E55 versus SL55, Sprint Times
10-14-2002, 03:37 AM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55, F550, S600 Ducati 999
Guys
You are all missing a basic peice of info I posted earlier.
The SL55 uses a 2.82 to 1 rear axle ratio.
The E55 uses a 2.65 to 1 rear axle ratio.
This means that the heavier SL55 WILL probably accelerate as fast or faster than the lighter E55.
Check the gear ratios under technical specs on the AMG web site.
You are all missing a basic peice of info I posted earlier.
The SL55 uses a 2.82 to 1 rear axle ratio.
The E55 uses a 2.65 to 1 rear axle ratio.
This means that the heavier SL55 WILL probably accelerate as fast or faster than the lighter E55.
Check the gear ratios under technical specs on the AMG web site.
10-14-2002, 06:19 AM
#27
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree -- the difference in the rear end can be a huge difference. There are three critical factors: gearing, weight, and power. The SL55 has a 2.82 rear end, which is 6.4% more aggressive than the E55's 2.65 rear end. This means it can deliver 6.4% more torque to the road in every gear and at all times, assuming similar drivetrains. The SL55 weighs 1,955 kg, which is 6.5% more weight than the E55's weight of 1,835 kg. The increased torque compensates nearly exactly for the weight of the SL55. If the cars had the same power, they'd be dead even for the first 100 mph. However, they have different power ratings: the SL55 is rated for 500 hp in Europe vs 476 hp in the E55. Unless the ratings are not accurate, I'm willing to bet that the SL55 will outrun an E55 in a 0-60 and 0-100 mph test.
But then there's aerodynamics, right? Could the more slippery E55 overtake the SL55 at higher speeds? The SL55 is smaller with a frontal area of 2.35 m^2 @ 0.29 Cd. The E55 is larger with a frontal area of 2.60 m^2 @ 0.26 Cd. At the same speed, the SL55 suffers from 0.5% more drag than the E55, which means the E55 should accelerate 0.5% faster than the SL55. Is that significant? Not a chance. (these aero figures are really an approximation ... frontal area was estimated by the height and the width of the car, not taking into account the space underneath, etc ... enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations).
If the figures that I'm using are correct, the SL55 should continue to outaccelerate the E55 all the way through drag-limited speed limits.
But then there's aerodynamics, right? Could the more slippery E55 overtake the SL55 at higher speeds? The SL55 is smaller with a frontal area of 2.35 m^2 @ 0.29 Cd. The E55 is larger with a frontal area of 2.60 m^2 @ 0.26 Cd. At the same speed, the SL55 suffers from 0.5% more drag than the E55, which means the E55 should accelerate 0.5% faster than the SL55. Is that significant? Not a chance. (these aero figures are really an approximation ... frontal area was estimated by the height and the width of the car, not taking into account the space underneath, etc ... enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations).
If the figures that I'm using are correct, the SL55 should continue to outaccelerate the E55 all the way through drag-limited speed limits.
10-14-2002, 10:49 AM
#29
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Sweden
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by dNA3D
0-124 mph in an SL55 with the "old" 476HP takes 13.7 seconds. On the E55 AMG, it takes 16.1 seconds.
0-124 mph in an SL55 with the "old" 476HP takes 13.7 seconds. On the E55 AMG, it takes 16.1 seconds.
10-14-2002, 01:25 PM
#30
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ML 500 Sport
Originally posted by marauder
I agree -- the difference in the rear end can be a huge difference. There are three critical factors: gearing, weight, and power. The SL55 has a 2.82 rear end, which is 6.4% more aggressive than the E55's 2.65 rear end. This means it can deliver 6.4% more torque to the road in every gear and at all times, assuming similar drivetrains. The SL55 weighs 1,955 kg, which is 6.5% more weight than the E55's weight of 1,835 kg. The increased torque compensates nearly exactly for the weight of the SL55. If the cars had the same power, they'd be dead even for the first 100 mph. However, they have different power ratings: the SL55 is rated for 500 hp in Europe vs 476 hp in the E55. Unless the ratings are not accurate, I'm willing to bet that the SL55 will outrun an E55 in a 0-60 and 0-100 mph test.
But then there's aerodynamics, right? Could the more slippery E55 overtake the SL55 at higher speeds? The SL55 is smaller with a frontal area of 2.35 m^2 @ 0.29 Cd. The E55 is larger with a frontal area of 2.60 m^2 @ 0.26 Cd. At the same speed, the SL55 suffers from 0.5% more drag than the E55, which means the E55 should accelerate 0.5% faster than the SL55. Is that significant? Not a chance. (these aero figures are really an approximation ... frontal area was estimated by the height and the width of the car, not taking into account the space underneath, etc ... enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations).
If the figures that I'm using are correct, the SL55 should continue to outaccelerate the E55 all the way through drag-limited speed limits.
I agree -- the difference in the rear end can be a huge difference. There are three critical factors: gearing, weight, and power. The SL55 has a 2.82 rear end, which is 6.4% more aggressive than the E55's 2.65 rear end. This means it can deliver 6.4% more torque to the road in every gear and at all times, assuming similar drivetrains. The SL55 weighs 1,955 kg, which is 6.5% more weight than the E55's weight of 1,835 kg. The increased torque compensates nearly exactly for the weight of the SL55. If the cars had the same power, they'd be dead even for the first 100 mph. However, they have different power ratings: the SL55 is rated for 500 hp in Europe vs 476 hp in the E55. Unless the ratings are not accurate, I'm willing to bet that the SL55 will outrun an E55 in a 0-60 and 0-100 mph test.
But then there's aerodynamics, right? Could the more slippery E55 overtake the SL55 at higher speeds? The SL55 is smaller with a frontal area of 2.35 m^2 @ 0.29 Cd. The E55 is larger with a frontal area of 2.60 m^2 @ 0.26 Cd. At the same speed, the SL55 suffers from 0.5% more drag than the E55, which means the E55 should accelerate 0.5% faster than the SL55. Is that significant? Not a chance. (these aero figures are really an approximation ... frontal area was estimated by the height and the width of the car, not taking into account the space underneath, etc ... enough for back-of-the-envelope calculations).
If the figures that I'm using are correct, the SL55 should continue to outaccelerate the E55 all the way through drag-limited speed limits.
A car's performance is the result of entire package not just the motor...for as much as they share many parts the the w211 and the r230 are very different cars
Finally someone is talking about gearing!...I think you will find the SL 55 will indeed be quicker...there are alot of ways AMG can manipulate HP besides the basic engine: intake, mapping, exhaust, tranny, rearend, etc...will you be able to make changes in the E55 to boost it up to SL spec?...undoubtably. Will you be able to bump the SL55 performance? certainly.
And to confirm this point...ALL SL 55's have had the same HP except for very slight variations between US and Euro spec. The ONLY changes have been in the paperwork!: ie certification.
Kind of a ridiculous academic argument at this point...I guess some of us have too much time on our hands!
What to get absurd: I would launch the SL with the top down for the added weight on rear tires...if it you could get it to close in under two seconds you could then take advantage of the reduced aero drag you accelerate!
Last edited by jco-amg; 10-14-2002 at 01:33 PM.
10-14-2002, 06:04 PM
#31
..................I don't think rear differential adjustment as a way to improve 0-60 times and limit top speed a bit such is a big mystery that is not understood by many on this forum. The thread was just a conversation about how without adjustments by MB, the E55 can end up faster than the SL55 and how the 493 HP engine will not make it to the CLk55 which incidentally has a rear diffrential ratio of 2.87 and weighs less than the E55 and the SL55.
Ted
Ted
10-14-2002, 08:07 PM
#32
Ted,
I don't quite understand your message, but changing the final drive ratio is a common and simple way to effect 0-60 times and change top speed.
Marauder's and Jco's argument explains it perfectly.
Intrinsically, the E55 W211 is faster than the SL55, but members on this board are pointing out that the combination of a "detuned" 476HP engine and 2.65 vs. 2.82 differential ratio on the E55 has equated the performance of the two cars.
-oktane
I don't quite understand your message, but changing the final drive ratio is a common and simple way to effect 0-60 times and change top speed.
Marauder's and Jco's argument explains it perfectly.
Intrinsically, the E55 W211 is faster than the SL55, but members on this board are pointing out that the combination of a "detuned" 476HP engine and 2.65 vs. 2.82 differential ratio on the E55 has equated the performance of the two cars.
-oktane
10-15-2002, 12:27 AM
#33
I don't quite understand your message, but changing the final drive ratio is a common and simple way to effect 0-60 times and change top speed.
.............My point is that HOW to achieve lower performance from the E55 with respect to the SL55 is not a mystery even if they have the same engine. Issues such as gear ratio, HP to weight ratio etc are understood by many. The main question was wether or not MB was actually going to purposely do it to prevent the E55 from being faster than the SL55. My feeling was yes they would for the same reason that Mb has chosen to exclude the supercharged engine from the CLK55. With lower weight, 2.87 differential the CLK55 with the supercharged engine would have beemnn faster thamn both the E55 and the SL55.
HERE IS THE LINK FOR THE GEAR RATIOS IN CURRENT MB's IN PRODUCTION
Ted
.............My point is that HOW to achieve lower performance from the E55 with respect to the SL55 is not a mystery even if they have the same engine. Issues such as gear ratio, HP to weight ratio etc are understood by many. The main question was wether or not MB was actually going to purposely do it to prevent the E55 from being faster than the SL55. My feeling was yes they would for the same reason that Mb has chosen to exclude the supercharged engine from the CLK55. With lower weight, 2.87 differential the CLK55 with the supercharged engine would have beemnn faster thamn both the E55 and the SL55.
HERE IS THE LINK FOR THE GEAR RATIOS IN CURRENT MB's IN PRODUCTION
Ted
10-15-2002, 12:36 AM
#34
Okay, in that case sorry for the misunderstanding. I think we are on the same page.
I agree that MB marketing had some involvement in what we're seeing with the E55/CLK55. It's really a shame that the CLK55 doesn't get "kompressed."
As for the E55, I wonder if the differential from the SL55 would be an easy swap.....
-oktane
I agree that MB marketing had some involvement in what we're seeing with the E55/CLK55. It's really a shame that the CLK55 doesn't get "kompressed."
As for the E55, I wonder if the differential from the SL55 would be an easy swap.....
-oktane
10-15-2002, 12:57 AM
#35
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 756
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current article on the new SL55 (Motor Trend? Car/Driver?) reports a 0-60 time of 4.5 sec's.
I skimmed thru the thread skipping alot of peoples responses but i am sure the E55 will be a little slower (.1 or .2 sec probably) If I was stuck between the choice of the two I would go with SL55 just cause that car is such a ****ing beauty, I love the style of the new SL, and its a two door, and its a convertable
10-15-2002, 02:34 PM
#36
Originally posted by Caliz_Finest
I have the new motortrend sitting right here on my desk and it says 4.39 and i have the tv special saved on my computer
I skimmed thru the thread skipping alot of peoples responses but i am sure the E55 will be a little slower (.1 or .2 sec probably) If I was stuck between the choice of the two I would go with SL55 just cause that car is such a ****ing beauty, I love the style of the new SL, and its a two door, and its a convertable
I have the new motortrend sitting right here on my desk and it says 4.39 and i have the tv special saved on my computer
I skimmed thru the thread skipping alot of peoples responses but i am sure the E55 will be a little slower (.1 or .2 sec probably) If I was stuck between the choice of the two I would go with SL55 just cause that car is such a ****ing beauty, I love the style of the new SL, and its a two door, and its a convertable
10-16-2002, 02:07 AM
#38
Originally posted by Caliz_Finest
AndrewEclipse, I tried sending it twice but I guess its too big for the mail server or something, if you really want it talk to me on AIM, put ur sn up here and ill send it to u
AndrewEclipse, I tried sending it twice but I guess its too big for the mail server or something, if you really want it talk to me on AIM, put ur sn up here and ill send it to u
Thanks for trying. My screenname is Minaeclpse . (no I) Just send it over when you see me online. Thanks.
10-18-2002, 09:23 AM
#39
Member
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Brunei
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too Young To Drive
Originally posted by Caliz_Finest
I have the new motortrend sitting right here on my desk and it says 4.39 and i have the tv special saved on my computer
I skimmed thru the thread skipping alot of peoples responses but i am sure the E55 will be a little slower (.1 or .2 sec probably) If I was stuck between the choice of the two I would go with SL55 just cause that car is such a ****ing beauty, I love the style of the new SL, and its a two door, and its a convertable
I have the new motortrend sitting right here on my desk and it says 4.39 and i have the tv special saved on my computer
I skimmed thru the thread skipping alot of peoples responses but i am sure the E55 will be a little slower (.1 or .2 sec probably) If I was stuck between the choice of the two I would go with SL55 just cause that car is such a ****ing beauty, I love the style of the new SL, and its a two door, and its a convertable
