Kill Stories Discuss your exciting high speed excursions here!

Ran down a Ferrari's poop'chute

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 04-18-2010, 03:29 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
howie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 954
Posts: 302
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
01 CLK 55 AMG
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
Old 04-18-2010, 07:12 PM
  #2  
Newbie
 
Byzantine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo
Good kill, but unfortunately, Ferrari's are that not fast, especially not the 360's. They only make around 400hp to the crank.
Old 04-18-2010, 07:57 PM
  #3  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
jturkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,856
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
02 C32 AMG
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.
Old 04-18-2010, 07:59 PM
  #4  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
jturkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,856
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
02 C32 AMG
Originally Posted by Byzantine
Good kill, but unfortunately, Ferrari's are that not fast, especially not the 360's. They only make around 400hp to the crank.
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.
Old 04-18-2010, 08:10 PM
  #5  
Newbie
 
Byzantine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo
Originally Posted by jturkel
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.
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).
Old 04-18-2010, 08:49 PM
  #6  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
jturkel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 4,856
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
02 C32 AMG
Originally Posted by Byzantine
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).
well put. as far as what clk55s dyno, i think they are in the 260-280 range, depending on dyno (i've seen 260 from a dyno dynamics and some in the 275 ranges on a dynojet)
Old 04-18-2010, 09:41 PM
  #7  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
gaazmon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,002
Received 47 Likes on 41 Posts
2009 SL550 Roadster Diamond White, 2008 CLK550 Coupe Obsidian Black
nice story
Old 04-19-2010, 10:58 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
DarrenCT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i drive an ///M6
nice run.... i had a similar story when i had my 01 clk55.... (vs a 360) very close race.... i won. but we backed off by 120......
Old 04-19-2010, 12:36 PM
  #9  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
F1Bobby's Avatar
 
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!
Old 04-19-2010, 12:54 PM
  #10  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
howie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 954
Posts: 302
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
01 CLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by Byzantine
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).
I didn't hear him change gears at all, his exhaust just kept screaming higher and higher pitch like a bike.
Old 04-20-2010, 12:33 PM
  #11  
Super Member
 
Deuuuce's Avatar
 
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...
Old 04-20-2010, 12:53 PM
  #12  
Banned
 
badblackbenz550's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
benzo larenzo
NICE NICE =d
Old 04-20-2010, 03:03 PM
  #13  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
howie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 954
Posts: 302
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
01 CLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
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...
I think u meant to say if CLKs were really that fast
Old 04-20-2010, 03:15 PM
  #14  
Banned
 
badblackbenz550's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
benzo larenzo
I will be looking for some 360's so i can surprise them with my " Milf Mobile" as my friends call it =D
Old 04-20-2010, 04:57 PM
  #15  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
cte430's Avatar
 
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.
Old 04-20-2010, 06:09 PM
  #16  
Super Member
 
Deuuuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
Almost forgot - tailgating at triple digits is really effin' stupid...
Old 04-20-2010, 06:47 PM
  #17  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
CharlyE500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Socal, Chino
Posts: 4,400
Received 58 Likes on 46 Posts
E55 2006 / CLS55 / S450 / Jag XKR2011
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.
Old 04-20-2010, 11:29 PM
  #18  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Improviz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by howie
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!
It was probably an F355, not a 360. They look very much alike, but the 360 is much faster. F355 ragtop vs a CLK55 would be a closer matchup:
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.
Old 04-21-2010, 02:15 AM
  #19  
Super Member
 
Deuuuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by Improviz
The hardtop is even faster; Motorweek ran a 12.3 @ 119 in, and plenty of others were in the same range.
Motorweek, due to testing procedures, is notoriously high in trap speeds by 3-4 mph sometimes. Beyond what is achievable by a stock car.

The 360 isn't remotely close to a 119mph trap speed. Are there any other examples in that range?
Old 04-21-2010, 11:16 AM
  #20  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Improviz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Motorweek, due to testing procedures, is notoriously high in trap speeds by 3-4 mph sometimes. Beyond what is achievable by a stock car.
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

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).

Originally Posted by Deuuuce
The 360 isn't remotely close to a 119mph trap speed.
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.

Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Are there any other examples in that range?
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.
Old 04-21-2010, 11:46 AM
  #21  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
howie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 954
Posts: 302
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
01 CLK 55 AMG
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Almost forgot - tailgating at triple digits is really effin' stupid...
I was expecting that much sooner

Originally Posted by cte430
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.
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
Old 04-21-2010, 09:41 PM
  #22  
Newbie
 
Byzantine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Jersey
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lamborghini Gallardo
Originally Posted by howie
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
Haha, this is what happens to Supras in my 100k + cars.

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.

Last edited by Byzantine; 04-21-2010 at 09:45 PM.
Old 04-21-2010, 09:59 PM
  #23  
Super Member
 
Deuuuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
Originally Posted by Improviz
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
That's good data, thanks. I do know of some examples that were simply impossible such as the G8 GXP, 112mph iirc, Honda Del Sol from years back. A friend wrote to them complaining about a BMW or Porsche test too. They have some huge swings, that's for sure.

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).
I was thinking - if they don't calculate the average speed in the last 60ft, and a shift is needed, would that throw it off much?


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.
Did you happen to notice any differences between manual and paddle shift cars?

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.
I thought R&T did correct their numbers, no?
Old 04-21-2010, 11:57 PM
  #24  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Improviz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Deuuuce
That's good data, thanks. I do know of some examples that were simply impossible such as the G8 GXP, 112mph iirc, Honda Del Sol from years back. A friend wrote to them complaining about a BMW or Porsche test too. They have some huge swings, that's for sure.
They do, which leads me to believe that they don't correct, which would explain some cars testing faster, others testing slower, though that wouldn't explain a GXP hitting 112 (but Pontiac has a history of providing ringers; once in the 60's they gave the mags a GTO with a full race motor in place of the stocker)...

Originally Posted by Deuuuce
I was thinking - if they don't calculate the average speed in the last 60ft, and a shift is needed, would that throw it off much?
Well, there are two methods, one as is done at true drag strips where the avg is calculated, the other where the actual terminal velocity is calculated; the latter will normally give faster traps, unless maybe someone was a horrendous shifter and as a result slowed down somehow at the very end.

Afaik the mags generally use the averaging method, even when they use the GPS-based test systems.

Originally Posted by Deuuuce
Did you happen to notice any differences between manual and paddle shift cars?
Didn't get the chance to check. I know that both of the MW cars were sequential manuals, and I believe that the MT car was a manual, let me check...yup, it was. Maybe the sequentials trap a bit better, dunno, not enough data points unfortunately....hold up, let me check the European site...OK, they've got two tests, both manuals, both hit 0-200 km/h in 16.1 / 16.4, in the same range as the C5 Z06 and C6 6M, both of which were in the mid-16 range, so I'd figure that a 6M 360 should probably be pretty comparable in terms of acceleration to those...but they don't have any sequentials (other than the Challenge Stradale, which did it in 15.5 but a) has 25 more hp, and b) is about 80 kg lighter), so can't tell for certain if that is what makes the difference.

Originally Posted by Deuuuce
I thought R&T did correct their numbers, no?
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.
Road & Track, otoh, doesn't correct:
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.
Old 04-22-2010, 02:08 AM
  #25  
Super Member
 
Deuuuce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Charger SRT-8
Very interesting. I looked at some of the Motorweek times and sure enough, they were within the bell curve. Thanks for all the info.


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Ran down a Ferrari's poop'chute



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:07 PM.