Killed a E55, SL55, and CLK55
I'm still waiting for the vid confirming his other claim....
Here it is in a nut shell:
I'll admit to it. I thought at one point the SL600 had to be modded to pull those times, I really did, than came this day:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...t=91962&page=1
And than I looked at this:
http://www.supercarstats.com/exotics/911t.php
Stay with me, because that led me to this:
After beating that Porsche, and seeing those stats (speaking of 911), it removed ANY and all doubt of my vehicles performance. So, now, throw all the tests you want at me-- all the offers of winning 1K-- throw everything you got, but until the day a SL65 is next to me, and smokes me (3.8) I will remain firm of my position-- now Im not totally ignorant of the facts at hand, I just trust my expeirence more than words. I thank you for putting up with my stubborness, and I ask you to stop trying to dissporve me, because its not going to work-- my apologies.
Now, I'll admit the 'engine' photo was out there-- but I thought whomever modded the vehicle, would put a different engine cover on the vehicle to show and respresent their tuner. I was wrong.
And, just FYI, I have raced an E55 before, and beat it. Further adding to my own assumptions, that the stats that C&D posted, are correct.
Thank you,
Have a nice day.
Go to a drag strip some time and see for yourself: watch and see how many guys in M3's and Porsche 911's run low 13's, compared with how many turn more like a high 13 to low 14. You will be surprised.
Driving these cars takes a great deal of skill. Most drivers' reflexes aren't necessarily as sharp as those of a pro test driver. Most drivers cannot nail the perfect launch, time the perfect shift, and nail the perfect time, *ever*, let alone with consistency. It's really quite difficult, especially if the driver in question is driving a brand new car with which he's not yet totally familiarized...
I mean, heck, even with an auto, the times of any given car vary wildly; go to the E55 forum and examine the different drivers' results with stock E55's. All over the map...and that's with the auto tranny, where no shifting is needed!
So it really is a mistake to assume that the driver you ran matched the mags' 4.0 0-60 time.
The second error you're making is that since the Porsche 911 Turbo runs a 4.0 0-60, then its rolling start times are the same as the Benz. This is simply not the case, for one reason: AWD. The car simply has far, far more traction than any RWD car, and can thus be launched ***FAR*** more agressively, i.e. by dumping the clutch at 4,000 rpm plus. If you did this in a 420 hp RWD car, you'd smoke your tires hopelessly, and get a terrible time. If you do it in a 420 hp AWD car like the turbo, you'll get a fantastic time.
And because of this, the car's 0-xxx times are *much* faster than its rolling start x-xxx times. For proof, look at two tests:
1) Car & Driver's test of the fastest 911 Turbo they ever tested:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.0 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mph
2) Car & Driver's test of the CL600:
0-60 mph 4.5 sec
0-100 mph 9.8 sec
0-150 mph 23.7 sec
1/4-mile @ mph 12.6 @ 115
rolling 5-60 mph 4.5 sec
See the difference a high-traction AWD launch makes?? Even though the Porsche got a 0.7 second faster standing-start 0-60 time than the CL600, the CL600 got a 0.5 second faster rolling-start 0-60 time! Why? Because the rolling start takes traction out of the equation! You will see this in any AWD car...that slingshot launch picks them up a lot of time in the 1/4 mile.
And the thing is, those launches are quite difficult to do. They require a delicate balance of throttle and clutch, because with all that traction, it's very easy to either bog and lose time, or smoke the clutch and lose time. I've driven those things, and trust me: few if any drivers are going to be knocking off 3.8 0-60 times in them with ease or consistency.
So, this would easily explain your beating him; no 3.6 second semi-miraculous 0-60 times required. Even if he was a Car & Driver test driver, you'd have run him down from a roll; against Joe Average, you'd very likely slaughter him, because Joe Average isn't that good, as pointed out before. Plus, as you said in your race post: this thing was brand new...if the driver in question wasn't well acquainted with the car, the likelihood of his being able to drive it to its potential is even lower still.
The point is, with all of these variables, you simply can't accurately know your times from the results of one street encounter. Take it to a strip and see what it'll do; firstly, it's a lot of fun, and more importantly, you'll know for sure what she'll do with you at the wheel, no guesswork involved!
You, too have a nice day.
Go to a drag strip some time and see for yourself: watch and see how many guys in M3's and Porsche 911's run low 13's, compared with how many turn more like a high 13 to low 14. You will be surprised.
Driving these cars takes a great deal of skill. Most drivers' reflexes aren't necessarily as sharp as those of a pro test driver. Most drivers cannot nail the perfect launch, time the perfect shift, and nail the perfect time, *ever*, let alone with consistency. It's really quite difficult, especially if the driver in question is driving a brand new car with which he's not yet totally familiarized...
I mean, heck, even with an auto, the times of any given car vary wildly; go to the E55 forum and examine the different drivers' results with stock E55's. All over the map...and that's with the auto tranny, where no shifting is needed!
So it really is a mistake to assume that the driver you ran matched the mags' 4.0 0-60 time.
The second error you're making is that since the Porsche 911 Turbo runs a 4.0 0-60, then its rolling start times are the same as the Benz. This is simply not the case, for one reason: AWD. The car simply has far, far more traction than any RWD car, and can thus be launched ***FAR*** more agressively, i.e. by dumping the clutch at 4,000 rpm plus. If you did this in a 420 hp RWD car, you'd smoke your tires hopelessly, and get a terrible time. If you do it in a 420 hp AWD car like the turbo, you'll get a fantastic time.
And because of this, the car's 0-xxx times are *much* faster than its rolling start x-xxx times. For proof, look at two tests:
1) Car & Driver's test of the fastest 911 Turbo they ever tested:
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 9.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 16.0 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 5.0 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 12.2 sec @ 116 mph
2) Car & Driver's test of the CL600:
0-60 mph 4.5 sec
0-100 mph 9.8 sec
0-150 mph 23.7 sec
1/4-mile @ mph 12.6 @ 115
rolling 5-60 mph 4.5 sec
See the difference a high-traction AWD launch makes?? Even though the Porsche got a 0.7 second faster standing-start 0-60 time than the CL600, the CL600 got a 0.5 second faster rolling-start 0-60 time! Why? Because the rolling start takes traction out of the equation! You will see this in any AWD car...that slingshot launch picks them up a lot of time in the 1/4 mile.
And the thing is, those launches are quite difficult to do. They require a delicate balance of throttle and clutch, because with all that traction, it's very easy to either bog and lose time, or smoke the clutch and lose time. I've driven those things, and trust me: few if any drivers are going to be knocking off 3.8 0-60 times in them with ease or consistency.
So, this would easily explain your beating him; no 3.6 second semi-miraculous 0-60 times required. Even if he was a Car & Driver test driver, you'd have run him down from a roll; against Joe Average, you'd very likely slaughter him, because Joe Average isn't that good, as pointed out before. Plus, as you said in your race post: this thing was brand new...if the driver in question wasn't well acquainted with the car, the likelihood of his being able to drive it to its potential is even lower still.
The point is, with all of these variables, you simply can't accurately know your times from the results of one street encounter. Take it to a strip and see what it'll do; firstly, it's a lot of fun, and more importantly, you'll know for sure what she'll do with you at the wheel, no guesswork involved!
You, too have a nice day.

Best Regards,
John
Best Regards,
John

Ciao!
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Show up to buy a $5 Million building in an E55 or CLS 55, that works.
19 and on spring break in an E55....no.
19 and on spring break in a Mustang, ya, that works.
Different cars for different people. Why are they even being compared?
I didn't say anything about a curvy road.
Lets talk about where MOST of the casual street racing takes place; light to light, on the highway etc.....No C-Class (except AMG's) is going to beat Mom's Accord, Maxima, etc....sorry it just won't happen. I've tried it many times I get killed.Although I did beat a Dodge Stratus once, but I think that was because he had a donut instead of his normal right front tire.
If you dump the clutch too fast, you can bog. Too slow, you can slip. You have to time it just right, and other people who have owned them have written extensively about this, so forgive me for not considering you to be the final word on the subject.
Have a nice day.
Lets talk about where MOST of the casual street racing takes place; light to light, on the highway etc...Hey poptart, tell me when I supposed to be impressed with your amg.
Besides if your buying an amg or any car for that matter, because its a "status symbol" you have much deeper issues. Either that or a small d1ck.
'nuff said.






