Ran down a Ferrari's poop'chute
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Ran down a Ferrari's poop'chute
Riding home from work in my stock W208 CLK 55 AMG on I95. I start to hear what sounds like an F1 type of sound coming from behind me. Glance back, HIDs low to the ground, drop top Ferrari flies by and slows to a crawl in front of me. I put down the cigarette I was about to light and
*Click* - S mode
*Flip* - ESP/TCS off
*Slap* - downshift 3rd
We clear a little traffic, by now he's in the right lane, me 2 lanes over, 1 car between us, and I see the open road ahead of the vehicle between. As anticipated dude in the Ferrari hits it, I hear the revs from his car, he jumps to the middle lane, I jump right behind him and we're off. As I squeeze the throttle I wonder if I even stand a chance...Oh well!? I hear his exhaust screaming higher and higher pitch as I slap 4th then D and reel in the a$$ end of this bright red poser mobile. Took me a few seconds, but I run up on his back bumper to the point where I can almost read the stamp on his muffler tips. I slide over to the next lane to pass him at about 130-140mph and of course he lets off. I let off too, pull up on the side of him and his tints are like negative 82 percent...can't see scheisse! I'm smiling of course as I'm sure he saw my face clearly. We slow to a cruise, he swurves into the far right lane flies by all traffic and gets off at the next exit.
Nobody believes this story since it was AN ALMIGHTY FERRARI. I looked it up the next day and I think it was probably a few years older something like a 360 or somethin like that 3.6L V8 convertible. I'm not into those high end cars, so I'm not very knowledgeable, but I know he got his a$$ handed to him by an ancient AMG!
http://images.google.com/images?um=1..._rfai=&start=0
*Click* - S mode
*Flip* - ESP/TCS off
*Slap* - downshift 3rd
We clear a little traffic, by now he's in the right lane, me 2 lanes over, 1 car between us, and I see the open road ahead of the vehicle between. As anticipated dude in the Ferrari hits it, I hear the revs from his car, he jumps to the middle lane, I jump right behind him and we're off. As I squeeze the throttle I wonder if I even stand a chance...Oh well!? I hear his exhaust screaming higher and higher pitch as I slap 4th then D and reel in the a$$ end of this bright red poser mobile. Took me a few seconds, but I run up on his back bumper to the point where I can almost read the stamp on his muffler tips. I slide over to the next lane to pass him at about 130-140mph and of course he lets off. I let off too, pull up on the side of him and his tints are like negative 82 percent...can't see scheisse! I'm smiling of course as I'm sure he saw my face clearly. We slow to a cruise, he swurves into the far right lane flies by all traffic and gets off at the next exit.
Nobody believes this story since it was AN ALMIGHTY FERRARI. I looked it up the next day and I think it was probably a few years older something like a 360 or somethin like that 3.6L V8 convertible. I'm not into those high end cars, so I'm not very knowledgeable, but I know he got his a$$ handed to him by an ancient AMG!
http://images.google.com/images?um=1..._rfai=&start=0
#3
my paper racing lol:
360 Spider: 400 hp, 275 tq, 3197 lb,...7.99 lb/hp; either a 6 spd manual or 6 spdauto, co-efficient of drag: 0.36, stock 1/4mile trap speeds ranging from 109 - 115 and running mid to high 12s....some with low 12s
CLK55: 342 hp, 376 tq, 3450 lb,..10.09 lb/hp; 5spd auto; coefficient of drag: 0.32; stock 1/4mile trap speeds ranging from 106 to 109.....running low to mid 13s....
with the torque advantage, i would not be shocked by any means to see a CLK55 pulling a 360 spider down low below 100. up top though, with the gearing and the lb/hp difference, i would say 9 times out of 10 a stock CLK55 doesn't pull on a stock 360 Modena Spider. its tough to believe, though with the tq difference and coefficient of drag difference, i'm sure its possible. additionally, if it was a 6spd manual, driver may have not been good.....nice kill either way! nothing like the element of surprise!
and for the record, the 360 modena coupes are about 100 less lbs, have a higher top speed of about 9 mph faster (189-190), have a drag coefficient of 0.32, and trap north of 117-118.
360 Spider: 400 hp, 275 tq, 3197 lb,...7.99 lb/hp; either a 6 spd manual or 6 spdauto, co-efficient of drag: 0.36, stock 1/4mile trap speeds ranging from 109 - 115 and running mid to high 12s....some with low 12s
CLK55: 342 hp, 376 tq, 3450 lb,..10.09 lb/hp; 5spd auto; coefficient of drag: 0.32; stock 1/4mile trap speeds ranging from 106 to 109.....running low to mid 13s....
with the torque advantage, i would not be shocked by any means to see a CLK55 pulling a 360 spider down low below 100. up top though, with the gearing and the lb/hp difference, i would say 9 times out of 10 a stock CLK55 doesn't pull on a stock 360 Modena Spider. its tough to believe, though with the tq difference and coefficient of drag difference, i'm sure its possible. additionally, if it was a 6spd manual, driver may have not been good.....nice kill either way! nothing like the element of surprise!
and for the record, the 360 modena coupes are about 100 less lbs, have a higher top speed of about 9 mph faster (189-190), have a drag coefficient of 0.32, and trap north of 117-118.
#4
how do you think a lotus gets by with such a small motor? its light weight. its all about that lb/hp ratio and other miscellaneous factors (COD, gearing/final drive, tq). its not all about the hp.
#5
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo
400hp at the crank can be a lot when the car ways just a smidge above 3000 lbs.
how do you think a lotus gets by with such a small motor? its light weight. its all about that lb/hp ratio and other miscellaneous factors (COD, gearing/final drive, tq). its not all about the hp.
how do you think a lotus gets by with such a small motor? its light weight. its all about that lb/hp ratio and other miscellaneous factors (COD, gearing/final drive, tq). its not all about the hp.
It is not all about HP, I concur and I know this very well. In fact, it's more about weight/whp. A 360 Spider will weigh in (curb weight) around 3200 and dyno around 325rwhp. Equally roughly 9.84:1.
Now I don't know much about 01 CLK55 AMGs, but I will assume they dyno around 300rwhp on a good day and make boatloads more torque but probably curb weigh in around 3450. So that is 11.5:1.
With that said, I believe in a legitimate race, the CLK55 would've lost to the 360. However, I believe that in this case, the OP probably took the 360 because the 360 may have been in an inappropriate gear for the speeds he was traveling (most likely one gear too high).
#6
This is the truth. I was just making generalizations at the point. In this day and age, 360s, as beautiful as they are, are considered dated in terms of performance.
It is not all about HP, I concur and I know this very well. In fact, it's more about weight/whp. A 360 Spider will weigh in (curb weight) around 3200 and dyno around 325rwhp. Equally roughly 9.84:1.
Now I don't know much about 01 CLK55 AMGs, but I will assume they dyno around 300rwhp on a good day and make boatloads more torque but probably curb weigh in around 3450. So that is 11.5:1.
With that said, I believe in a legitimate race, the CLK55 would've lost to the 360. However, I believe that in this case, the OP probably took the 360 because the 360 may have been in an inappropriate gear for the speeds he was traveling (most likely one gear too high).
It is not all about HP, I concur and I know this very well. In fact, it's more about weight/whp. A 360 Spider will weigh in (curb weight) around 3200 and dyno around 325rwhp. Equally roughly 9.84:1.
Now I don't know much about 01 CLK55 AMGs, but I will assume they dyno around 300rwhp on a good day and make boatloads more torque but probably curb weigh in around 3450. So that is 11.5:1.
With that said, I believe in a legitimate race, the CLK55 would've lost to the 360. However, I believe that in this case, the OP probably took the 360 because the 360 may have been in an inappropriate gear for the speeds he was traveling (most likely one gear too high).
Trending Topics
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: People's Republic of California (Southern Region)
Posts: 1,283
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C55 AMG, CLK550
Nice kill! Having had a couple of Ferraris I can tell you that some are REALLY not that fast and some are blindingly fast. You may not have the same results with a 288 GTO and above! Again, nice kill!
#10
Senior Member
Thread Starter
![word](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/werd.gif)
#11
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
I don't doubt it happened. But if 360s were REALLY that slow (driver mod) then it wouldn't have been a front runner (and winner) in SCCA T1 against LS2 C6s, C5Zs and restricted SRT10 Vipers...
#13
Senior Member
Thread Starter
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Long Island
Posts: 2,006
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'07 Porsche 997TT
if you've never driven one you should. Pretty sure you'll want one within 5 minutes. If you're fortunate to drive a 360 CS, you'll offer up a kidney on the spot.
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Nice run ! I always wanted a 360, its not about HP and speed.
Its all about the sound and the beauty ! Its a classic F car.
I am waiting for F430 which is much faster than 360 and much better in reliability.
Its all about the sound and the beauty ! Its a classic F car.
I am waiting for F430 which is much faster than 360 and much better in reliability.
#18
Nobody believes this story since it was AN ALMIGHTY FERRARI. I looked it up the next day and I think it was probably a few years older something like a 360 or somethin like that 3.6L V8 convertible. I'm not into those high end cars, so I'm not very knowledgeable, but I know he got his a$$ handed to him by an ancient AMG!
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...per_specs.html
F360 convertibles trap at 113+ (here's a road test of a Modena convertible that trapped at 113.5, and here's another that ran a 12.2 @ 115), only way you'd reel one of those in in a 208 is if it had a loose nut behind the wheel with a few screws loose who doesn't quite understand the concept of gearing.
The hardtop is even faster; Motorweek ran a 12.3 @ 119 in this one, and plenty of others were in the same range.
Last edited by Improviz; 04-20-2010 at 11:32 PM.
#19
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
The 360 isn't remotely close to a 119mph trap speed. Are there any other examples in that range?
#20
2006 Charger SRT8: 104 mph (others have gotten 3-5 mph faster):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2529a.shtml
2001 Z06: 113 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2002.shtml
2007 Z06/Viper/Gt500: 121/120/113 traps respectively:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2009 Camaro SS: 109 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2906a.shtml
2004 E55: 114 trap (most US mags got 115-116 in it):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2247.shtml
2005 M5: 117 mph:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2005 M6: 115 mph (slower than other publications):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2551a.shtml
2007 335i: 103 mph (several other mags have gotten 2-3 mph faster)
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2624b.shtml
2005 CL65 AMG: trap of 115 mph (other publications got this in a CL600, far less hp, and owners have trapped 120-ish in them as I recall):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2453.shtml
I could go on, but as you can see there are plenty of examples of them trapping the same, and slower, than other mags got. I know that in the 208 they trapped 107, right in there with what C&D/R&T/MT got...so while their F360 trap was definitely on the high side, I don't see it as fitting any pattern on their part, nor does a collective review of their tests indicate any pattern of excessive deviation on the high side from others' traps.
Perhaps here they had a factory freak (or a ringer), or maybe they just got a fantastic DA that day (not sure whether they correct or not).
Based upon its weight and hp, I calculate that it should run 115-116, so 119 is definitely on the high side, but 30 or so hp would get it there, not impossible for a handbuilt motor; further, one of the convertibles I linked to trapped at 115, and it's 150 pounds heavier than the coupe...their traps, though, seem to vary wildly based upon the different tests I've seen, so perhaps the QC isn't what it should be...
Anyway, even at the rated hp it should trap 115-116, which is still 8-10 mph faster than a 208 should run, so at those speeds it should pull a 208 pretty hard.
I'll have to look through some old mags when I get home, as there seems to be a dearth of tests for that thing online, at least using google....road & track got a far lower trap, 112.5, which is 3mph below what it should hit (but R&T doesn't correct their numbers and have trapped much lower than others in multiple cars as a result), but I know that other pubs got better than that, will have to look when I get home tonight.
Last edited by Improviz; 04-21-2010 at 03:46 PM.
#21
Senior Member
Thread Starter
I was expecting that much sooner
I doubt it, I'd much rather take the car in your sig
or a Supra. I'm not into Ferrari, Lambo, super high end stuff. Give me that old school Porsche or Supra w/ mods and I'll go hunting for the 100k + cars
![bow](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bowdown.gif)
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
#22
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AN7EmO38WE
Even with the 1 car jump, fully spooled 460whp, and me with an extra passenger, I pull him in by 120.
Exotics are fast when driven properly, 90% of the videos you see on YouTube are of fat bald guys driving beyond their skill level. I don't drive my cars like the 360 you raced.
![Stick Out Tongue](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/tongue.gif)
Last edited by Byzantine; 04-21-2010 at 09:45 PM.
#23
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
That may be true in some cases (as w/all mags), but on the whole in my experience they're not running consistently faster than other publications; in fact I've seen multiple examples on there that trapped lower than other tests, or the same. Examples:
2006 Charger SRT8: 104 mph (others have gotten 3-5 mph faster):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2529a.shtml
2001 Z06: 113 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2002.shtml
2007 Z06/Viper/Gt500: 121/120/113 traps respectively:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2009 Camaro SS: 109 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2906a.shtml
2004 E55: 114 trap (most US mags got 115-116 in it):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2247.shtml
2005 M5: 117 mph:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2005 M6: 115 mph (slower than other publications):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2551a.shtml
2007 335i: 103 mph (several other mags have gotten 2-3 mph faster)
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2624b.shtml
2005 CL65 AMG: trap of 115 mph (other publications got this in a CL600, far less hp, and owners have trapped 120-ish in them as I recall):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2453.shtml
2006 Charger SRT8: 104 mph (others have gotten 3-5 mph faster):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2529a.shtml
2001 Z06: 113 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2002.shtml
2007 Z06/Viper/Gt500: 121/120/113 traps respectively:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2009 Camaro SS: 109 trap:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2906a.shtml
2004 E55: 114 trap (most US mags got 115-116 in it):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2247.shtml
2005 M5: 117 mph:
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2625a.shtml
2005 M6: 115 mph (slower than other publications):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2551a.shtml
2007 335i: 103 mph (several other mags have gotten 2-3 mph faster)
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2624b.shtml
2005 CL65 AMG: trap of 115 mph (other publications got this in a CL600, far less hp, and owners have trapped 120-ish in them as I recall):
http://www.mpt.org/motorweek/reviews/rt2453.shtml
Perhaps here they had a factory freak (or a ringer), or maybe they just got a fantastic DA that day (not sure whether they correct or not).
Based upon its weight and hp, I calculate that it should run 115-116, so 119 is definitely on the high side, but 30 or so hp would get it there, not impossible for a handbuilt motor; further, one of the convertibles I linked to trapped at 115, and it's 150 pounds heavier than the coupe...their traps, though, seem to vary wildly based upon the different tests I've seen, so perhaps the QC isn't what it should be...
Anyway, even at the rated hp it should trap 115-116, which is still 8-10 mph faster than a 208 should run, so at those speeds it should pull a 208 pretty hard.
Anyway, even at the rated hp it should trap 115-116, which is still 8-10 mph faster than a 208 should run, so at those speeds it should pull a 208 pretty hard.
I'll have to look through some old mags when I get home, as there seems to be a dearth of tests for that thing online, at least using google....road & track got a far lower trap, 112.5, which is 3mph below what it should hit (but R&T doesn't correct their numbers and have trapped much lower than others in multiple cars as a result), but I know that other pubs got better than that, will have to look when I get home tonight.
#24
Afaik the mags generally use the averaging method, even when they use the GPS-based test systems.
Nope, that's Car & Driver:
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/08q3/how_does_c_d_test_cars_-info.
Originally Posted by Car & Driver
At the test site we measure humidity, barometric pressure, and temperature. To eliminate the effects of weather on performance, we employ proprietary empirical correction factors to adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi and 60 degrees Fahrenheit using PsyCalc 98 software (www.linric.com) to crunch the weather data. Since cars run best in cold dense air, our correction tends to add time to results generated in low-temperature, high-pressure conditions and subtract time from hot-weather, low-pressure tests. To cancel the effects of the wind, all acceleration tests are run in both directions; the best runs in each direction are then averaged.
http://www.roadandtrack.com/tests/car/how_we_test
Originally Posted by Road & Track
The single most telling quantitative metric we use that displays effective power a car makes (or how well it uses that power) is acceleration testing. We report standing-start times to speeds of up to 130 mph and time-to-distance figures of 100 ft., 500 ft., 900 ft., and 1320 ft. (a quarter mile). Although we record the ambient conditions at the time of testing, we do not adjust our figures to compensate for temperature, humidity, elevation and the like.
Last edited by Improviz; 04-22-2010 at 12:24 PM.