E63 better than E55?
02-08-2008, 12:30 PM
#76
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
AlbertM, you're clearly not understanding me here. Maybe I should give you a little info about myself to help you understand that I'm not some moron. I've been building and racing cars for almost ten years now. I have a stack of dyno sheets in a chest somewhere. Dyno's are the only way to prove IN REALITY how much power a car makes. I have personally seen Sunny55's E55 and SL55 dyno'd, both baselined at approximately the SAME NUMBERS.
The 55k motor is unchanged across the entire line yet Mercedes lists the 2005 S55 at 493 horsepower, the SL55 at 493, and the E55 at 469. Why? Because people would complain if they paid the extra money for an SL55 that was SLOWER than an E55. All of those cars DYNO in the same range.
The dyno numbers I mentioned are not a few isolated runs, but COUNTLESS dynos over the years. Do a search, stop making yourself look like a fool, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
The 55k motor is unchanged across the entire line yet Mercedes lists the 2005 S55 at 493 horsepower, the SL55 at 493, and the E55 at 469. Why? Because people would complain if they paid the extra money for an SL55 that was SLOWER than an E55. All of those cars DYNO in the same range.
The dyno numbers I mentioned are not a few isolated runs, but COUNTLESS dynos over the years. Do a search, stop making yourself look like a fool, I'm not going to waste any more of my time on you.
Ok lets assume that I am. wrong. I have one question though, can you tell me what is the margin of error on the dynos that you use? If it is anywhere close to 5% -- you get my point right? In order to not confuse 500 with 470, the dyno would have to significanly better then 5% error.
Let me know what you find out.
Last edited by AlbertM; 02-08-2008 at 12:34 PM.
02-08-2008, 12:33 PM
#77
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
The...point...is...rear wheel numbers are MEASURED at specific conditions that can be documented. Published MB numbers are not rear wheel and don't stipulate the conditions.
Furthermore, HP is ALL that matters because one can generate whatever level of torque they like at the rear wheels through gearing, within the limitations of the power available. Torque can be transformed, HP cannot be.
Furthermore, HP is ALL that matters because one can generate whatever level of torque they like at the rear wheels through gearing, within the limitations of the power available. Torque can be transformed, HP cannot be.
Guys common this is physics 101.
Also, how come nonbody says that E63 is underrated since S63 is 518 HP -- conclusion E63 is 518HP??? I am right?
Last edited by AlbertM; 02-08-2008 at 12:38 PM.
02-08-2008, 12:33 PM
#78
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
ESIX3POWER- You say you've taken E55's and M5's, why don't you come take mine? Have you seen the vids of me going at it with Sunny55's Kleemann K2 beast? He had me by ONE LENGTH with 100 more ponies than your car makes and a boatload more torque. Let's do this, tape it, highway run, 70-150, you've finally pissed me off enough to want to put this BS to rest.
02-08-2008, 12:37 PM
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[7] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW
My car dynoed at 408 looks like other 63's dynoed at 440 and 370 so really it would be silly to use individual dyno numbers to rate HP on a model range.
The 55 is FAST and the numbers it produces on the track are all that matters. It is obviuosly capable of producing 500 crank HP.
02-08-2008, 12:54 PM
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Daytona, Florida
Posts: 1,517
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
6 Posts
SL600
In 2005, the Society of Automotive Engineers introduced a new test procedure for engine horsepower and torque.[7] The procedure eliminates some of the areas of flexibility in power measurement, and requires an independent observer present when engines are measured. The test is voluntary, but engines completing it can be advertised as "SAE-certified".
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW
My car dynoed at 408 looks like other 63's dynoed at 440 and 370 so really it would be silly to use individual dyno numbers to rate HP on a model range.
The 55 is FAST and the numbers it produces on the track are all that matters. It is obviuosly capable of producing 500 crank HP.
Many manufacturers began switching to the new rating immediately, often with surprising results. The rated output of Cadillac's supercharged Northstar V8 jumped from 440 hp (328 kW) to 469 hp (350 kW) under the new tests, while the rating for Toyota's Camry 3.0 L 1MZ-FE V6 fell from 210 hp (157 kW) to 190 hp (142 kW). The first engine certified under the new program was the 7.0 L LS7 used in the 2006 Chevrolet Corvette Z06. Certified power rose slightly from 500 hp (373 kW) to 505 hp (377 kW
My car dynoed at 408 looks like other 63's dynoed at 440 and 370 so really it would be silly to use individual dyno numbers to rate HP on a model range.
The 55 is FAST and the numbers it produces on the track are all that matters. It is obviuosly capable of producing 500 crank HP.
Too funny...
I always thought 6cyl Toyota's never felt as fast as their ratings, but always chalked it up to the transverse-mounted engine and front-wheel drive sapping power...
Nice to know I was right!
02-08-2008, 12:59 PM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Ok lets assume that I am. wrong. I have one question though, can you tell me what is the margin of error on the dynos that you use? If it is anywhere close to 5% -- you get my point right? In order to not confuse 500 with 470, the dyno would have to significanly better then 5% error.
Let me know what you find out.
Let me know what you find out.
Run-on sentences aside let me entertain your argument with the intention of once-again destroying it. Your definition so far of "margin of error" has only applied to numbers being assumably 5-10% "lower". Any degree of error/deviation would, in reality, have both a positive degree of deviation and a negative one. Therefore if your ASSUMPTION was true then there would be dyno's out there with E55's putting out 550 horsepower stock on the positive side of your assumed "deviation" (once again involving the process of dynoing a car, which you have absolutely no experience in doing). This has not happened to my knowledge.
The purpose of a dyno is to find out EXACTLY how much power a car makes at the wheels. There is no 5% deviation here, these devices cost quite a bit and that margin of error in the motorsport world is FATAL. A series of calculations are made in order to find the "crank" horsepower (as well as some calculations involved when we're talking about using a Mustang dyno but I won't get into that). The most reliable empirical data, averaged out over a tremendous amount of time, has stated with exactly 0% margin for error, that E55's in reality put out very close to 500 horsepower from the factory.
Rest your ridiculous argument and let me get back to managing billions. Thanks.
Last edited by Cylinder Head; 02-08-2008 at 01:01 PM.
02-08-2008, 01:05 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Caribbean/Florida/Colorado
Posts: 3,642
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
11 Posts
E-ZGO 53hp., 1999 E 430 sport, 2004 E 55, 2008 Tahoe LTZ on 24"s
You 63 guys are funny, you come here to the board that is home to the fastest E55s on earth and post in an argumentative tone. Why don't you have any respect? There is so much you can learn here. But you post like you are here to teach us how fast your 63s are. Generally speaking most all the 55 posters here have modded their cars to levels far above that of a 63 and the stock 55. We really have passed over the factory and magazines numbers so they no longer apply. Please don't turn this board in to a ()#$%^^%$^$^#BMWM3 &^$$%^(&() kiddie fight board. We respect your 63s, we love Juciee, Old jixxer, trez, buckeyewalt, MB Fanatic because they bring positive input and insight in to what works. There are thousands of E55 posts here that directly apply to 63s too, like Brians Qualif install. So try not to waste too much time, trying to set us straight on who's fastest, we already know.
You may reply when a E63 makes a 10.745@132.210 pass
Thanks to Rflow
You may reply when a E63 makes a 10.745@132.210 pass
Thanks to Rflow
02-08-2008, 01:06 PM
#84
Super Member
Guys, motor HP is based on formulas, sorry HP does not matter, all that matters is TORQUE AND RPM. HP is a computed number that is all.
Guys common this is physics 101.
Also, how come nonbody says that E63 is underrated since S63 is 518 HP -- conclusion E63 is 518HP??? I am right?
Guys common this is physics 101.
Also, how come nonbody says that E63 is underrated since S63 is 518 HP -- conclusion E63 is 518HP??? I am right?
02-08-2008, 01:13 PM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
1) Most of our tracks are at a high elevation.
2) Weather is much warmer and a LOT more humid.
3) Too much humidity also causes most of our track prep to also go down the drain compared to east coast.
4) More air polution and sh*t load of smog all over the place.
5) All of the above factors lead to significantly higher DA.
6) Lowest quality fuel on earth.
7) Don't know how much our emission control contributes to this, but it might.
Unfortunately, the E55 is more susceptible to higher DA and warmer weather than the E63. This shows in every race we've conducted: everytime we ran a stock E55 vs stock E63 here in California, the E63 won, and it gets worse....... the higher the temperature, the bigger the gap between the two cars become. But as you lower the temperatures and DA, the two cars become as close as any two cars can be, which of course makes it much more fun for the drivers
If you compare our DA to Atco, you'll see a big difference. At Atco, they run at an average DA of -1000 ft but a few times even as low as -1500 ft. Our average DA in California is +2000 ft and the lowest we've ran so far I think was +400 ft but that was at Sacramento and track prep was worse than staging on ice.
Last edited by MB_Forever; 02-08-2008 at 01:19 PM.
02-08-2008, 01:24 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
You 63 guys are funny, you come here to the board that is home to the fastest E55s on earth and post in an argumentative tone. Why don't you have any respect? There is so much you can learn here. But you post like you are here to teach us how fast your 63s are. Generally speaking most all the 55 posters here have modded their cars to levels far above that of a 63 and the stock 55. We really have passed over the factory and magazines numbers so they no longer apply. Please don't turn this board in to a ()#$%^^%$^$^#BMWM3 &^$$%^(&() kiddie fight board. We respect your 63s, we love Juciee, Old jixxer, trez, buckeyewalt, MB Fanatic because they bring positive input and insight in to what works. There are thousands of E55 posts here that directly apply to 63s too, like Brians Qualif install. So try not to waste too much time, trying to set us straight on who's fastest, we already know.
You may reply when a E63 makes a 10.745@132.210 pass
Thanks to Rflow
You may reply when a E63 makes a 10.745@132.210 pass
Thanks to Rflow
02-08-2008, 01:33 PM
#89
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
I think I am getting what you are saying. All you are saying is that E55 is really 500hp instead of 469 as MB says and it is all a marketing ploy. If that is true then how do we know if any HP numbers published by MB are true or just marketing ploys? Maybe E63 is not making 507hp but 450 and 507 is just a a way to sell more E63s. The problem with this thinking is that once MB lies about numbers you can not trust any number they put out. Second, I am sure there are regulations around this that would prevent companies from doing stuff like that.
Second why would not they underrate current E63? So maybe it is not making 507, but 544hp. I can argue either way.
As you can see all I am doing is speculating. I trust more MB numbers then some dyno numbers. Do we know what dyno was used, under what conditions, and what is the margin of error? If the marging of error say 10% then you would expect almost +-40hp, which is exactly the difference between 460 and 500.
Guys all I am saying is that I trust MB numbers first, before anything else. The point about marketing ploy is nothing but a speculation -- NOT A FACT. Show me proof that states that MB underrated E55 for markreting purpose.
Common guys, numbers are numbers.
Second why would not they underrate current E63? So maybe it is not making 507, but 544hp. I can argue either way.
As you can see all I am doing is speculating. I trust more MB numbers then some dyno numbers. Do we know what dyno was used, under what conditions, and what is the margin of error? If the marging of error say 10% then you would expect almost +-40hp, which is exactly the difference between 460 and 500.
Guys all I am saying is that I trust MB numbers first, before anything else. The point about marketing ploy is nothing but a speculation -- NOT A FACT. Show me proof that states that MB underrated E55 for markreting purpose.
Common guys, numbers are numbers.
02-08-2008, 02:03 PM
#90
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
AlbertM, your entire argument so far has perched atop a few paper-thin assumptions about processes that you've never cared to fully understand and about $100k worth of negative equity in your driveway that you will belligerently protect at all costs despite the mountain of embarassment you've exposed yourself to in this thread.
Run-on sentences aside let me entertain your argument with the intention of once-again destroying it. Your definition so far of "margin of error" has only applied to numbers being assumably 5-10% "lower". Any degree of error/deviation would, in reality, have both a positive degree of deviation and a negative one. Therefore if your ASSUMPTION was true then there would be dyno's out there with E55's putting out 550 horsepower stock on the positive side of your assumed "deviation" (once again involving the process of dynoing a car, which you have absolutely no experience in doing). This has not happened to my knowledge.
The purpose of a dyno is to find out EXACTLY how much power a car makes at the wheels. There is no 5% deviation here, these devices cost quite a bit and that margin of error in the motorsport world is FATAL. A series of calculations are made in order to find the "crank" horsepower (as well as some calculations involved when we're talking about using a Mustang dyno but I won't get into that). The most reliable empirical data, averaged out over a tremendous amount of time, has stated with exactly 0% margin for error, that E55's in reality put out very close to 500 horsepower from the factory.
Rest your ridiculous argument and let me get back to managing billions. Thanks.
Run-on sentences aside let me entertain your argument with the intention of once-again destroying it. Your definition so far of "margin of error" has only applied to numbers being assumably 5-10% "lower". Any degree of error/deviation would, in reality, have both a positive degree of deviation and a negative one. Therefore if your ASSUMPTION was true then there would be dyno's out there with E55's putting out 550 horsepower stock on the positive side of your assumed "deviation" (once again involving the process of dynoing a car, which you have absolutely no experience in doing). This has not happened to my knowledge.
The purpose of a dyno is to find out EXACTLY how much power a car makes at the wheels. There is no 5% deviation here, these devices cost quite a bit and that margin of error in the motorsport world is FATAL. A series of calculations are made in order to find the "crank" horsepower (as well as some calculations involved when we're talking about using a Mustang dyno but I won't get into that). The most reliable empirical data, averaged out over a tremendous amount of time, has stated with exactly 0% margin for error, that E55's in reality put out very close to 500 horsepower from the factory.
Rest your ridiculous argument and let me get back to managing billions. Thanks.
For some strange reason you get upset and start attacking.
Those who believe that E55's are underrated -- go on beleiving.
You spend too much time on the board to be managing billions.
and if you do, maybe your customers should pull the money out.
02-08-2008, 02:11 PM
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Second of all, I can talk and type simultaneously, amazing right? And apparently my mathematical skills far eclipse yours judging by the Busch-league pseudo-data you've slapped together to support your horrid argument. Besides, have you seen the markets lately?
And not to dismiss your claims that Mercedes would "never publish an incorrect number", many manufacturers do this, Mazda recently was forced to change their numbers on the Rx-8, and several automakers have been slapped with fines for this. The proof is "in the pudding", go to EvoSport's website, and look at the dynos.
02-08-2008, 02:12 PM
#93
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
AlbertM, I know it is hard to believe at first, but the E55 does make 500 hp at the crank. I've seen so many dyno sheets of E55 making around 420 whp. There are over 50 dyno sheets still stored at Evosport's database if you would like to see it yourself, and there've also been over 20 stock dynos posted on this forum in the last few years. All they're trying to say is that the E55 makes as much hp as SL55 (identical engine and software). So yes, dyno conditions may vary slightly, but on average, a healthy E55 does dyno at 420 hp which is about 500 hp at the crank.
So many guys take it really personal, which is amazing.
Again nobody seems to comment on E63 vs S63 507vs518hp? Is E63 underrated as well??
02-08-2008, 02:15 PM
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
My car made 435 RWHP bone stock. I either:
A: Have the worlds most efficient MB 5 speed.
OR
B: My car made about 525-530 HP while remaining stock down to the air filters.
I'll be willing to bet it's not a magical 7% drivetrain loss. Dyno's do carry variations from one to another, but they do not have 5%+ variations in themselves unless something is broken or the setup is changed. On the SAME dyno (Evosport), no 63 has EVER made 435 RWHP, period. It's really your choice, either the 63 is overrated, or the 55 is underrated. Take your pick.
A: Have the worlds most efficient MB 5 speed.
OR
B: My car made about 525-530 HP while remaining stock down to the air filters.
I'll be willing to bet it's not a magical 7% drivetrain loss. Dyno's do carry variations from one to another, but they do not have 5%+ variations in themselves unless something is broken or the setup is changed. On the SAME dyno (Evosport), no 63 has EVER made 435 RWHP, period. It's really your choice, either the 63 is overrated, or the 55 is underrated. Take your pick.
02-08-2008, 02:20 PM
#95
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
Hey, guys I never said that E55s dont make 500hp based on some dyno runs. All I said that it does not mean that MB is underrating the E55's. They might be using a different measurent method. It is like trying to comare apples and oranges and trying to come up with a conclusion.
So many guys take it really personal, which is amazing.
Again nobody seems to comment on E63 vs S63 507vs518hp? Is E63 underrated as well??
So many guys take it really personal, which is amazing.
Again nobody seems to comment on E63 vs S63 507vs518hp? Is E63 underrated as well??
I have an E63 and I love it And I think you're right on the C63/CLK63/E63/S63 scenario. All these engines are identical and I believe will all dyno around the same numbers. I know Mercedes rates the C63 at only 450 hp and the CLK63 at only 475, but I just think that when we start seeing more dynos, they will all dyno between 400 and 420 hp
02-08-2008, 02:31 PM
#97
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Long Island
Posts: 380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E63 AMG 2010, Black, Pano, P2
I don't take it personally at all. I like the fact that you're actually bringing it up because it is a different point of view and it definately helps to look at things in a slightly different way..... I have an E63 and I love it
And I think you're right on the C63/CLK63/E63/S63 scenario. All these engines are identical and I believe will all dyno around the same numbers. I know Mercedes rates the C63 at only 450 hp and the CLK63 at only 475, but I just think that when we start seeing more dynos, they will all dyno between 400 and 420 hp
I have an E63 and I love it And I think you're right on the C63/CLK63/E63/S63 scenario. All these engines are identical and I believe will all dyno around the same numbers. I know Mercedes rates the C63 at only 450 hp and the CLK63 at only 475, but I just think that when we start seeing more dynos, they will all dyno between 400 and 420 hp
Also, if MB underrated E55, why wouldnt they do it to E63? Or is it common for supercharged engines to have a higher margin of variations?
I may as well be ignorant on this subject, so please educate me -- I want to know, that is why I am posting on this board. Some people dont like to be challenged -- I see that.
02-08-2008, 02:44 PM
#98
Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South Florida
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E55
jeeez .. i never post on these kinda threads normally .. but this is just irrating me too now
Its been said over and over on this thread and many others all over the forum ... "Mercedes underates the e55 Horsepower because of marketing reasons related to not pissing off people who have bought the more expensive cl55 or s55 etc."
Its been said over and over on this thread and many others all over the forum ... "Mercedes underates the e55 Horsepower because of marketing reasons related to not pissing off people who have bought the more expensive cl55 or s55 etc."
02-08-2008, 02:46 PM
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 6,727
Received 559 Likes
on
369 Posts
'19 E63S, ‘16 CLS63 RIP, '09 E63 Gone, '06 M5 Gone, '97 Supra TT Gone
Well if that is true, why would MB do that??? That is the question. I dont doubt the fact that E55 might be pulling 420hp on a dyno, or C63 420. The question is why would MB do that? Marketing trick???
Also, if MB underrated E55, why wouldnt they do it to E63? Or is it common for supercharged engines to have a higher margin of variations?
I may as well be ignorant on this subject, so please educate me -- I want to know, that is why I am posting on this board. Some people dont like to be challenged -- I see that.
Also, if MB underrated E55, why wouldnt they do it to E63? Or is it common for supercharged engines to have a higher margin of variations?
I may as well be ignorant on this subject, so please educate me -- I want to know, that is why I am posting on this board. Some people dont like to be challenged -- I see that.
Same applies to AMG, demand is extremely high for their products, their production numbers go up every year to keep in pace with demand. Think back to basic economics. If they were to have different proprietary engine builds for each model in the line it would drive up costs because they'd be making smaller orders for different parts. Ergo, all of the motors for the 63's are built in the same plant utilizing the same parts to minimize costs. Now given, exhausts and headers differ from chassis to chassis because of fitment issues, but the motors are all internally identical because otherwise it would be too expensive. Essentially it's cheaper to build 2,000 500hp motors rather than building 500 450hp motors, 500 480hp motors, 500 507hp motors, and 500 518hp motors.
That being said, you have to look at the marketing side of things. Why would I buy a $130,000 CL63 when the upstart $65,000 C63 is rated at the same horsepower and therefore must be faster? Early dyno results show that the motors make essentially the same amount of power, maybe their plumbling makes a difference but not by that wide of a margin. MB Marketing does not want you to know because it upsets the heirarchy of their model lineup. It's a white lie, it doesn't really "hurt" anyone, and those who know don't care all that much. They're not really breaking any laws because they're not "OVER"-rating their motors, they're "UNDER"-rating them, which doesn't really do any damage and doesn't break any law. They only get into trouble when they start building motors that make 400hp and saying they make 500. That would be charging a premium for performance that isn't there.
The laws governing auto manufacturers are much more lenient when it comes to delivering more than promised. Nissan did this for years with the Skyline, Dodge does it with the Neon SRT-8, and BMW does it with the 335. It's all about heirarchy.
P.S. Also, GM and other manufacturers often do this for insurance reasons, as per my most recent google search.
Last edited by Cylinder Head; 02-08-2008 at 03:03 PM.
02-08-2008, 03:31 PM
#100
MBWorld Fanatic!
If you compare our DA to Atco, you'll see a big difference. At Atco, they run at an average DA of -1000 ft but a few times even as low as -1500 ft. Our average DA in California is +2000 ft and the lowest we've ran so far I think was +400 ft but that was at Sacramento and track prep was worse than staging on ice.
MINUS 1000 ON AVERAGE??????
You don't really believe this, right? Then why write it?
