Killed a E55, SL55, and CLK55
03-13-2005, 04:19 PM
#251
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fountain Valley, California
Posts: 3,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever keys I grab first...
Originally Posted by absent
Lexani claims a lot of things...
I'm still waiting for the vid confirming his other claim....
I'm still waiting for the vid confirming his other claim....
03-13-2005, 04:27 PM
#252
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fountain Valley, California
Posts: 3,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever keys I grab first...
Improviz,
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.
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.
03-13-2005, 05:15 PM
#253
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
I don't doubt that you beat a turbo, but your reasoning contains a few errors. The first one is this: the times Joe Average, or even Joe Better Than Average in most cases, will get in a high performance car with a manual transmission are not gonna match the times you see in the mags.
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.
03-13-2005, 05:23 PM
#254
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Fountain Valley, California
Posts: 3,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever keys I grab first...
Originally Posted by Improviz
I don't doubt that you beat a turbo, but your reasoning contains a few errors. The first one is this: the times Joe Average, or even Joe Better Than Average in most cases, will get in a high performance car with a manual transmission are not gonna match the times you see in the mags.
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.
, As always Improviz. I understand where your coming from, and eventually Im going to take the SL600 to the strip, just dont know when. Thank you, once again, and I hope to see your well-executed posts around here more often. None of this was meant in a sarcastic way either, I really do see where your coming from. Best Regards,
John
03-13-2005, 05:28 PM
#256
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Lexani
I see your point. And its well proven. , As always Improviz. I understand where your coming from, and eventually Im going to take the SL600 to the strip, just dont know when. Thank you, once again, and I hope to see your well-executed posts around here more often. None of this was meant in a sarcastic way either, I really do see where your coming from.
Best Regards,
John
, As always Improviz. I understand where your coming from, and eventually Im going to take the SL600 to the strip, just dont know when. Thank you, once again, and I hope to see your well-executed posts around here more often. None of this was meant in a sarcastic way either, I really do see where your coming from. Best Regards,
John
Ciao!
03-13-2005, 10:13 PM
#260
Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG GTS
Actually, launching a TT Porsche is quite easy..Rev it to about 2800RPMs let the clutch out rather quickly and it would claw at the ground as it shot forward..It is one of the easiest high performance cars to drive and is recognized for it..
03-13-2005, 10:53 PM
#261
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Chas Jr
Actually, launching a TT Porsche is quite easy..Rev it to about 2800RPMs let the clutch out rather quickly and it would claw at the ground as it shot forward..It is one of the easiest high performance cars to drive and is recognized for it..
03-13-2005, 10:54 PM
#262
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Virginia
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2005 Carlsson CD32 E320 CDI Inline-6
Show up to buy a $5 Million building in a Mustang.....
uuhhhh, no.
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?
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?
03-14-2005, 08:41 AM
#264
Originally Posted by schwarzwagen
not even remotely true. i defy you to show me a stock accord that can beat a stock c-class on a curvy road.
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.
03-14-2005, 01:52 PM
#265
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by Chas Jr
I don't need to check the forums I know this from having one..It is one of the easiest high HP cars to launch.
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.
03-14-2005, 02:51 PM
#267
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by Improviz
Yes, it would claw at the ground and shoot forward...*if* one doesn't bog it, or slip the clutch, both of which can, and do happen. Check the WRX forums, or the Porsche forums, or the Audiworld forums, or the Mitsu EVO forums...particularly with a new owner as being discussed here, this can, and does, happen.
03-14-2005, 02:52 PM
#268
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by schwarzwagen
i have found that the 1-2 shift in the 996TT can get a little volent if you dont do it right. plus the turbos drop off if you screw it up.
03-14-2005, 03:53 PM
#270
MBWorld Fanatic!
Originally Posted by tuscanraider
[B]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...
Lets talk about where MOST of the casual street racing takes place; light to light, on the highway etc...
03-25-2005, 01:40 PM
#272
Senior Member
Doesn't matter how fast it goes, a Mustang will never amount to anything other than a "cool kids car" that you could spot in any High School or Fraternity House parking lot; even standing still, an ///AMG is a status symbol. 'Nuff said.
03-28-2005, 01:58 AM
#274
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C 230K Coupé
How about a Cobra Vs an AMG Mercedes on an autocross course of some sort. I'm pretty sure the AMG will toast it every single time. All the cobras can do is go straight... you'll have to slow down to like 10mph to make a turn so that it doesn't fish tail...
03-28-2005, 08:50 AM
#275
Originally Posted by PDC
Doesn't matter how fast it goes, a Mustang will never amount to anything other than a "cool kids car" that you could spot in any High School or Fraternity House parking lot; even standing still, an ///AMG is a status symbol. 'Nuff said.
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.
