Here's an American car that'll put your Benzes to shame!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
LOL, with the 4.2L Northstar, with a whopping 320 horsepower? Not bloody likely...
Heck, it won't even be a match for the cts-v, let alone a Benz!
Car & Driver's spy shot of the '95 STS
Car & Driver's spy shot of the '95 STS
Originally posted by bobs
By the way, the Cadillac STS will outperform ANY Benz within THREE TIMES it's price!!!
By the way, the Cadillac STS will outperform ANY Benz within THREE TIMES it's price!!!
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Re: Bias in terms of road test data??? Ridiculous.
Originally posted by Improviz
I didn't post any opinions of R&T about the car, merely road test data, 0-60 and so forth. In fact, before dismissing the review, you might want to actually read it: it does speak quite favorably about the car.
Unfortunately for you, it also proves you wrong!
Yes, the Ford GT's 3.8 second 0-60 time (Road & Track) is impressive, a match for the Mercedes SLR's manufacturer time. However, as pointed out before, Mercedes is often conservative in their ratings; for example, prior to the release of the new E55, they claimed 4.7 seconds 0-60 for it; it has been tested at 4.2 to 4.3.
As you pointed out earlier, horsepower alone isn't enough: we must look at weight/horspower. To get an idea of the SLR's performance potential, let's compare its weight/horsepower to that of the Ford GT, and a guesstimate of the next Z06's numbers using 500 horsepower and the current weight of 3150 pounds (assuming it won't gain any weight):
Ford GT: 3390/500 = 6.78 pounds/horsepower.
Corvette Z06: 3150/500 = 6.3 pounds/horsepower
Mercedes SLR: 3800/625 = 6.08 pounds/horsepower.
Hmm, seems like the SLR has got them beat, bob, by about an 11% margin over the Ford GT, and by a 5% margin over the one-year-away Corvette, *if* it really does have 500 horsepower & does't gain any weight.
So, even your unreleased car doesn't have enough weight/hp to match, let alone overcome, the current SLR, even if we assume that the rumored 500 horsepower is accurate and the car doesn't gain weight! It might give the SLR a good race, assuming Mercedes doesn't decide to up the horsepower before then (ya know, Europeans can increase horsepower too, bob).
I hate to break this to you, but your only hope is if Euro manufacturers suddenly cease their R&D operations and allow the Americans to catch up, bob.
I didn't post any opinions of R&T about the car, merely road test data, 0-60 and so forth. In fact, before dismissing the review, you might want to actually read it: it does speak quite favorably about the car.
Unfortunately for you, it also proves you wrong!
Yes, the Ford GT's 3.8 second 0-60 time (Road & Track) is impressive, a match for the Mercedes SLR's manufacturer time. However, as pointed out before, Mercedes is often conservative in their ratings; for example, prior to the release of the new E55, they claimed 4.7 seconds 0-60 for it; it has been tested at 4.2 to 4.3.
As you pointed out earlier, horsepower alone isn't enough: we must look at weight/horspower. To get an idea of the SLR's performance potential, let's compare its weight/horsepower to that of the Ford GT, and a guesstimate of the next Z06's numbers using 500 horsepower and the current weight of 3150 pounds (assuming it won't gain any weight):
Ford GT: 3390/500 = 6.78 pounds/horsepower.
Corvette Z06: 3150/500 = 6.3 pounds/horsepower
Mercedes SLR: 3800/625 = 6.08 pounds/horsepower.
Hmm, seems like the SLR has got them beat, bob, by about an 11% margin over the Ford GT, and by a 5% margin over the one-year-away Corvette, *if* it really does have 500 horsepower & does't gain any weight.
So, even your unreleased car doesn't have enough weight/hp to match, let alone overcome, the current SLR, even if we assume that the rumored 500 horsepower is accurate and the car doesn't gain weight! It might give the SLR a good race, assuming Mercedes doesn't decide to up the horsepower before then (ya know, Europeans can increase horsepower too, bob).
I hate to break this to you, but your only hope is if Euro manufacturers suddenly cease their R&D operations and allow the Americans to catch up, bob.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
ROFLMAO!!! Of all of the silly comments you've made, this one reigns supreme!
I'm sorry, but this is beyond ignorant. THE predicting factor in a car's acceleration is power/weight, so much so that one can get a car's crank horsepower to within +-5% using the following equation:
horsepower = (weight of car + driver)*(trap speed/234)^3.
Example: your beloved Z06 traps 116 and weighs 3150 pounds empty. With a 180 pound driver, this becomes 3330 pounds. So, we have horsepower = 3330*(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Right on the money.
How about the Ford GT, which traps 121.6 (Road & Track) and had an as-tested weight of 3590 (this means with driver, bob)? horsepower = 3570*(121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Within one horsepower of rated.
Finally, let's look at the test of the new cts-v, which trapped 109 with as-tested weight of 4070): 4070(109/234)^3 = 411 horsepower. Within 3% of its rated horsepower.
Using simple algebra (which you obviously don't know, along with physics), we can solve the above equation for trap speed: trap speed = 234*(horsepower/weight)^0.333
In other words, bob, a car's rate of acceleration can very accurately be predicted from knowing its weight and horsepower. Put more succinctly: Newton's second law still works.
Btw, using the above equation, we can predict the Mercedes SLR's trap speed: 234(625/3980)^0.333 = 126 mph. Which, fyi, will be faster than the Z06 (116 mph) or the Ford GT (121.6 mph), bob (I point this out because I'm starting to wonder whether you understand "greater than" or "less than"). A Z06 with 500 horsepower will trap at 124, still no match for the SLR.
So, what have we proven: as little as you know about cars, you know even less about physics. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?
horsepower = (weight of car + driver)*(trap speed/234)^3.
Example: your beloved Z06 traps 116 and weighs 3150 pounds empty. With a 180 pound driver, this becomes 3330 pounds. So, we have horsepower = 3330*(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Right on the money.
How about the Ford GT, which traps 121.6 (Road & Track) and had an as-tested weight of 3590 (this means with driver, bob)? horsepower = 3570*(121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Within one horsepower of rated.
Finally, let's look at the test of the new cts-v, which trapped 109 with as-tested weight of 4070): 4070(109/234)^3 = 411 horsepower. Within 3% of its rated horsepower.
Using simple algebra (which you obviously don't know, along with physics), we can solve the above equation for trap speed: trap speed = 234*(horsepower/weight)^0.333
In other words, bob, a car's rate of acceleration can very accurately be predicted from knowing its weight and horsepower. Put more succinctly: Newton's second law still works.
Btw, using the above equation, we can predict the Mercedes SLR's trap speed: 234(625/3980)^0.333 = 126 mph. Which, fyi, will be faster than the Z06 (116 mph) or the Ford GT (121.6 mph), bob (I point this out because I'm starting to wonder whether you understand "greater than" or "less than"). A Z06 with 500 horsepower will trap at 124, still no match for the SLR.
So, what have we proven: as little as you know about cars, you know even less about physics. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?
Originally posted by bobs
Simply looking at power/weight ratio is a very naive way of predicting a car's acceleration. My point was, that if the 405 hp Z06 does 0-60 in 4.2, then increasing it's power by 20% will definitely put it below 4.
Simply looking at power/weight ratio is a very naive way of predicting a car's acceleration. My point was, that if the 405 hp Z06 does 0-60 in 4.2, then increasing it's power by 20% will definitely put it below 4.
Last edited by Improviz; Jan 14, 2004 at 01:22 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,488
Likes: 0
A bucket on wheels
Improviz
bob give it up man.
thanks improviz i would have said all that you have said and more but you have been beating me to the punch.
bob you have been wrong on several accounts
1) you said there is no benz quick enough for the same or around the same price range as the ctsv
-c32
-slk55
2) puting to shame(although you admited you over exagerated0 you only did so when you were proven wrong
-.1 seconds hardly qualifies for shame and .1 seconds is enough for the slightest driver error
3) you came back saying the vette and viper could take on any benz
-again your wrong as proven9FYI viper is now part of the daimlet chryslet company) thanks try again
4) your knowledge on acceleration and trap speed and horsepower ratings are only derived by ONE website, take in several different accounts. As stated by improviz, mercedes used very modest 0-60 times, the reason for that being, your average driver being capable of achieving them over and over again,
Q: what happens whena pro driver gets behind a 2003 E55 amg claimed by mercedes as being a 4.5 second car?
A: a 0-60mph time of 4.1 seconds
5) A 95 sts, dude give it up cadilacs have been and are known for the senior citizen mobile. Even your precious review poked fun at the brand. Your either really old and have lost complete functioning of your brain or you ignorant. WEither way you should open up your mind set to other autos and not come and bag on a car at the cars freaking forum. (stupid!) Everyone here enjoys cars in general and dont only own BMWs. we can all appreciate a fine automobile when we see one. the ctsv is a great car and a great competitor to the c32 and the m3 and the S4 and guess what good for cadilac to finaly make a car that can compete with these cars after what? 7 years? (m3 has been available for the longest time) i mean come on man a little late dont you think? Id say if anything that cadilac wants to compete with these great manufacturers (mercedes, bmw, and audi) and im sorry but those manufacturers are in a league of their own and well yourself and cadilac you are just not their yet.
stick to nascar
bob give it up man.
thanks improviz i would have said all that you have said and more but you have been beating me to the punch.
bob you have been wrong on several accounts
1) you said there is no benz quick enough for the same or around the same price range as the ctsv
-c32
-slk55
2) puting to shame(although you admited you over exagerated0 you only did so when you were proven wrong
-.1 seconds hardly qualifies for shame and .1 seconds is enough for the slightest driver error
3) you came back saying the vette and viper could take on any benz
-again your wrong as proven9FYI viper is now part of the daimlet chryslet company) thanks try again
4) your knowledge on acceleration and trap speed and horsepower ratings are only derived by ONE website, take in several different accounts. As stated by improviz, mercedes used very modest 0-60 times, the reason for that being, your average driver being capable of achieving them over and over again,
Q: what happens whena pro driver gets behind a 2003 E55 amg claimed by mercedes as being a 4.5 second car?
A: a 0-60mph time of 4.1 seconds
5) A 95 sts, dude give it up cadilacs have been and are known for the senior citizen mobile. Even your precious review poked fun at the brand. Your either really old and have lost complete functioning of your brain or you ignorant. WEither way you should open up your mind set to other autos and not come and bag on a car at the cars freaking forum. (stupid!) Everyone here enjoys cars in general and dont only own BMWs. we can all appreciate a fine automobile when we see one. the ctsv is a great car and a great competitor to the c32 and the m3 and the S4 and guess what good for cadilac to finaly make a car that can compete with these cars after what? 7 years? (m3 has been available for the longest time) i mean come on man a little late dont you think? Id say if anything that cadilac wants to compete with these great manufacturers (mercedes, bmw, and audi) and im sorry but those manufacturers are in a league of their own and well yourself and cadilac you are just not their yet.
stick to nascar
Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
From: Vancouver
C32
Re: Here's an American car that'll put your Benzes to shame!
Originally posted by bobs
www.fantasycars.com/sedans/html/ctsv.html
The new Cadillac CTS-V. 0-60 in 4.7, 1/4 mile in 13.1...$48,000
www.fantasycars.com/sedans/html/ctsv.html
The new Cadillac CTS-V. 0-60 in 4.7, 1/4 mile in 13.1...$48,000
The new Cadillac CTS-V is fast and nice looking but still can't compare with our benz.
For the performane, it may be on pair with C32 but have no chance to touch the bigger brother like, E55, CL55, SL55, S55, S600, etc.
Don't bring up the other american cars (Z06, Corba, Viper, etc.) to this topic because your original post is "Cadillac CTS-V will put our Benzes to shame". End up i have to say: " There're many benzes that will put ALL your Cadillac to shame".
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Re: ROFLMAO!!! Of all of the silly comments you've made, this one reigns supreme!
Originally posted by Improviz
I'm sorry, but this is beyond ignorant. THE predicting factor in a car's acceleration is power/weight, so much so that one can get a car's crank horsepower to within +-5% using the following equation:
horsepower = (weight of car + driver)*(trap speed/234)^3.
Example: your beloved Z06 traps 116 and weighs 3150 pounds empty. With a 180 pound driver, this becomes 3330 pounds. So, we have horsepower = 3330*(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Right on the money.
How about the Ford GT, which traps 121.6 (Road & Track) and had an as-tested weight of 3590 (this means with driver, bob)? horsepower = 3570*(121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Within one horsepower of rated.
Finally, let's look at the test of the new cts-v, which trapped 109 with as-tested weight of 4070): 4070(109/234)^3 = 411 horsepower. Within 3% of its rated horsepower.
Using simple algebra (which you obviously don't know, along with physics), we can solve the above equation for trap speed: trap speed = 234*(horsepower/weight)^0.333
In other words, bob, a car's rate of acceleration can very accurately be predicted from knowing its weight and horsepower. Put more succinctly: Newton's second law still works.
Btw, using the above equation, we can predict the Mercedes SLR's trap speed: 234(625/3980)^0.333 = 126 mph. Which, fyi, will be faster than the Z06 (116 mph) or the Ford GT (121.6 mph), bob (I point this out because I'm starting to wonder whether you understand "greater than" or "less than"). A Z06 with 500 horsepower will trap at 124, still no match for the SLR.
So, what have we proven: as little as you know about cars, you know even less about physics. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?
I'm sorry, but this is beyond ignorant. THE predicting factor in a car's acceleration is power/weight, so much so that one can get a car's crank horsepower to within +-5% using the following equation:
horsepower = (weight of car + driver)*(trap speed/234)^3.
Example: your beloved Z06 traps 116 and weighs 3150 pounds empty. With a 180 pound driver, this becomes 3330 pounds. So, we have horsepower = 3330*(116/234)^3 = 405 horsepower. Right on the money.
How about the Ford GT, which traps 121.6 (Road & Track) and had an as-tested weight of 3590 (this means with driver, bob)? horsepower = 3570*(121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Within one horsepower of rated.
Finally, let's look at the test of the new cts-v, which trapped 109 with as-tested weight of 4070): 4070(109/234)^3 = 411 horsepower. Within 3% of its rated horsepower.
Using simple algebra (which you obviously don't know, along with physics), we can solve the above equation for trap speed: trap speed = 234*(horsepower/weight)^0.333
In other words, bob, a car's rate of acceleration can very accurately be predicted from knowing its weight and horsepower. Put more succinctly: Newton's second law still works.
Btw, using the above equation, we can predict the Mercedes SLR's trap speed: 234(625/3980)^0.333 = 126 mph. Which, fyi, will be faster than the Z06 (116 mph) or the Ford GT (121.6 mph), bob (I point this out because I'm starting to wonder whether you understand "greater than" or "less than"). A Z06 with 500 horsepower will trap at 124, still no match for the SLR.
So, what have we proven: as little as you know about cars, you know even less about physics. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?
Thread Starter
Almost a Member!
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Improvis, you have way too much time on your hands to be looking up so many facts. I always find it amusing how a few short words (many of which I don't even believe myself) which take a couple of minutes for me to think and type create such an aproar and loads of lengthy replies.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
From: Saytown
2000 C280 Sport
Mercedes Benz > Cadillac
does not matter what model either........all you have to do is say Mercedes and you get 10 times the respect of driving a caddy.
Hmmmmm........maybe that is why we see all the stars driving Benzo's.
Caddy......hahahahahaha, whatever!
does not matter what model either........all you have to do is say Mercedes and you get 10 times the respect of driving a caddy.
Hmmmmm........maybe that is why we see all the stars driving Benzo's.
Caddy......hahahahahaha, whatever!
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
Duh...of course they do, but the Cd of these cars are pretty much identical...
...well within the margin of error. It rather goes without saying that the developers of that equation toook aerodynamics into accout; unlike you, they know a thing or two about physics.
Also, speeds reached in a 1/4 mile race are generally not that high, and are for a short percentage of the entire run, so aerodynamics plays a smaller role. If the equation doesn't work, how do you explain its accuracy? Luck??
You are acting as though I invented this equation; I did not. It is well known within drag racing circles, and it works. Go through the test results summary of any major mag and see for yourself, using the cars' curb weight + 180 pounds for driver. It is *very* accurate.
And frankly, you are the last person to be lecturing anyone about logic, bob!
Finally, I really don't "have too much time on my hands"; I do have an extensive bookmark file of auto tests, etc., and I write very quickly. I have spent no more than five minutes on any of the posts I've made this thread, and to me, it is time well spent; I enjoy writing, particularly about cars.
Also, speeds reached in a 1/4 mile race are generally not that high, and are for a short percentage of the entire run, so aerodynamics plays a smaller role. If the equation doesn't work, how do you explain its accuracy? Luck??
You are acting as though I invented this equation; I did not. It is well known within drag racing circles, and it works. Go through the test results summary of any major mag and see for yourself, using the cars' curb weight + 180 pounds for driver. It is *very* accurate.
And frankly, you are the last person to be lecturing anyone about logic, bob!
Finally, I really don't "have too much time on my hands"; I do have an extensive bookmark file of auto tests, etc., and I write very quickly. I have spent no more than five minutes on any of the posts I've made this thread, and to me, it is time well spent; I enjoy writing, particularly about cars.
Originally posted by bobs
Okay, so wind resistance and aerodynamics play no role at all? Your logic implies that if I were to drive with my front hood opened up all the way (if it could stay in that position), it wouldn't affect my performance at all, because my horsepower/mass ratio did not change. In my trans am I can feel a difference in acceleration just by turning my popup lights up or down.
Okay, so wind resistance and aerodynamics play no role at all? Your logic implies that if I were to drive with my front hood opened up all the way (if it could stay in that position), it wouldn't affect my performance at all, because my horsepower/mass ratio did not change. In my trans am I can feel a difference in acceleration just by turning my popup lights up or down.
Last edited by Improviz; Jan 14, 2004 at 10:34 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 427
Likes: 29
From: BH, MI
C63S past: E90 M3 6M, w211 E55
Re: Re: ROFLMAO!!! Of all of the silly comments you've made, this one reigns supreme!
Originally posted by bobs
Okay, so wind resistance and aerodynamics play no role at all? Your logic implies that if I were to drive with my front hood opened up all the way (if it could stay in that position), it wouldn't affect my performance at all, because my horsepower/mass ratio did not change. In my trans am I can feel a difference in acceleration just by turning my popup lights up or down.
Okay, so wind resistance and aerodynamics play no role at all? Your logic implies that if I were to drive with my front hood opened up all the way (if it could stay in that position), it wouldn't affect my performance at all, because my horsepower/mass ratio did not change. In my trans am I can feel a difference in acceleration just by turning my popup lights up or down.
I am confident that my E55 will beat practially anthing stock on the highway. With its Cd of .26 and its probable HP output of over 500
(Using the hp equation above for E55- 4380lbs * (116.4mph / 234)^3 = 539.1 hp)
......raced a 11.47 1/4 mile modded 03' cobra and was neck to neck with it from 60-130. I'm sure to make a video this summer of the race, and an acceleration run from 0-158 (highest speed I obtained in the car)
I've also raced a 360 Modena from a 10mph roll to 70, and had it by a little more than a car length.
Last edited by anerbe; Jan 14, 2004 at 10:59 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
CLS55 AMG
Depends upon the Cd of your ***!!
If you're built like Leonardo DeCrappio, then you're probably safe, but if you're more along the Roseanne Barr type, well, that could cost you nearly a full second!!
Originally posted by Stiggs
What if I tried going 0-60 with my *** hanging out the window?? Would there be a lot of drag??
What if I tried going 0-60 with my *** hanging out the window?? Would there be a lot of drag??
Almost a Member!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
From: Cave Creek, Arizona
1989 420SEL
Hmm...!?
Why would anybody come to a Mercedes forum and slam them? Only to talk up a nasty, low class GM product? Bob, time for you to head back to your "hood", glue some more fake fur to your dash, jump the front end of your GM Caddie off the ground, blast "Snoop Dog" off your 10,000 watt ground pounder, shine your fake gold Caddie pendants, and "hang" with your "homies". You are obviously out of your class of people and all of the rest of us know it.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Sweden. Not Switzerland.
Volvo
Originally posted by bobs
I've had waaaay more mechanical problems with my BMW than with my Trans Am, even though they both have about the same mileage.
I've had waaaay more mechanical problems with my BMW than with my Trans Am, even though they both have about the same mileage.
Almost a Member!
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Sweden. Not Switzerland.
Volvo
More physics
Q: Two cars have identical Cw*A-value and identical power to weight ratio. The only differences between them is the poweroutput and weight. Lets say that the MB has twice the power and weight compared to the caddy.
Who will win?
A: The MB!
Who will win?
A: The MB!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,894
Likes: 8
From: Connecticut
2003 CLK55
Here's an even better physics problem....
2 hot chicks pull up next to you at a stop light....one is driving a caddy and the other is driving a MB. If they have equal horsepower and equal torque and one hot chick is pointing 35 degrees north and the other hot chick is facing due west......which hot chick would you want to bang harder!!!
2 hot chicks pull up next to you at a stop light....one is driving a caddy and the other is driving a MB. If they have equal horsepower and equal torque and one hot chick is pointing 35 degrees north and the other hot chick is facing due west......which hot chick would you want to bang harder!!!
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
From: Phoenix
I think it would be great. My mom even wants to bring her red '79 450SL, restored to perfection. I could maybe round up 6-8 other benzowners ranging from the ugliest 190E you ever saw to an SL55 and an original W124 AMG Hammer 6.0. We should plan something. AZ'ers email me and we'll try to put something together. Unfortuantely, my coupe will be under construction for another month or so and I'd like to be able to bring that.
