MBWorld.org Forums - e55 vs GTR

MBWorld.org Forums (https://mbworld.org/forums/)

- Kill Stories (https://mbworld.org/forums/kill-stories-54/)

- - e55 vs GTR (https://mbworld.org/forums/kill-stories/450257-e55-vs-gtr.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improviz (Post 5233724)

True, but as with all forced induction cars of recent memory, peak torque is made over a range, in this case from 2650-4500 rpm, per MBUSA's spec:
http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/cpo/model_overview/vehicle?year=2006&bodystyle=SDN&class=E&model=E55 (click on "engine" tab)

Except that it's pretty widely acknowleged that the stock power rating on these cars is laughably low. Dynos with 430 whp are not uncommon, which when coupled with trap speed to weight calculations show a true crank of more like 515-530 hp on these cars. So a more-realistic peak torque calculation puts the figure higher. Check out the dynos of the new versions at Edmunds.com for examples.

Both cars would have benefit of forced induction's super-flat torque curve over the runs, and both have peak hp pretty close to redline, so in that sense they're well-matched for a rolling run.

Additional driveline loss of AWD would be a hinderance, though...but to be sure, they are faster, and the new ones are faster still, no doubt. But I had a high speed run with one of the originals a few years back and he couldn't catch me; unfortunately he wouldn't do a second nose-to-nose run, the wuss.... :smash:

Now with factory acceleration figures, problem is that the E55 is very wheelspin-limited while GTR can be launched very agressively w/awd (for example see this month's test of S6 vs E63 and M6, in which S6, down 100 hp to the other two (rated), nailed a comparable 0-60), but rolling-start numbers help to even the playing field a bit.

So for GTR the rolling start numbers as tested by C&D (2009) were:
5-60: 4.1
30-50: 3.1
50-70: 2.7
60-100 mph split: 4.5 sec

And for the E55 (2003 model), they got:
5-60: 4.8
30-50: 2.3
50-70: 2.5
60-100 mph split: 5.3 sec

Unfortunately, they only measured 0-130 for GTR vs 0-150 for E55, so can't do a 60-1xx split or 100-150 split...can check out Euro tests, though:
E55:
0-100 km: 4.6
0-200 km: 14.6
100-200 split: 10 s

GTR:
0-100 km: 3.8
0-200 km: 12.7
100-200 split: 8.9 s

So that's a 1.1 sec difference from 62-125 mph, pretty tight...unfortunately that's as high as they go, though...

Otoh, found a 2011 Black Edition vs 2009 comparo on the same site:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/nissan/nissangtrr35st-20092011-1.htm
2011 model is quicker:
2009:
0-100 km: 4.1
0-200 km: 13.1
split: 9 s (different car, only 0.1 s off of the one above, that's consistency!)

2011:
0-100 km: 3.3
0-200 km: 11.5
split: 8.2 s

So this gives us a 1.8 s difference from 62-125 mph, again, tight, especially if there's a difference in reaction time, etc...odds are both drivers aren't gonna hop on it at precisely the same moment. These differences are odd: frankly based on traps I'd expect them to be higher, I wish I had 0-150 figures for the GTR...time for google: boom!
http://www.automobilemag.com/features/great_drives/0903_2009_nissan_gtr_vs_2009_porsche_911_gt2_nurbu rgring/viewall.html
GTR 0-150: 19.8 sec (2009 model)
E55 0-150: 23.1 sec

They got 0-100 of 8 flat in that test, so 100-150 split comes in at 11.8 seconds; for E55 it comes in at 13.3 seconds (using Car & Driver data), so it looks like OP's account of the two cars being relatively close below 130 but the GTR pulling harder up above it is exactly what we'd expect to see.

So GTR is clearly faster, but rolling start it looks like the E55 could give it a pretty decent run down below 125-30, while up higher it looks like GTR has a bigtime gearing advantage (E55's 4th gear is a big dropoff from its 3rd, which is where it always fell behind the M5/M6 cars: up above 125-ish when it hit 4th), so it'll open up a good lead there.

From a dead stop, or on a track, well, that's another story. :D

Wow a pretty thorough analysis! :y

Although my main point was not really to discuss the GT-R vs E55 rolling acceleration (if you notice I didn't say the OP's story was BS in any way), but to explain that the OP needs to look beyond a peak torque figure and look at what RPM are used during the run when using comparative torque figures. I probably should have used dyno figures to more precisely illustrate the differences, but figured the actual dyno #'s would only cloud the concept (I could already hear the arguments over what dyno figures should be used (Mustang, Dynojet,Butt-dyno) or I should have used someone's cousin's friend's sister's dyno # because that car put down 2.3hp more than the one I found.. etc. :p:). I figured that both MB and Nissan underrated the "official" hp figures so I was actually a level playing field.

A few things to clarify:

GT-Rs for the '09-'11 U.S. Model years were rated at 480-485hp. Most put down between 415-435whp on a Dynojet. The '12 GT-R (MY11 in rest of the world) was rated at 530hp and put down around 460-475whp. The '13 GT-R (MY12 elsewhere) is rated at 545hp.

The GT-R's layout is very unique. It is the only front engine production car with a rear transaxle based AWD system. There is a small driveshaft (runs parallel to the main driveshaft that goes from the engine to rear transmission) that goes from the rear transaxle to the front differential. The ATTESA AWD system defaults to sending only 2% of the torque to the front wheels. If traction loss is being sensed in the rear, the ATTESA will send a maximum of 50% of the torque to the front wheels. So during a roll-on situation, the front wheels are likely only getting 2% of the power routed that way. With less power to the front wheels, there is less parasitic loss than in your normal AWD system which defaults into routing more power to the front wheels.

One critique on your data: I would have liked to see you compare acceleration data from the same magazine (I don't believe Automobile weather corrects their data, but Car & Driver does so at least both cars have the acceleration figures set to the theoretical same density altitude), and then using the splits 0-60mph, 0-130mph and 0-150mph to illustrate where each of the combatants stood.

I found the Car & Driver test of the E55:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...nz-amg-e55.pdf

0-60: 4.5s
0-100mph: 9.8s
0-130mph: 16.0s
0-150mph: 23.1s

So we can see that E55 went 60-100mph in 5.3s, 100-130mph in 6.2s and 130-150mph in 7.1s.

Car & Driver's testing of the '09-'11 GT-Rs was all over the place acceleration figure-wise (personally, I think the 1st test with 124mph trap was a "Ringer" car and the 2 really bad tests were the result of extreme heat and 91 octane gas....resulting in lots of timing being pulled...low boost mode):

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...horsepower.pdf

Let's use the October '08 test figures (not quite as good as September '08 figures).

0-60mph: 3.2s
0-100:mph: 8.1s
0-130mph: 14.0s
0-150mph: 20.1s

So we can see that GT-R went 60-100mph in 4.9s, 100-130mph in 5.9s and 130-150mph in 6.1s.

Differences: 60-100mph: .4s, 100-130mph: .3s, 130-150mph: 1.0s

As you can see the GT-R is finally pulling away above 130mph. Now the OP does have some exhaust and intake things done so I am not surprised that he was able to stay with a stock '09-'11 GT-R (I highly doubt it was a '12-'13 GT-R as they are significantly faster).

Tom

Hi, Tom -

Yeah, the new ones are just demons, my guess is that either OP ran into an earlier model or a new one with crappy gas in it. :y I agree, I think that 124 trapping model was a ringer, there's a lot of that going around (look at the new C&D test of the non-PP-equipped E63 and M5 trapping at 124-ish by way of example. :D )

I agree, would have preferred to have used same mag but seems like the wussies at C&D stopped running 0-150 tests some time back and now only do 0-130 so I had to look elsewhere, but it looks like you found some data I missed! :y I need to keep that in mind next time, that's easier to use than just looking up individual road tests...

The gearing drop off from third-fourth gear in the 55 cars hits them hard up over 130, and it shows up in tests like this..I think the 63 cars had a bit better gearing up there, but that's going by memory, would have to look it up and I'm finna hit the sack so it'll have to wait! :D Anyway interesting info, thanks for sharing...enjoy that GTR, it is one amazing machine!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Improviz (Post 5235225)

Hi, Tom -

Yeah, the new ones are just demons, my guess is that either OP ran into an earlier model or a new one with crappy gas in it.

Exactly what I think. However the OP said it had the front LEDs so therefore it was a 2012 at least model year. So probably bad gas and conditions etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Innocent_Stud (Post 5235852)

Exactly what I think. However the OP said it had the front LEDs so therefore it was a 2012 at least model year. So probably bad gas and conditions etc.

*OR* OP's car is modded, can't rule that out as he bought it preowned...

Also his car has quite a few more miles on it than would a recent GT-R, so if GT-R was new and/or not well broken-in vs an older well broken-in E55, that would make a difference: normally when vehicles have some mileage on them they get faster; I recall one instance on a long-term Jag where it picked up 2 seconds from 0-130 when tested at 40K miles ve when new, and that was a far less powerful car than an E55.

Anyway I did find a test of a 2013 GT-R:

http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...ebuary2012.pdf

0-100: 7.2
0-150: 17.8

So running numbers again vs 03 E55 test I did yesterday, I get the GT-R ahead by 78.9 ft, or about 5.25 15-ft carlengths, when it hits 150. And that's new vs new numbers; OP's car should be faster than a new one from 100-150, so it would be tighter than this by a bit...and if he's modded, it would be pretty tight indeed, but we'd need him to address that one.

thanks for sharing:y aside from all the analysis.....anything can happen when you street race, my car is the slowest of AMG's and I(i know i will be bombarded with FLAME!!!) was able to pull a win over a beatiful charcoal grey GTR. not bad for an old hooptie!!! Hands down on paper the GTR is King in my books just bc of the stats and AWD. Personaly would love to own one. Again, thanks for the nice read.

John:zoom:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blk04e55 (Post 5225410)

He had the LEDs infront and a small black and red badge on the back lower right trunk lid area, couldn't make out what it said but looked like it started with the letter M.

I'm beginning to think the previous owner of my car had the ecu tuned, I'm a Mercedes mechanic and get the chance to often test drive many different car dealers' cl55 sl55 and e55s none of which seem to pull like mine.. Anyone know if there's a way to tell by looking at my ecu?

i know with the 63 's that if you rev it up in park it does not let u go past 3500 rpm without a tune .

Quote:

Originally Posted by W203Ramos (Post 5239171)

+1

Great morning read:y

09-11 had a LED option, not the same setup though.

http://cdn.speedhunters.com/wp-conte...header_gtr.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by 200onthedash (Post 5242927)

09-11 had a LED option, not the same setup though.

http://cdn.speedhunters.com/wp-conte...header_gtr.jpg

I was going to post that...but it is an aftermarket kit. A couple of guys I know have it on their GT-R. I personally wouldn't put it on because it is partially blocking the air duct...not much...but still.

Tom

Rumors that AMG is working with Nissan/Infiniti on developing the new R36 engine.

Just rumors.

The G coupe and SLK could share a LOT of similarities.

Also talk of Nissan building Benz engines in TN.