Blk04e55

Heading back from my honeymoon in Captiva, FL with my trunk bursting at the seams with luggage and 1 extra person (the wife of course ) a very nice silver 2011-2012ish nissan GT-R cought my eye right as I got onto I-75. For the first 30 miles or so we were behaving ourselves playing leap frog for awhile untill we hit a long straight away and we both knew we couldnt hold back anymore. We were both at 90mph when he was behind me, he went into the open lane next to me and he opened up first then I let her rip right as he was at my rear bumper, the E jumped a car length on him, by ~150 he was reeling me in steadily but we had to shut her down to not endanger traffic up ahead. Thats all it took for my s/c not to engage for a couple minutes BTW time for cooling mods... So a couple more miles of cruising, then again we ran from 85 - 130 this time dead even.

If your out there I owe you a beer for keeping the 3hr ride home interesting Maybe we'll meet at the track, Id love to see that AWD in action!

Innocent_Stud

New GTR? Was it the Mark 2 facelifted with front LEDs? Either way if you kept up with him like that then that's great. He must've been bone stock to the filters then.

Blk04e55

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?

Innocent_Stud

Well you're a mechanic right? You can go check yourself I bet... And they must be paying you pretty good if you can have an E55 AMG.

And I'm under the very strong impression that you need a well modified (full bolt on probably) E55 AMG to even keep up with a Mark 2 facelifted Nissan GTR. Not sure how you can just do it with a secondary cat delete, a TB "shaft grind" (what is that?)... I would assume you have more than just a tune on your car. MORE THAN.

Blk04e55

lol?

amx1397

we will see you at PBIR and if you out run me, then you have a lot of work done. jim

BIG LOL/

Blk04e55

When will you guys be out there? I checked the car out pretty good after buying it and it has a stock pulley for sure so no, theres no way a lot of work was done to it previously. The only mystery left to me is if the ECU was tuned or not.. I got into the ECU as far as I could with Xentry/SDS but no leads.

amx1397

not sure when the other guys are going but i am going to try to go wed.open 6 to 11 i try to get ther around 6 and i go home about 9:30 or so.

Innocent_Stud

Even an ECU tune with what you already have shouldn't keep it close to a stock Mark 2 Nissan GTR. If you had headers, pulley, intercooler upgrade, ECU tune, and what you have, then you have a solid chance with a 2012 GTR stock.

Blk04e55

I must be missing something.. Stock GTR 530hp 450tq vs my 480hp 520tq + light exhaust / intake work and POSSIBLY a tune = should be able to hold my own against him..

FACTS - first pull he started reeling me in near 150
Second pull dead even, regardless of your opinions and beliefs that's what happened.

Not even sure if it was a Mach 2 or what have you.. I saw only a small black and red badge on the back wasn't able to tell what it said.

Innocent_Stud

I understand where you're coming from and that real world results can be a lot different than paper and magazine numbers. Things like this happen all the time. Like that guy with the bolt on SL55 AMG who apparently kept up with a brand new Lamborghini Aventador... It happens I know. It can be attributed to different conditions and other factors during that time of the day or weather. Either way, good race and I'm glad you held your own!

But when looking at it from another point of view and with how both vehicles perform at the track and dragstrip, there's simply no way. But it's cool so no worries.

520 or more ft lb torque btw will not make up over 450 ft lb torque as much as you think especially when speeds get higher. Add the fact that the GTR is noticeably LIGHTER than your car and has a Double Clutch transmission putting all that power down to the ground. The newer GTRs are really deadly stock from a dig or a from a roll. The 2012 being slightly faster than a stock C6 Z06 from a roll.

And the 2012 GTR traps 11.2 seconds at 123 or so mph bone stock. Does your E55 trap that? A full bolton E55 can.

amx1397

looks like a few of us are going Friday, check it out here https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/...ir-friday.html

CharlyE500

You just can't be more positive and supportive to AMG owner ah ?

CharlyE500

The fastest stock E55 AMG with Street tires run 11.6 for the record.

TMC M5

I think there are some misconceptions being tossed around here about "torque" and its impact in a rolling race. Mathematically speaking, torque = (Horsepower X 5,252)/RPM. So the "torque" figures are only relevant at the specific RPM which are utilized during the race.

According to MB published figures, the E55's peak torque figure is achieved at 2,650 RPM. In a roll on race it isn't likely that you will ever be that low in the rev range, so the peak torque figure is somewhat irelevant for an E55 in this instance. Now according to MB, the E55's peak power is made at 6,100 RPM, so using a peak 480hp figure and the previous equation, the torque figure at that point is 404lbs-ft. So I would theorize that the E55 is making between 450-400lbs-ft of torque throughout the rev range used during the roll-on.

Doing the same for the '12 GT-R: peak torque of 448lbs-ft is at 3,200 RPM and the 530 peak hp is made at 6,400 RPM which translates to 435lbs-ft of torque at that RPM. Nissan has claimed that 448lbs-ft of torque is made between 3,200 through 6,000 RPM...which seems to be backed up by the 435lbs-ft of torque made at 6,400 RPM. So the GT-R is likely making 448-420lbs-ft of torque throughout the entire RPM range (7K RPM redline) that is utilized during that roll-on race.

As previously mentioned, the lighter weight, 6 speed gearing and lightning quick shifting of the GT-R are all advantages as well.

Tom

Innocent_Stud

Dude I love and respect AMGs. But I'm only being objective here. If I were to say that the W211 E55 AMG is faster than a newer Nissan GTR from a roll, then I'd be labeled delusional and "retarded" by everyone outside this board.

Improviz

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....

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.

Blk04e55

Thank you!! Like I said in post #1 "Maybe we'll meet at the track, Id love to see that AWD in action" aka complete carnage of my poor E, I'd get smoked no doubt. The GTR's suspension and drivetrain makes it a quarter mile queen, however from a roll it wasnt all that impressive a couple of posters in this thread have made it out to be

Innocent_Stud

Seriously? I was under a strong impression that 1.8 seconds in anything is a BIG difference... That equates to a little more than just a couple of car lengths... Think dragstrip with .1 second being around a carlength. 1.8 seconds would equal to... You get my point?

I'm not as resourceful as you in your arguments and data but however I do for sure that a 1.8 second in acceleration Vbox data between 2 supercars accelerating to 186 mph is a pretty sizeable difference. I would say it's the same for just a rolling start...

Innocent_Stud

Not to continue being the devil's advocate here or attempting to rain on your parade, (being objective again)


This means you can keep up easily with a stock decently driven C6 Z06.

Blk04e55

thats correct again z06 505hp 470tq vs 480hp 520tq + light mods your damn right I can easily keep up

Improviz

Time to distance is different from time to speed, and rules of thumb aren't quite the same as the laws of physics.

Well, let's do some physics, then, since you seem so hell-bent on arguing as often as possible that AMGs aren't capable of doing what their owners say they're capable of doing...I'll do two runs, using classic physics and measured acceleration data for each of the cars.

First race: from 100-200km/h.
2009 GTR: average acceleration = (200-100)km/h/8.9s = 100km/h/8.9s = 27.8 m/s / 8.9s = 3.12 m/s^2

2011 GTR: 27.8 m/s / 8.2s = 3.39 m/s^2

2003 E55: 27.8 m/s / 10.0s = 2.78 m/s^2

Now from physics we all know that equation for position function given acceleration a and initial velocity v0 under linear acceleration (which this isn't, but it'll be close, and I don't have actual curves to plug into a curve-fit, and I'm too lazy on top of that even if I did) is p = p0 + v0 t + ½ a t^2 , where p0 is initial position, v0 is initial velocity in m/s, and t is, of course, time in seconds.

Since in our hypothetical race they're even at t(0) (the start of the race at 100km/h), we can set p0 = 0 and figure out how much distance the cars will put in the time it takes the fastest car to get from there to 200 km/h, at which point the other cars will obviously not be going 200 km/h, but we're interested in how far out the fastest car will be at that point in time, and for that we need to see how far each vehicle will have travelled in that amount of time, so that we can see how much distance the fastest car will put on the slower cars.

This would be the 11 GTR Black Edition, which did it in 8.2. So for all three cars, we want to see how far they've gotten in the 8.2 seconds it takes the GTR BE to go from 100-200 km/h rolling start. For all three cars, then, vo, t and t^2 will be the same, only variable is a (acceleration, calculated above)

So plugging into Excel (and you're welcome to verify this as well), I get:

p(E55): 321.4 m = 1054.6 ft
p(09 GTR): 333 m = 1092.5 ft (38 ft ahead of E55, about 2.5 carlengths)
p(11 GTR): 342 m = 1122 ft (67 ft ahead of E55, about 4.5 carlengths)

OK? Not huge.

Now then, if we switch gears and go from 100-150 mph, or 44.70 to 67.06 m/s (and for this I only have data for the 09 GTR), we get:

p(E55): 644.5 m = 2114.6 ft
p(09 GTR): 659.4 m = 2163 ft (49 ft ahead of E55, just over three carlengths)

Not huge either. Now as I said, I don't have the data for the 11 GTR from 0-150, but if relationship above holds up, it would probably put more like 5 to 5.5 lengths on the E55.

But this is a perfect run, with both drivers in the right gear, hitting throttle at exactly the same time, doing everything perfectly, which we don't know the GTR driver did, as one can mis-time a shift in a sequential (or an auto for that matter, but if E55 was in sport mode--not manual mode-- it would auto-shift at redline if driver was smart enough to let it do so, which based upon results I assume he was).

Also we don't know state of tune of OP's car, he's mentioned that he thinks it may have been modded, if so that would also change times....as would fuel, air filter condition, tire inflation, and the dozens of other factors that can tip a close race one way or the other.

Bottom line is that while the GTR is the faster car and will clearly win absent issues or driver errors, in relatively short races like being described here it's not going to put a huge distance on an E55...now, from a 0-150 run, obviously distance would be >> larger, but these were relatively short races.

Innocent_Stud

Alright. I'll let it go. This isn't a court case you know. But really good amazing evidence. Conclusion: GTR is still noticeably faster. Great.

I know the capabilities of the AMGs and what they can do. I'm am just being honestly objective even if it's on this board. Conditions, driver error and all that may be able to explain why the OP was able to keep up with one. I'm not putting down the AMG at all.

It's just hard for anyone (not just me) to believe that an AMG can keep up wtih a GTR. Almost like that SL55 AMG Bolton keeping up with that Aventador according to one person. Will it be believeable if I say I kept up with a Mercedes ML63 AMG? No...

BlownV8

Plenty of AMG's on this board will destroy a stock GTR in acceleration. Look at the dragtimes.com link I posted in a previous thread. The GTR is quick but it is very foolish to think there are no AMG's that are not faster/quicker.

Blk04e55

+1