It should be 200-300 pounds lighter than the C55, and it has two more gears (a seven-speed auto to the C55's five). I'm thinking that it will run in the mid-to-high 12 second 1/4 mile range.

As to the Lotus: Road & Track tested it, and got 4.7 0-60, 13.1 0-100, and a 13.4@101.4 1/4 mile. If you look at the 0-100 and 1/4 mile trap speed of 101.4, it's apparent that it simply doesn't have the pull up high of the AMG stuff, which normally does 0-100 around 12 seconds (except for the supercharged 5.5L cars, which get there in the nines!), and trap at around 105-107 in the 1/4 mile. And that's the current batch: the SLK55 will probably trap closer to 110+ (fearless prediction ). But the Elise will definitely offer more smiles per mile through a set of twisties with that huge weight advantage, if you can stand the noise, etc...

Let us know what you think of them when you drive them, and enjoy whatever you get!

 

I think mid 12's is definitely a bit aggressive for the SLK55. I'd guess 13.1-13.2 for the 1/3.

Anyway, regarding the Lotus, several car mags have quoted Lotus engineers as saying 300 HP out of the new Elise is easy and reliable. If that is true, a modded Elise will terrorize most everything out there even on the straights! And all for around $50K (assuming $40K base + $10K for mods).

 

I said mid-to-*high* 12's, which meant that I was predicting its 1/4 mile times at anywhere from a 12.5 to a 12.9. I stand by that, and in fact will change it: I fearlessly predict a 12.7 or better, for the following reasons:

1) at least two publications, Car & Driver and Motor Trend, tested the SLK32 right at (virtually in the latter) a 13 flat; Motor Trend (April 2002) ran 4.62 second 0-60 and a 13.06@108.74 1/4 mile(Motor Trend's road test of SLK32); Car & Driver (also April 2002) ran a 4.5 second 0-60 and a 13.0@110 1/4 mile.

2) afaik, the SLK55 won't gain appreciable weight;

3) the SLK55 has gained around 60 lb-ft of torque;

4) the SLK55 has gained two gears, seven to the SLK32's five. *One* extra gear normally nets around 0.3-0.4 in the 1/4, and this is two. Shoot, the extra torque alone should put it in the high 12's.

Bottom line is this: if the car can't pick up at least 0.3 with two extra gears and 60 lb-ft of torque, I'd be shocked. If it couldn't pick up at least 0.1, all it would need to be in the high 12's, I'd be *in* shock.

And as to the Lotus: you don't pick up 110 horsepower easily in *any* engine, let alone a 1.8L four cylinder; it'd take either an entire gutting of the engine and upgraded heads, cams, etc., or forced induction. This is, after all, the same engine that's in the Toyota Celica. Great engine, but at 300 hp you're talking 167 horsepower/liter, far more than any production motor on earth. Doable, but only at substantial expense, and with markedly adverse affects upon engine reliablity.

 

I agree. The SLK55 will easily run mid to high 12s. Magazines got 13 flat for the SLK32 but some people were even able to pull a high 12 stock. The toqure and extra gears will make it no problem for the SLK55.

 

Heck, increasing the lotus HP and Torque by 20 - 25% would rape majority of the cars on the road in a straight line, becuase the car is so freaking light Well now top that with a great MPG. (just kidding you better not worry about gas at this price).
But as pointed out Lotus is not a daily car, it is something you take out on the weekend.

 

congrats on the kill...

 

Here's one interesting link re the previous gen Elise:

http://www.turbotechnics.com/cars/TT230.htm

Maximum power: 230 bhp @ 7000 rpm
Maximum Torque: 190 lb ft @ 5000 rpm

I don't remember what the stock previous Elise is, but I seem to recall 120 HP. If that is correct, this is a 110 HP increase or more than 90%! It does require some other mods, but still, pretty amazing. I'd bet we'll see a 280+ HP new gen Elise from someone soon enough.


I'd love to see the new SLK55 run a 12.7. I don't think it's gonna happen on a completely stock car, though.

 

Data on prev Lotus elise

And the link does back up what I pointed out in the previous thread, it would take major engine modifications or forced induction at great expense to gain 110 horsepower in the Elise. The TT230 supercharger (i.e., forced induction) package you linked to costs £8325 in the UK per the website's pricing data . This is $15,151.50 at today's exchange rate. Not cheap, and that's only 74 horsepower; 110 would certainly cost even more.

And you don't choose to believe the data posted which shows the SLK55 should be in the high 12's? Why?

The car has 11 more horsepower, 60 ft-lb more torque, two more gears, better traction control, and the same weight as the old one. So what, in your opinion, would prevent it from picking up a mere 0.3 in the 1/4?

Look at the compared 1/4 mile times for the previous Accura CL S-Type: with the five-speed, it ran 6.1 seconds 0-60 and a 14.9 1/4. With the six-speed, and no horsepower changes, it ran more like a 5.7/14.5, with no additional horsepower or torque. And that's from adding *one* gear; the new SLK55 has added *two*.

The gears *alone* should net it at least a 12.7. What makes you think it won't?

Anyway, here's one more datapoint: the German car mag Sport Auto has now tested both the C32 and the C55. Here's the data for the C32 (all are 0-xxxKm/h):

0-100: 5.5
0-160: 12.5
0-200: 19.8

Now, the C55:
0-100: 5.3
0-160: 11.7
0-200: 18.3

Only thing to change was the engine. 0-100 Km/h is roughly 0-62 mph. And there's usually a 1:1 correlation between a gain in 0-60 and a gain in the 1/4. So, simply changing the engine, the CLK55 picked up about 0.2 in the 1/4. And that's with the same number of gears as before. What do you think it'd do with two more gears??

I stand by it. 12.7 or better. We should find out soon enough...

 

I dont think a race with M5 would be that easy...

With good drivers....you should be at least dead even...

There are some driver with M5's posted 1/4 times with Slips (Prove) 12.73...

The best I my freind did in his car was 13.03...

So it should be very close race...

 

Think all you want my friend, but the reality is that i beat that M5. Why cant BMW people ever accept defeat?

 

So true. When I beat the 740iL's and post on forums people start flaming me. The only problem is they are all bmw drivers

 

I am not saying that you dint not beat him...If you say you then you did...Only thing I am saying...and good runining M5 with a good driver will not be EASY...as you said...

with C55 you just need to floor it and the rest is done by the car....I do beleive it most of the situations C55 would have an edge...Not many people can get the 100% out of their M5's...

 

i have to disagree... with my car, with the rest of our cars, if you just floor it from a stop you will light up hte tires through first gear and most of 2nd!!! You need to know how to get the car out the hole with minimal tirespin but not too lightly. We dont have an LSD or a traction control system that closely resembles LSD. Talk about a car with lack of involved skill, how about those SMG cars with launch control and paddle shifters!!

 

Well said! Those SMGs are hilarious. BMW Engines are more like Honda Engines. Low torque and max HP only comes in at a very high RPM.

The C55 AMG is a BEAST. And due to its tight, rigid frame and solid, solid torque figures, I can see it beating an M5 all day.

 

That'll be me!

Thank You!

 

I accept it! Please dont generalise! I got whipped by an M3 from standstill alot of times... DAMN THOSE SMG's !!!! However, I am curious to know how the C55 compares to the M3 off the line!

I have been offered a 2002 model C32 AMG ( white ) with 15,000 kms on the clock. Its got 19 inch brabus wheels on it! I know the owner and he offered to sell it to me for $40k !

Does that sound fair?

 

[QUOTE=Ahmed]I accept it! Please dont generalise! I got whipped by an M3 from standstill alot of times... DAMN THOSE SMG's !!!! However, I am curious to know how the C55 compares to the M3 off the line!

I have been offered a 2002 model C32 AMG ( white ) with 15,000 kms on the clock. Its got 19 inch brabus wheels on it! I know the owner and he offered to sell it to me for $40k !

Ahmed C32 are CRAZY my friend??? Why...It nice but you got the BEAST!!! or maybe you need it for something else...

I think C55 will kill M3SMG from the lights...if it does not spin too much...

I've driven a C32 before and it's not that hard to launch it...Although I must admit I like it and it was fast.. like M5 or may be not ...

 

[QUOTE=M5 RUS]ever driven a chip and pulleyed C32?

 

Nope!!! Is it much Faaster??? But we are talking stock vs stock...we can put chip, pully on M5 and so on and so forths...it can go on forever...

 

So you haven't even broken in the engine yet you raced an M5? Am I the only one who thinks that's not a good idea?

For anyone who thinks the M5 is an easy kill, you are mistaken. They have very fast ¼ mile times (definitely better than the C32), driven properly, it's at least as fast as the C55.

 

the only pulley kit for hte M5 would be an underdrive pulley kit that probably wouldnt do much... a supercharged motor responds much better to mods then an N/A motor... unles we are talking about an LT1 or LS1!!! Put it this way, my cousin's C32 ran 12.8 @ 110mph at the track with less mods then mine!!!

 

 

Hi there...

Actually... when i first got the M5, i was pesymistic about its tuning possibilities. With the mods i have right now.. (hardly even bolt-ons), i managed to take on an SL55 AMG from standstill all the way to 200 km/h. He couldnt gain an inch on me after i whipped it from zero by a good 3 car lengths!

But once that dial hit 200 km/h, the AMG reeled me in like a marlin on a hook!

 

i'm sure you have seen Loneman's video from bmwm5.com running his M5 and SL55 together. If not, go download it!! The SL55 took off like the M5's standing still.

 

to the SL55 vs. M5 video?