle controls, DA and everything else (not to mention sometimes dubious sources) are hardly worth mentioning.
Isn't the E550 heavier anyway? Are there any gearing differences vs. the CLK550?
Isn't the E550 heavier anyway? Are there any gearing differences vs. the CLK550?
As to benchmark, I'd need you to elaborate on that. If you mean the bestest of the lot, yes. If you mean a yardstick which all examples should be capable of meeting, absolutely not. There are production tolerances in every component in the engine on back, and so some will be hotter than others, which shows up in the tests. 108.1 was the fastest one of the four, but clearly after multiple runs (these are not single-run tests, the results are "best of" multiple runs after all) on the other three cars, they were unable to hit that, or even a 107, and that was with two of the four being run by the same publication. And the only Euro test I could find of an E550 also points to a trap in this range, hitting 0-100 in 12.3:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...1lim2006-1.htm
Test in ams 12/2006
Gewicht 1835 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,6 s
So, to get to 160 km/h (=100 mph), it took 12.3. This is right in line with the results Motor Trend got:
0-100 12
Quarter mile 13.4 sec @ 105.3 mph
Also, the Euro results for the CLK550 were in agreement with those of the E550:
CLK550 test in ams Jahrbuch, 2008
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...c2092007-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
So now out of five E550 examples, two are in the 105 range, one in the 104, one in the 106, and one hit 108. And the one CLK550 for which I've been able to find an instrumented test is in lockstep with the midpoint.
So what we can say is that the odds are pretty good that most of them would be in the 105-107 range, with a few outliers out beyond that. *Clearly* no threat to any of the 55k cars, or the newer 6.3L cars either.
245s are plenty wide enough for a 1.9x 60ft, lots of mid-13 cars can cut those times including less powerful (albeit lighter) Fbodies. No LSD has absolutely nothing to do with a properly launched street car 60ft either. A heavier, less powerful pre-09 Charger R/T is a perfect example
As to the car, what it is capable of is what it can do, and I haven't seen any evidence of one cutting a 1.9 60'. If I do, I'll recant.
12-21-2009, 07:08 PM
#236
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Sure you do, but yet you choose to post solely about your CLK and fail to mention this unseen M6 in your initial posts, signature etc. Post pictures, please. Better yet, if it's "fast" which I take to mean modded, I assume you know Eloy at RPi? A lot of the north east guys order from there.
Out of interest, what allows your M6 to "shut down" an M5? The 100lb (~2.5%) weight difference is often offset by driver weight, driver skill or the variances in individual engine power from the factory.
Again, from a highway roll I don't need slicks and neither does an E/CLS55 so a CLK550 certainly does not.
Out of interest, what allows your M6 to "shut down" an M5? The 100lb (~2.5%) weight difference is often offset by driver weight, driver skill or the variances in individual engine power from the factory.
Again, from a highway roll I don't need slicks and neither does an E/CLS55 so a CLK550 certainly does not.
I mean, seriously: why would anyone who has an M6 want to spend so much time bragging about his CLK550 kills, videotaping them and everything, without ever mentioning the M6, or posting a single kill story about that car??
12-21-2009, 07:10 PM
#237
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
I did do research. I did tons of it when I had my CLK55, in fact. That's how I know Car & Driver's 5-60 time for a 208 CLK55 like yours, which FYI was 5.2, not 4.6.
I also did research in terms of knowing that you're cherry picking a freakishly fast 209, of which no other tested example hit those numbers; for example, this 209 CLK55, which C&D tested, didn't come **CLOSE** to the numbers you're claiming for it as routine and normal (we'll do the 209 too, just to be thorough, but here's a teaser):
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 20.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 30.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.2 sec @ 107 mph
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 5.0 sec. a tad bit slower than 4.6?
But hey, you want to talk numbers for the 208 CLK55, which is what you've got, by golly, let's "do some research" and roll them ALL out:
Car & Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests
0-60: 5.0
0-100: 12.2
5-60: 5.2 (a far cry from 4.6)
1/4 mi: 13.6 @ 106
Road & Track (2001 road test, their website is screwed up so I had to look it up hard copy):
0-60: 5.3
0-100: 12.4
1/4 mi: 13.7 @ 105.6
Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/.../features.html
0-60: 5.36
0-90: 10.77
0-100: n/a
1/4 mi: 13.60 @ 104.98
Cab:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...car_price.html
0-60: 5.23
0-100: n/a
1/4 mi: 13.74/104.44
Edmunds.com:
http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-b...clk55-amg.html
0-60: 5.0
0-100: n/a
1/4: 13.48 @ 106.3
Motorweek.com:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2025.shtml
0-60: 5.2
0-100: n/a
1/4: 13.4 @ 107
So by no means do these numbers, in aggrate, point to a 4.6 second 5-60 run, or anything close to it.
So how about the European press? How did they do in the 208 CLK55?
Well, let's look, shall we?
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/clk55amg1998-1.htm
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
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...mgst2000-1.htm
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/clk55amg2002-1.htm
Test in sport auto 12/2002
Gewicht 1698 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,7 s
Hmm, given that 100 km/h is 62 mph, and 160 is 100 mph, those numbers look pretty close to the American tests!! And THEY don't point to a 4.6 second 5-60 run either.
So, how about the 209 CLK55:
Car & Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 20.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 30.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.2 sec @ 107 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...4f58116c18.pdf
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 11.0
5-60: 4.6
1/4 mi: 13.1 @ 109
Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
0-60: 4.9
1/4 mile: 13.24 @ 107.41
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
0-60: 4.8
0-100: 11.5
1/4 mi: 13.14 @ 108.07
So there's the data. Most of the 208's ran in the 106-107 range, with a few in the 104-105 range. Same for the 209: most were in the 107-108 range, with the fastest one running the 109 and 4.6 5-60.
But given that there are 9 tests of the 208 CLK55 and none of them ran anywhere close to the fastest 209. So frankly, the data you urged me to "research" IN NO WAY points to a 4.6 sec 5-60 run as being "the norm", even for a 209, and DEFINITELY not for a 208. And taking the one that's the fastest by a large margin and trying to hold this up as the norm is also pretty dumb, as the data show that the norm is not even in this ballpark for a 208.
Keep dreaming, jon...from what I've read, you're a pretty good dreamer. Posting dyno results that a tuner told you were basically suspect, wild kill stories about pulling an E90 M3 up past 130 mph, supercharged Mustangs, etc. etc. etc...
I also did research in terms of knowing that you're cherry picking a freakishly fast 209, of which no other tested example hit those numbers; for example, this 209 CLK55, which C&D tested, didn't come **CLOSE** to the numbers you're claiming for it as routine and normal (we'll do the 209 too, just to be thorough, but here's a teaser):
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 20.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 30.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.2 sec @ 107 mph
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't 5.0 sec. a tad bit slower than 4.6?
But hey, you want to talk numbers for the 208 CLK55, which is what you've got, by golly, let's "do some research" and roll them ALL out:
Car & Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mparison_tests
0-60: 5.0
0-100: 12.2
5-60: 5.2 (a far cry from 4.6)
1/4 mi: 13.6 @ 106
Road & Track (2001 road test, their website is screwed up so I had to look it up hard copy):
0-60: 5.3
0-100: 12.4
1/4 mi: 13.7 @ 105.6
Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/.../features.html
0-60: 5.36
0-90: 10.77
0-100: n/a
1/4 mi: 13.60 @ 104.98
Cab:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...car_price.html
0-60: 5.23
0-100: n/a
1/4 mi: 13.74/104.44
Edmunds.com:
http://www.insideline.com/mercedes-b...clk55-amg.html
0-60: 5.0
0-100: n/a
1/4: 13.48 @ 106.3
Motorweek.com:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2025.shtml
0-60: 5.2
0-100: n/a
1/4: 13.4 @ 107
So by no means do these numbers, in aggrate, point to a 4.6 second 5-60 run, or anything close to it.
So how about the European press? How did they do in the 208 CLK55?
Well, let's look, shall we?
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/clk55amg1998-1.htm
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
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...mgst2000-1.htm
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/clk55amg2002-1.htm
Test in sport auto 12/2002
Gewicht 1698 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 18,7 s
Hmm, given that 100 km/h is 62 mph, and 160 is 100 mph, those numbers look pretty close to the American tests!! And THEY don't point to a 4.6 second 5-60 run either.
So, how about the 209 CLK55:
Car & Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
Zero to 60 mph: 4.7 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 11.3 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 20.2 sec
Zero to 150 mph: 30.5 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 13.2 sec @ 107 mph
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...4f58116c18.pdf
0-60: 4.5
0-100: 11.0
5-60: 4.6
1/4 mi: 13.1 @ 109
Motor Trend:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
0-60: 4.9
1/4 mile: 13.24 @ 107.41
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
0-60: 4.8
0-100: 11.5
1/4 mi: 13.14 @ 108.07
So there's the data. Most of the 208's ran in the 106-107 range, with a few in the 104-105 range. Same for the 209: most were in the 107-108 range, with the fastest one running the 109 and 4.6 5-60.
But given that there are 9 tests of the 208 CLK55 and none of them ran anywhere close to the fastest 209. So frankly, the data you urged me to "research" IN NO WAY points to a 4.6 sec 5-60 run as being "the norm", even for a 209, and DEFINITELY not for a 208. And taking the one that's the fastest by a large margin and trying to hold this up as the norm is also pretty dumb, as the data show that the norm is not even in this ballpark for a 208.
Keep dreaming, jon...from what I've read, you're a pretty good dreamer. Posting dyno results that a tuner told you were basically suspect, wild kill stories about pulling an E90 M3 up past 130 mph, supercharged Mustangs, etc. etc. etc...
12-21-2009, 07:34 PM
#240
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 1,762
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
04 w211 E55
Till now I have settled the E55 vs M5 debate and the E55 vs C63 debate ( all stock form ).....Didn't expect this 1 but hey its all fun and games and we are all car enthusiats
.
12-21-2009, 07:44 PM
#241
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
I'm working on a run with the CLK550 so hopefully by the end of this week we can get a couple of runs in and I will post it up with video. You guys can keep the debate on for the next couple of days or you guys can wait for the footage.
Till now I have settled the E55 vs M5 debate and the E55 vs C63 debate ( all stock form ).....Didn't expect this 1 but hey its all fun and games and we are all car enthusiats.
Till now I have settled the E55 vs M5 debate and the E55 vs C63 debate ( all stock form ).....Didn't expect this 1 but hey its all fun and games and we are all car enthusiats
.
12-21-2009, 07:46 PM
#242
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
I'm working on a run with the CLK550 so hopefully by the end of this week we can get a couple of runs in and I will post it up with video. You guys can keep the debate on for the next couple of days or you guys can wait for the footage.
Till now I have settled the E55 vs M5 debate and the E55 vs C63 debate ( all stock form ).....Didn't expect this 1 but hey its all fun and games and we are all car enthusiats.
Till now I have settled the E55 vs M5 debate and the E55 vs C63 debate ( all stock form ).....Didn't expect this 1 but hey its all fun and games and we are all car enthusiats
.
12-21-2009, 08:07 PM
#243
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Also, while we're calling races out, I'd like to throw another chip on the table, since you saw fit to start arguing with me for no apparent reason in this thread. You claim to have beaten an E90 M3 all the way up past 130.
Would you like to arrange a little videotaped run against one to prove this? Because from where I sit, that story is a crock of *****. And I'm getting tired of you yapping, let's see some bite.
Just say the word, and I'll head over to the M3 forums and try to round up a volunteer. Put up, or shut up.
12-21-2009, 08:16 PM
#244
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Not fast enough. And you *saying* your car can run a 4.6 5-60 isn't the same as doing it. The car that ran the 4.6 is a different car, a 209 CLK55. It has a different axle ratio than your 208. It has more rated horsepower. It is heavier, which helps traction. It is not the same car. Sheesh....do, as you put it, some research.
Also, while we're calling races out, I'd like to throw another chip on the table, since you saw fit to start arguing with me for no apparent reason in this thread. You claim to have beaten an E90 M3 all the way up past 130.
Would you like to arrange a little videotaped run against one to prove this? Because from where I sit, that story is a crock of *****. And I'm getting tired of you yapping, let's see some bite.
Just say the word, and I'll head over to the M3 forums and try to round up a volunteer. Put up, or shut up.
Also, while we're calling races out, I'd like to throw another chip on the table, since you saw fit to start arguing with me for no apparent reason in this thread. You claim to have beaten an E90 M3 all the way up past 130.
Would you like to arrange a little videotaped run against one to prove this? Because from where I sit, that story is a crock of *****. And I'm getting tired of you yapping, let's see some bite.
Just say the word, and I'll head over to the M3 forums and try to round up a volunteer. Put up, or shut up.
12-21-2009, 08:19 PM
#245
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-21-2009, 08:24 PM
#246
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Desert
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
02 CLK 55 AMG,09 C63 loaded with P30
Not fast enough. And you *saying* your car can run a 4.6 5-60 isn't the same as doing it. The car that ran the 4.6 is a different car, a 209 CLK55. It has a different axle ratio than your 208. It has more rated horsepower. It is heavier, which helps traction. It is not the same car. Sheesh....do, as you put it, some research.
Also, while we're calling races out, I'd like to throw another chip on the table, since you saw fit to start arguing with me for no apparent reason in this thread. You claim to have beaten an E90 M3 all the way up past 130.
Would you like to arrange a little videotaped run against one to prove this? Because from where I sit, that story is a crock of *****. And I'm getting tired of you yapping, let's see some bite.
Just say the word, and I'll head over to the M3 forums and try to round up a volunteer. Put up, or shut up.
Also, while we're calling races out, I'd like to throw another chip on the table, since you saw fit to start arguing with me for no apparent reason in this thread. You claim to have beaten an E90 M3 all the way up past 130.
Would you like to arrange a little videotaped run against one to prove this? Because from where I sit, that story is a crock of *****. And I'm getting tired of you yapping, let's see some bite.
Just say the word, and I'll head over to the M3 forums and try to round up a volunteer. Put up, or shut up.
12-21-2009, 08:30 PM
#248
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
The E550 is about 160 pounds heavier. Gearing is the same.
As to benchmark, I'd need you to elaborate on that. If you mean the bestest of the lot, yes. If you mean a yardstick which all examples should be capable of meeting, absolutely not. There are production tolerances in every component in the engine on back, and so some will be hotter than others, which shows up in the tests. 108.1 was the fastest one of the four, but clearly after multiple runs (these are not single-run tests, the results are "best of" multiple runs after all) on the other three cars, they were unable to hit that, or even a 107, and that was with two of the four being run by the same publication. And the only Euro test I could find of an E550 also points to a trap in this range, hitting 0-100 in 12.3:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...1lim2006-1.htm
Test in ams 12/2006
Gewicht 1835 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,6 s
So, to get to 160 km/h (=100 mph), it took 12.3. This is right in line with the results Motor Trend got:
0-100 12
Quarter mile 13.4 sec @ 105.3 mph
Also, the Euro results for the CLK550 were in agreement with those of the E550:
CLK550 test in ams Jahrbuch, 2008
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...c2092007-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
So now out of five E550 examples, two are in the 105 range, one in the 104, one in the 106, and one hit 108. And the one CLK550 for which I've been able to find an instrumented test is in lockstep with the midpoint.
So what we can say is that the odds are pretty good that most of them would be in the 105-107 range, with a few outliers out beyond that. *Clearly* no threat to any of the 55k cars, or the newer 6.3L cars either.
Heavier cars have more downforce, which aids traction and thus 60' time. And having driven both LSD and non-LSD equipped cars of the same model, I'd disagree with you about LSD helping on launch. I'll look around and try to find some quantifiable info on this...stay tuned.
Well, nice to know we agree on that.
As to the car, what it is capable of is what it can do, and I haven't seen any evidence of one cutting a 1.9 60'. If I do, I'll recant.
As to benchmark, I'd need you to elaborate on that. If you mean the bestest of the lot, yes. If you mean a yardstick which all examples should be capable of meeting, absolutely not. There are production tolerances in every component in the engine on back, and so some will be hotter than others, which shows up in the tests. 108.1 was the fastest one of the four, but clearly after multiple runs (these are not single-run tests, the results are "best of" multiple runs after all) on the other three cars, they were unable to hit that, or even a 107, and that was with two of the four being run by the same publication. And the only Euro test I could find of an E550 also points to a trap in this range, hitting 0-100 in 12.3:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...1lim2006-1.htm
Test in ams 12/2006
Gewicht 1835 kg
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,6 s
So, to get to 160 km/h (=100 mph), it took 12.3. This is right in line with the results Motor Trend got:
0-100 12
Quarter mile 13.4 sec @ 105.3 mph
Also, the Euro results for the CLK550 were in agreement with those of the E550:
CLK550 test in ams Jahrbuch, 2008
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...c2092007-1.htm
0 - 80 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 7,3 s
0 - 130 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 9,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 12,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 15,2 s
So now out of five E550 examples, two are in the 105 range, one in the 104, one in the 106, and one hit 108. And the one CLK550 for which I've been able to find an instrumented test is in lockstep with the midpoint.
So what we can say is that the odds are pretty good that most of them would be in the 105-107 range, with a few outliers out beyond that. *Clearly* no threat to any of the 55k cars, or the newer 6.3L cars either.
Heavier cars have more downforce, which aids traction and thus 60' time. And having driven both LSD and non-LSD equipped cars of the same model, I'd disagree with you about LSD helping on launch. I'll look around and try to find some quantifiable info on this...stay tuned.
Well, nice to know we agree on that.
As to the car, what it is capable of is what it can do, and I haven't seen any evidence of one cutting a 1.9 60'. If I do, I'll recant.
12-21-2009, 11:46 PM
#249
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Now, if you've got some way to prove that your car can do this other than citing a test of a different model, then prove it. Otherwise, all you've got are your usual bluster and idiotic banter.
12-22-2009, 12:01 AM
#250
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Power to weight and gearing would point to the capability of the higher trap speeds. Regarding the LSD, on street cars with street tires, it helps with uneven traction, but it will not decrease the 60ft time of an identical non-LSD car unless excess slippage occurs. IF that happens, the launch is effectively "blown" vs. what the car is capable of. This applies to a decently prepped surface.
Um, you *want* some slip for optimal 60' times, and if there's *any* slip, the LSD will engage and transfer power to the non-slipping tire, while an open diff will transfer *all* of the power to the spinning wheel. It's not a microcontroller, it's a clutch pack, and has no way of measuring slip. If it starts to slip, it engages.
And since it will engage and transfer power, it's going to help you get launch traction.
Eaton sells them, and here's what they have to say on their site:
Eaton limited slip differentials like the Posi and Detroit Locker dominate the performance market as the choice of professional racers in NASCAR, NHRA, IHRA, CORR, NMRA, NMCA and other racing associations.
Why do you suppose they'd use them if they didn't help?
And then there's this little nugget. Import Tuner magazine tested a car with open diff, then after installing a limited slip diff. Guess what happened to its 60' time?
To find out, we hit the dyno and drag strip for two days with our Project DC2 Integra. We tested the car with its stock open differential, first on the Dynojet dyno rollers of MD Automotive in Westminster, CA, then at the 1/8 th-mile drag strip at Irwindale, CA's Toyota Speedway. Day Two saw us repeat the previous battery of tests, only with a Wavetrac LSD installed. Here's what we found:
DC2
OPEN DIFF WAVETRAC LSD
R/T 1.049 1.194
60' 2.533 2.201
330 6.702 6.359
1/8 10.150 9.801
MPH 71.27 72.05
The Verdict:
Averaging the three mean dyno and 1/8 th-mile runs from each test, our DC2 registered only negligible power and torque losses-which could be attributed to the slightly added mass of the Wavetrac's reinforced internals, if not ambient air temps, vehicle tie-downs, etc. On the strip, there was no question: quicker 60-foot times signified the Wavetrac at work, and quicker E.T.s and faster trap speeds showed that it didn't cost us noticeable power
DC2
OPEN DIFF WAVETRAC LSD
R/T 1.049 1.194
60' 2.533 2.201
330 6.702 6.359
1/8 10.150 9.801
MPH 71.27 72.05
The Verdict:
Averaging the three mean dyno and 1/8 th-mile runs from each test, our DC2 registered only negligible power and torque losses-which could be attributed to the slightly added mass of the Wavetrac's reinforced internals, if not ambient air temps, vehicle tie-downs, etc. On the strip, there was no question: quicker 60-foot times signified the Wavetrac at work, and quicker E.T.s and faster trap speeds showed that it didn't cost us noticeable power
Interesting. How do you explain these results?
Last edited by Improviz; 12-22-2009 at 12:56 AM.
