krispykrme

no, you simply did not use any logic.

M5 is faster in reaching 100 mph. CLS is slower in reaching 100 mph.

However acceleration through that time frame is not a constant.

CLS launches better than M5 and accelerate better from 0-60. Thus is put more distance between M5 and CLS. M5 starts to catch up from 60 mph to 100 mph. M5 was simply not able to recover from poor launch it has in time when it passed 100 mph. Even though it hit 100 mph faster than CLS, but due to lousy launch capabilities the distance that CLS put on the M5 at 0-60 is probably quiet big (probably at least 1 car length ahead).

rflow306

I hate it when they don't post a slip.

Tony007

Today's Dyno results were posted in a follow up to my previous thread. Here ya go..

https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/133882-kleemann-k2-installation-begins.html

E55_POWER

I think that's pretty excessive. When I ran against my buddy's 06 E55 from 60 to 147ish, I put good distance between us by the time I hit 147 but 55 cars is A LOT...wouldn't that be like over a 1/4 mile?

amgrocket

The weight of each car is going to be different depending on options. The 3800lb weight was the intitial # when the e55 was first being introduced. Due to US regs. the car gained weight ie additional safety equipment, smog related junk. Also i know for a fact that my panarama roof added 200+lbs to the car. Thats how we have varing opinions on the weights of these cars. Btw both are great sports sedans but neither is a sports car.

siswati

Hi guys

just wading into this E55 vs CLS55 vs M5 discussion

Yup Fikse's dragtimes.com website shows how many E55's are running really fast 1/4 mile times, but there are several 1000 E55's out there, and guys have been improving their times over the three years it has been out. It took me a year to drop from 12.5 to 12.169. Waiting for the right weather conditions to align with free time between business commitments, all these things explain why you dont immediately see fast times appear immediately after a car is released, and why tne times get better with time. (huh?)

The CLS55 is very new to the market - there are very few in the country (only 1250 manufactured worldwide per annum vs. 2250 E55's each year iirc).

As more CLS55s hit the strip we will see similar times the the E55's. And the same thing is going to happen with the M5's as well, despite their lack of launch contol in the US. They too will get it wired, learn how to launch and we will see quicker times being posted to the site.

And with regard to overall performance I have raced both at three AMG challenges during 2005. The CLS seemed to be tighter when turning in (could be purely the stiffer ride of the 19's who knows), but the performance of both cars was almost identical. I swapped out between teh CLS55 adn E55 at every opportunity and could not determine that one was definitively faster than the other.

I am hoping that the LSD on my CLS55 with 030 will be worth something. Time will tell - will be at Moroso as soon as time and weather play together.....

vraa

From what I know, the CLS55 has a different steering rack than the E55, hence the quicker turn in.

Grumpy666

The steering ratio has nothing to do with turn-in response. This is modulated primarily by the suspension. It's a measure of how quickly the car tracks to where it's pointed.

vraa

Thanks for the correction.

Then what use is the steering racks ratio anyways? Is it just sensitivity? From my understanding it's how many turns from lock to lock right?

IanSL55

SHOCKER: The E55 is more aerodynamic than the SL55.

It's not about sleek looking or rounded... it's how air flows around, over, and under a car. Until you get to insane aircraft speeds looks don't tell the story.

That said, it probably doesn't matter. Weight is much more a factor when comparing these two cars.

~ Ian

rflow306

Late model E55, 2005 and newer share the same rack and some suspension parts as the cls 55.

Grumpy666

Yes, the steering ratio is the number of turns from lock-to-lock, but you're confusing this with a handling parameter of the car called turn-in (which is also known as oversteer/understeer). For example, you're on a road course and you're entering a corner at high speed. You aim for the apex of the curve, but as soon as you turn the steering wheel, the front tires begin to slide - you're in an understeer condition. Several things can cause this, including incorrect front-end alignment (primarily castor angle), front track width too narrow, improper setup of the suspension, and even driver error (braking too long entering the turn). With good turn-in, the tires go exactly where you aim them when you aim them. This is a very complex topic and compromises have to be made for street cars vs road-race cars. It's taken BMW many years to find the right balance for both environments.

AMG&AMG

is it true that the cls is based on the E or C chassis? more like the C class?

I heard it from a salesguy though,,,

TopGun32

LOL..

those sales people!

E-class chassis... 100%

SleeperX

I am not sure, however the article is date January 6, 2006.

KompressorKev

it's no surprise the CLS55 won in acceleration to the quarter mile. it should also be no surprise that the e60 m5 should win on the top end, from a roll. if the race was 1 mile, the m5 should be ahead. gearing, engine configuration, and the nature of the power curves indicate this. i'd like to see a CLS55 with mkb differential / shorter gearing. it should liven up some top end acceleration.

me, personally, i'd rather have the cls55 - exhaust note, responsiveness to modifications, and style. the cls55 would be a perfect complement to a porsche gt3. the m5 is a fantastic car, i like to think it's a relatively good compromise of both, with fantastic top end acceleration. if only the maserati quattroporte had more grunt...

enzom

Actually, when the CLS55 was introduced, it had a quicker steering rack. The same steering rack was put into the E55 starting with November 04 production. I have a July 04 production, so I have the old rack. Having driven the "improved" E55 at the AMG Challenge, the difference in the E55's steering was very hard to notice.

enzom

I think that the times in the magazine are fake. Someone may have photo shop'd them. Any ideas?

enzom

That's why I place little faith in magazine tests. They are interesting, of course. But show me time slips from a drag strip, and I will take those over any magazine test.

Have yet to see a magazine get lower than a 12.4 for an E55. I consider a 12.4 to be dissappointing when I hit the track.

enzom

It mixes measurements and it assumes that the E55 loses distance at a constant rate, and that won't happen. For example, assume an E55 runs the 1/4 in 12.1 @ 116 mph. Assume that an M5 runs it at 12.6 @ 118 mph. Using 115 as a base trap speed (traps are an average measured over 60 ft), you are looking at a gap between cars of 85 ft when the E55 hits the traps [(115 * 1.46667 -converts mph to feet per second-) * .5 (1/2 second difference to distance).

So now imagine the M5 being 85 ft. (5 and 1/2 car lengths) behind an E55 and racing from 117 mph (average speed of the two cars - the speed difference is negligible) to 150 mph. That's a 33 mph gap. I can't see how the M5 picks up 60 car lengths (965 feet) to finish 880 feet ahead with only 33 mph to pick up. The M5 is very fast at high speeds, and it will get to 150 mph in lesser time, but I don't believe that it could create that kind of distance.

Am I missing something?

anerbe

This is true - aerodynamics don't necessarily go by looks - my thoughts are that the e55's longer body and lower rear rake allow the airflow to develop more, reducing turbulence - sl55 rear drops off much faster.

internal air passages could also effect the drag - you really need to get the CFD and wind tunnel reports to see the air paths thru and under the car.

in other words, looks of a car and it's aerodynamics can be quite different.

MidniteBluBenz

Just to throw a little kink in this arguement over power to weight ratio's between the CLS and E55 think about this. A E55 wagon which weights more than both, but has most of the additional weight in its rump runs 0- 60 in 4.1 and the q/m ini 12.4.

vraa

I think because it grips earlier on because of the additional weight in the rear.

ClayJ

Weight balance is alot of handling...and traction.

The E55T hooks up better simply because of the extra weight over the rear tires. If one didn't mind the extra weight in the car, the old pickup truck in the snow trick of adding a couple of bags of kitty litter, sand, or cement mix, etc. in the trunk next to the wheel wells should do the same for an E55 sedan....100#? 150#?

I am actually surprised that the draggers amongst us having tried or experimented with this themselves and posted about it......

Grumpy666

For the most impact, place it as far back in the trunk as possible. IOW, as close to the tail lights as possible.