Dragstrip speed vs real world street speed
11-13-2006, 12:25 PM
#51
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Earth
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i was waiting for someone to call me out...my car completely stock ran 12.01 @116 with 5xx miles on it...best 60' was 1.80…on dragtimes.com
went back about 10 months later and ran 11.84, 11.87, 11.91 completely stock with the exception of the goodyear GSD3's which had a SLOWER 60' time…on dragtimes.com
my times are good and probably the exception but at sea level (houston) in good air i believe the 55's will run 11.90's - 12.00's all day long.
i've had a couple of people question my car...but it seems nobody ever wants to meet me at the drag strip (HRP) and put their money where their mouth is...
john
Your post above implys that your car was stock when it ran and is still stock. Maybe it is. Maybe you did not end up installing the pulley you mention in number 13 of this post: https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/100678-traded-my-s500-e55-today.html
Its kinda hard to know what to believe from those posting here, especially when their claims are out of the norm. I take it all with a grain of salt.
11-13-2006, 12:38 PM
#52
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: South Florida
Posts: 527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'10 Panamera S, '06 AMG CLS55, '07 Miata MX5, '02 MB SPRINTER, '99 Spec Miata Race Car (2X)
Notwithstanding all the back on forth regarding whose d!ck is bigger, I think the most important issue of debate is being overlooked
Follow my Logic
the 55k motors were quoted at 469HP (E55's and CLS55's)
the 63NA motors were quoted at 505HP (E63's and CLS63's)
the M5 motors are quoted at 500HP
Quesion 1 - Why are the 55k / 63NA motors dynoing at the same levels????? My suspicion is that the 55k motors were underquoted for a variety of reasons (as mentioned ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere)
Now whats going on at the drag strip?
On the drag strip the 55k motor generally kills the 63. I have run 9 times againgst 63NA's and they have not been really close - 3-10 lengths behind. The 55k obviously gets the initial jump due to torque, but the most interesting thing is that the 63 does not start catching the 55k. The trap speeds on every encounter were almost always pretty much identical (which is expanined by the similar HP numbers - now confirmed by dyno)
HOWEVER the M5 is similarily slow out the gate but..... BOY does that thing start coming on strong at the end - you're just praying the 1/4 mile gates come soon otherewise you know it will eat you alive, and the M5 always traps 2-4 MPH faster. AND IT ONLY HAS 500HP!
SO whats wrong with this picture - the logic doesnt fit
Follow my Logic
the 55k motors were quoted at 469HP (E55's and CLS55's)
the 63NA motors were quoted at 505HP (E63's and CLS63's)
the M5 motors are quoted at 500HP
Quesion 1 - Why are the 55k / 63NA motors dynoing at the same levels????? My suspicion is that the 55k motors were underquoted for a variety of reasons (as mentioned ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere)
Now whats going on at the drag strip?
On the drag strip the 55k motor generally kills the 63. I have run 9 times againgst 63NA's and they have not been really close - 3-10 lengths behind. The 55k obviously gets the initial jump due to torque, but the most interesting thing is that the 63 does not start catching the 55k. The trap speeds on every encounter were almost always pretty much identical (which is expanined by the similar HP numbers - now confirmed by dyno)
HOWEVER the M5 is similarily slow out the gate but..... BOY does that thing start coming on strong at the end - you're just praying the 1/4 mile gates come soon otherewise you know it will eat you alive, and the M5 always traps 2-4 MPH faster. AND IT ONLY HAS 500HP!
SO whats wrong with this picture - the logic doesnt fit
- is the 63NA putting out 505HP?
- is the M5 underated at 500HP?
- is the siginficant difference in trap speeds between the M5 and the 63NA purely a question of gearing?
Last edited by siswati; 11-13-2006 at 12:52 PM.
11-13-2006, 01:12 PM
#53
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Friendswood, TX
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'08 CLS63
Your post above implys that your car was stock when it ran and is still stock. Maybe it is. Maybe you did not end up installing the pulley you mention in number 13 of this post: https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100678
Its kinda hard to know what to believe from those posting here, especially when their claims are out of the norm. I take it all with a grain of salt.
Its kinda hard to know what to believe from those posting here, especially when their claims are out of the norm. I take it all with a grain of salt.
like i said...meet me (or anybody from this or any other board) at the racetrack anytime...check the pulley or whatever you want...then we'll run the cars and see if i can back up my times. bring another 55 and i'll bet it runs within a tenth of my car...just don't bring a 63 unless you want your feelings hurt.
john
11-13-2006, 01:13 PM
#54
Other than the start, the M5 has a big advantage because of the SMG transmission, unless it breaks. The shifts are super quick and after first gear it stays in its power band. This can not be said for the E63.
11-13-2006, 02:05 PM
#55
Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: New Jersey.
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E55, 2007 GL450
Originally Posted by E63AMG
Your post above implys that your car was stock when it ran and is still stock. Maybe it is. Maybe you did not end up installing the pulley you mention in number 13 of this post: https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=100678
Its kinda hard to know what to believe from those posting here, especially when their claims are out of the norm. I take it all with a grain of salt.
Its kinda hard to know what to believe from those posting here, especially when their claims are out of the norm. I take it all with a grain of salt.
I may be wrong, but....
S.
11-13-2006, 11:28 PM
#56
MBWorld Fanatic!
Pterion - just to set the record straight
Many Stock E55's have run way faster than 12.3 - absolutely BONE STOCK - just check out dragtimes - I ran 12.169 at Moroso (not the greatest track by any means) with a 1.78 60ft.
REMEMBER - THIS IS BONE STOCK - speak to Fikse and others and they will all bring out their time slips to prove it.
Many Stock E55's have run way faster than 12.3 - absolutely BONE STOCK - just check out dragtimes - I ran 12.169 at Moroso (not the greatest track by any means) with a 1.78 60ft.
REMEMBER - THIS IS BONE STOCK - speak to Fikse and others and they will all bring out their time slips to prove it.
To automatically say that any e55 running faster than 12.30's is not stock is ridiculous. By that rational then the two 63's at Atlanta were ringers since no one on this board has posted such fast times for an e63 or cls63.
11-14-2006, 02:09 AM
#57
Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Durban,South Africa
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55 2004
Notwithstanding all the back on forth regarding whose d!ck is bigger, I think the most important issue of debate is being overlooked
Follow my Logic
the 55k motors were quoted at 469HP (E55's and CLS55's)
the 63NA motors were quoted at 505HP (E63's and CLS63's)
the M5 motors are quoted at 500HP
Quesion 1 - Why are the 55k / 63NA motors dynoing at the same levels????? My suspicion is that the 55k motors were underquoted for a variety of reasons (as mentioned ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere)
Now whats going on at the drag strip?
On the drag strip the 55k motor generally kills the 63. I have run 9 times againgst 63NA's and they have not been really close - 3-10 lengths behind. The 55k obviously gets the initial jump due to torque, but the most interesting thing is that the 63 does not start catching the 55k. The trap speeds on every encounter were almost always pretty much identical (which is expanined by the similar HP numbers - now confirmed by dyno)
HOWEVER the M5 is similarily slow out the gate but..... BOY does that thing start coming on strong at the end - you're just praying the 1/4 mile gates come soon otherewise you know it will eat you alive, and the M5 always traps 2-4 MPH faster. AND IT ONLY HAS 500HP!
SO whats wrong with this picture - the logic doesnt fit
Follow my Logic
the 55k motors were quoted at 469HP (E55's and CLS55's)
the 63NA motors were quoted at 505HP (E63's and CLS63's)
the M5 motors are quoted at 500HP
Quesion 1 - Why are the 55k / 63NA motors dynoing at the same levels????? My suspicion is that the 55k motors were underquoted for a variety of reasons (as mentioned ad nauseum on this forum and elsewhere)
Now whats going on at the drag strip?
On the drag strip the 55k motor generally kills the 63. I have run 9 times againgst 63NA's and they have not been really close - 3-10 lengths behind. The 55k obviously gets the initial jump due to torque, but the most interesting thing is that the 63 does not start catching the 55k. The trap speeds on every encounter were almost always pretty much identical (which is expanined by the similar HP numbers - now confirmed by dyno)
HOWEVER the M5 is similarily slow out the gate but..... BOY does that thing start coming on strong at the end - you're just praying the 1/4 mile gates come soon otherewise you know it will eat you alive, and the M5 always traps 2-4 MPH faster. AND IT ONLY HAS 500HP!
SO whats wrong with this picture - the logic doesnt fit
- is the 63NA putting out 505HP?
- is the M5 underated at 500HP?
- is the siginficant difference in trap speeds between the M5 and the 63NA purely a question of gearing?
11-14-2006, 04:11 AM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Possibly. Some loss of power through the T/C has to come even though its a 100% lock up system. But gearing to me is the answer - the E63 gearing is still a major issue for me with 2 overdrives.. the 7 SPD M5 is geared for performance from 0-200mph. The E63 is not.
Have to say one of the biggest -ve's on the E63 when I drove it was the friggin' gearing... they could have made this thing a proper monster...
Here is a thought ... if they made the gearing "right" the E63 may well have been allot quicker than some flagship AMG models e.g. SL55 CL55's? So this gearing choice might have been done with more than consumption in mind.
Have to say one of the biggest -ve's on the E63 when I drove it was the friggin' gearing... they could have made this thing a proper monster...
Here is a thought ... if they made the gearing "right" the E63 may well have been allot quicker than some flagship AMG models e.g. SL55 CL55's? So this gearing choice might have been done with more than consumption in mind.
