jangy

Your clarity is appreciated. Now, can we quit the games and place a friendly wager on this?

MB_Forever

Jangy's car does make around 500 whp at the wheels. His car was the one used by VRP in developing their stages. At one point there was a dyno without the headers, and the car made 475 whp, and I think this is one of the last round of dynos where the car made 502 whp.....

https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/229781-vr600-m113-kompressor.html

Improviz

btw, jangy, haven't forgotten about you, wanted to address this first:

Wow, well I guess it's not just my posts jangy doesn't bother to read either, as he said he didn't have dyno numbers when they were right here all the time.....thanks for sharing, but if this is in response to me, I never said his car *didn't* make 500, only that he hadn't provided any proof that it does, and that he first said it makes 500, then said he never said it makes 500.

But thanks for providing it, I'll get back to it in a moment...I still maintain that even if it is putting out 503 rwhp, this is simply not enough to allow a 4,200 pound car to pull a 3150 pound car w/the dyno numbers a Z06 puts down. I'm looking at one page of dragetimes' dyno sheets for stock Z06s, and here are some numbers (the # is what they put next to the hp number to indicate stock vehicle, * indicates there's a vid of the dyno):

476.23#
455.10#
453.09*#
450.07#
445.81*#
441.90#

The average of these (and I am *omitting* one which is claimed as stock that produced 500 rwhp, because imo that's a flyer) is 453.7 rwhp.

3150 pounds/453.7 = 6.94 lbs/rwhp.

4200 pounds/503 = 8.35 pounds/rwhp.

Look at the difference, and this is with stock Z06s! If you average the ones w/intake and exhaust mods (which the one jangy supposedly ran has), the average goes UP.

We are talking about a 20% disadvantage here in horsepower to weight, boys and girls...it is simply NOT realistic that under such conditions, the heavier car could let the lighter car get a jump and run him down, and frankly, it's not credible that the heavier car could have won at all, unless he was racing someone too incompetent or lazy to shift his Z06 properly, or the Z had something seriously wrong with it.

Put it this way: W208s put out about 295 rwhp, and weigh 3450 pounds. This gives 11.7 lbs/rwhp. A stock W211 typically puts out around 430 rwhp, and weighs 4200 pounds. This gives 9.75 pounds/rwhp. Interestingly enough, I would be at a 20% disadvantage to the W211 weight/horsepower wise.

Anyone here think I could give one the jump and run it down? Anyone here think I could beat one multiple times? If you do, please: seek Psychiatric care, now!

Now, if it turns out that jangy's car weighs exactly 3490 pounds, roughly the same as mine, he'd have that weight disadvantage licked, and would *tie* the stock Z06s' weight/rwhp number of 6.94 lbs/rwhp. Unfortunately, he's driving a W211 w/503 rwhp, not a W208.

jangy

I won't argue the HP numbers that you hand selected to make your average for the ***STOCK*** Z06 or that mine makes 500rwhp. 10hp up or down doesn't really change your metric too much. But, what if we were more accurate with the weights? Does my E weight in at over 4000lbs? Yes it does. Does the Z06 really weight in at 3150 pounds "wet"? That's where you lost me. Play the numbers game. In the end, the road won't tell a lie, and neither will a truck scale.

What happenned to our race? Where is your Z06? Maybe we can go to the public scales and see the difference when we go racing?

Back to OT?

jangy

Let him yack, bro. Everyone in here knows what VRP is doing. I'm just having a little fun with Improv. I was the one that put the OT tag on this thread and you know what happens when you lead a horse to water......

jangy

NOBODY is crazy enough to think a W208 can beat a thing and thank god I'm not in one.

MB_Forever

If the Z06 makes 505 hp at the crank, which translates to 430 whp. The only two dynos of stock Z06 I've seen at my local dyno shop were 417 whp and 428 whp which seems to be more in line with Chevrolet's claimed numbers. This leads me to believe that the dyno numbers on dragtimes either were done in very good conditions in the east coast (cold weather, low humidity, etc....) or that they're simply not 100% stock. For example, some people consider the air filter mod to be stock while others don't.

Regarding the weight.... The E55 is claimed to be around 4050 lbs, but most of them come at 4200 lbs. Similarly, the Z06 is claimed to be 3150 lbs, but most will come at 3300 lbs.

This changes your equation above to 7.6 lbs/rwhp for the Z06 compared to 8.3 lbs/rwhp for the E55.

Now consider torque; I think Jangy's car makes 100+ more rwtq than the stock Z06. So the question becomes: can an extra 75 whp (~90 hp) and an extra 100 wtq overcome the 900 lbs advantage between the two cars?

I think the hp calculator from E.T. and Trap is too theoretical. It can be skewed easily by small changes. For instance, assume an E55 ran 12.4 @ 114 in pure stock form. This would give us a hp estimate of 465 hp @ the crank. Now if the driver puts on drag radials and runs 12.1 @ 116.5, then we get a hp estimate of 494 hp. That's almost 30 hp difference. On the track, I've seen a Z06 run 12.0 to 12.4 on same track with same driver. The calculator would give us a big difference of hp, but the engine has not changed.

rbaker

OK, so maybe I was off a tenth or two in my casual estimation. BFD. Point is, a STOCK E55 or E63 can't do that.

I've been at the track when some RennTech beasts come out & they inevitibly lose to other sports & muscle cars on the track, or break.

BTW, you do realize that 560+ lbs foot of torque only requires a rather simple cam, software & muffler swap for a Z06?

rbaker

Well if he was trying that's cool... I know on my very 1st track event in my bone stock Z06 I was cutting the same lap times as another guy with race pads & stickers. But hey, street races are a different beast. That's why I don't put much stock in them, as you never know who hesitates or just decides to lift to avoid a ticket.

Money schmoney... I don't really care if anyone else puts money on it, I was just telling you where I'm going to be if you want to go to a track event where you know at least 1 Z06 will attend.

Improviz

If the E55 makes 469 at the crank, this translates to 384 at the wheels. Mercedes is not the only manufacturer who underrates their numbers.

An air filter mod isn't going to pick you up 30 rwhp.

And until/unless you can provide some evidence that they're not stock, I see no reason to question them.

Further, you're ignoring one vital piece of information: jangy himself said that the Z06 he ran had intake and exhaust mods. Therefore, if anything these UNDERSTATE the weight/hp numbers in the comparison we're discussing here.

I've already addressed this point in this thread, but here goes again: both Car & Driver and Road & Track weigh the cars they test. I posted the weigh-ins they got for several Z06s, and the heaviest was just shy of 3200 pounds, the lightest was in the 3150 range.

Only if it is true.

No, it doesn't. The dyno you gave listed it at 515, while the Z06s I listed were in the range of 440-460 rwtq. That puts him at 75 more, tops...but unfortunately, try comparing the rwtq of an M6 to a stock E55 some time, and then watch a race between them. rwhp is the better indicator, as power = work/time, indicating which car makes the most power over a time *period*. Torque is an instantaneous measurement. Races aren't, they're done over a period of time, which is why a Ferrari F430 can run 11's despite having far less torque than a Z06 or E55.

I never mentioned the ET/trap calculator, because I don't use it. I use the trap speed and weight calculator, which is more accurate: if we assume a 4200 pound E55 with a 150 pound driver, equation becomes crank hp = 4350*(114/234)^3 = 502 crank. Much better.

Hmm, afaik you don't typically get much of an increase in trap w/drag radials, because they're only increasing traction, not power. I'll look into this, further, though, because it's been awhile and, unlike certain folks (not referring to you here), I like to check my facts before I claim them.

Will get back to you on this, stay tuned.

Improviz

jangy, I've got a busy day ahead of me, and your post will require some time to document all of the BS contained within, but I didn't want to leave you empty-handed, so I thought I'd give you a quick teaser. Enjoy!

Hmm, the Vette wasn't stock, eh? Interesting, because the video, which you can watch here (presumably for the first time, unless you're a fool in addition to being a liar) starts off with the following declaration:




Sure, jangy, the Z06 wasn't stock, just like the Z06s in the other were "far more modded" than the one you supposedly raced, just like you invented the internet, the check's in the mail, etc. etc...

This is like taking candy from a baby. Please, for your own sake: get out of that hole and stop digging....trust me, there is *plenty* more to pick from in your last response.

Improviz

I "hand selected" nothing. Go to dragtimes.com and look at their dyno page for Corvettes, checking for stock C6 Z06s. Page one has one, the one claimed at 500 rwhp, which again I *excluded* because this is suspiciously high. Were I "hand selecting" to try and make it look better, I'd have included this one.

Page 2 has the stock C6 Z06s. I did not find any on page 3. I put *all* of the stockers from page 2. Nothing "hand selected", or cherry picked....you're the one who's been telling lies all through this thread (trust me: that last post of yours was chock full of them, and I'll put each and every one of them up tonight), not me.

Again, for about the fourth time now: I cited two publications, who you are free to contact yourself and verify this, that weigh, themselves, each and every car they test, WET (i.e., full tank of gas): Car & Driver and Road & Track.

I published the weights they got for both the Z06 (several examples) and the E55 (also several examples). I posted a post in this thread which explained this to you. Either you are the most forgetful person on the face of the earth, a possibility given that you weren't even aware that your car's dyno IS on these forums in a thread in which YOU participated again, or you're fibbing. In either case, it's been addressed.

Look down a few posts.

Well, if I liked the Z06 enough to get one, I suppose I'd be more than happy to meet you halfway between TX and CA to do this, but I'm really not gonna spend that kind of money just to school ya. Plus, the numbers show what they show.

As long as you keep lying about what you've written and what I've written, I will certainly keep documenting it. Stay tuned.

Improviz

No, you're just crazy enough to think people will believe you can run a modded Z06 down after giving him a jump when there is the same power/weight differential between you and him as between me and a stock E55.

You don't handle analogy and logic very well, know that?

jangy

HAHAHA!!!! I love it. Keep up the attempts. Please o please tear my posts up even more. My car is done. Ihave an HD cam. The local GM dealer is willing to play. I will get with him, tape it all and post it.

Haha!! I used to read about cars, too. C&D was so cool back then, until I noticed that they love American cars.......check their ads, too. Why do you always want others to do your work for you? C&D may have tested both cars, but NEVER in a truly comparable way. Their results are simply qualitative. The numbers they publish are simply their snap shot on a particular day. That means nothing here on earth.

Enjoy your CLK. Analogies aside, maybe you can twist the numbers just enough to take a stock E55?

Improviz

Honestly, this is quite sad to watch....I mean, really: you have absolutely no data, so all you do is attack any source which shows you to be wrong, be it me, or Car & Driver, Sir Issac Newton, and probably Einstein were I to cite him.

I see...so now that you've had further mods done on your car, you'll run a Z06, and this will prove how your car ran before these mods were installed...

Wow, that's very logical.

So, I'm sure that if you ran a Z06, and then afterwards he went and got full headers/exhaust installed, then wanted to race you again to "prove" the results of your previous race, you'd be perfectly OK with it.

Of course, jangy, we know, we know....any piece of data, from anywhere, presented by anyone, which doesn't support your argument simply is not credible.

If Sports Illustrated publishes an article about Carl Lewis running a 9.8 second 100m dash, well, that's just a snapshot on that particular day, and simply means nothing here on "earth". Btw, just checking: what color is the sun on the particular "earth" on which you live?

But the thing is, we're discussing weights, not times. They weighed these cars. Are you seriously trying to argue that they cannot even be trusted enough to weigh a car accurately?

Or, how about this: actually contribute something to this debate for a change, and provide some data: do you have any data to indicate that a 211 E55 will, w/full tank (this is how both publications I listed weigh their cars), weigh in at anything substantially less than 4200 pounds?

Please provide one example of my twisting any numbers whatsoever in this thread, or in any other thread. I have not.

Improviz

jangy, there are several threads I found in the 211 E55 forum discussing weigh-in of the cars, wherein owners gave results of their weigh-ins.

First one is this thread, started by Fikse:
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/137332-e55-weigh-post-weight-options.html

E55 fuel tank = 21 gal. So 7/8 tank = 18.4 gal = 147 pounds. Spare tire: around 60. So, add 207 pounds to the two examples which weighed in w/no spare and 1/8 tank of gas.

First was Fikse, who reported 4070 with no spare and 1/8 tank. Adding 207 to give full tank and spare gives 4277 pounds.

Second was E55_baller, who reported a weigh in of 3995 with 1/8 tank and no spare. Adding 207 pounds to this gives a wet weigh in of 4202 pounds.

Third was Enzom, who reported "4340 with me in it and 1/3 tank of gas. My options are in my sig. I only weigh 155 lbs.". 2/3 tank of gas = 14 gal = 112 pounds. subtract Enzo from weight = 4185 pounds, add 112 for full tank = 4297 pounds.

Fourth was rflow306, who reported 4220 with no driver and 1/3 tank. Adding 112 pounds for full tank gives 4332 pounds.


Next thread was this one,
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/111630-how-much-does-she-weigh.html

Only one guy reported a weight, Stephen04E55, who gave track weigh-in at 4220lbs with a half a tank of gas, no driver. adding 10.5 gal = 84 pounds to make it a full tank gives wet weight of 4304 pounds.


Third thread was this one:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...ghlight=weight

Unfortunately, only two owners responded, one being Stephen04E55 (already listed above from another thread), the other being E55Jay, but that was a W210.

Next thread:
https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/120657-curb-weight-211-amg.html

AmenMercedesGo wrote: "My 2005 E55 weighed 4365 full of gas and I weigh 210 dressed.", which is not real clear as to whether he meant he was in it when he weighed it, but let's assume he was and had his spare in there, which gives 4155.

That's all I could find, if you can find more, post it.

Average weight for all cars above is 4261 pounds. Gee, this is very close to what those awful, corrupt, unreliable, cannot-be-trusted publications Car & Driver and Road & Track reported for *their* weighed-in-with-full-tank W211 E55s.

When I get time I will visit the Corvette forums and look into their reported weigh-ins as well.

MB_Forever

I know you used 18% drivetrain loss (which is okay), but most people here use 17%, so I'll go with 17% . So 469 hp - 17% loss = 389 whp. Unfortunately, the E55 does fall in a wide range of numbers. I've seen quite a big difference in dynos ranging from 390 whp all the way to 425 whp. The E55's ECU is more complex than others, and even changing adaptations of the TCU somehow affects ECU map and shows difference in dynos as well. But here we're comparing one specific E55 to an "average" stock Z06.

I wasn't necessarily saying aftermarket air filters. On a 500 hp car, aftermarket filters have shown to give about 8 to 10 whp. I suspect even slightly more for the Z06. But what about removing the air filters all together? Some people actually dyno without air filters and do show up to 22 whp and what's even more impressive is that they achieve much stronger numbers at the track than their usual average numbers.

Yes, but why not until you provide evidence that they are stock, I see no reason to believe it. Anyone can post anything on dragtimes, almost nothing is verified. I can create an account, post some times and some dyno sheets from any car and even dyno videos and it would still not be verified

[QUOTE=Improviz;2834698]Further, you're ignoring one vital piece of information: jangy himself said that the Z06 he ran had intake and exhaust mods. Therefore, if anything these UNDERSTATE the weight/hp numbers in the comparison we're discussing here.

Okay that part I missed. But maybe the Z06 owner did not adjust the ECU to account for the extra air flow. Or maybe something else we're missing.

Different magazines will report different numbers depending on whether they favor the manufacturer or due to business agreements. Over on the C32 forums, I remember posting 5 different magazine sources showing the 0-60 times of the BMW 335 ranging from 4.8 to 5.2 seconds. Now that's a big difference.

Stock Z06 makes 470 tq - 15% drivetrain loss = 400 wtq vs 515 wtq on Jangy's car, which is +115 rwtq difference

At the countless track sessions I've been to, almost every single M6 lost to E55 in 1/4 mile even though M6 has more hp and less weight. Also some modded M6s lost to stock E55s. On freeway runs, the dynamic changes a bit for the E55 because it starts to dip shortly after it's "early" redline, but had it been designed to high rev to 8000 rpms, the difference in torque would stay longer in the rpm band and should overcome the M6 high speed superiority.

Even that calculator is not accurate enough. Consider Enzom's car: it dynoed at 419 whp (504 crank hp) but traps 117 to 118 which by your equation comes out to 558 hp. Enzom dynoed his car and even published the dyno sheets, and his car's dyno numbers fell in between the average stock E55 dyno range.

MB_Forever

I believe JRocket also weighted his car at around 4200 lbs, but a lot of these E55s come with options. My E63 weighed at 4240 with 70% fuel in the tank. But I think Mercedes' claim of 4050 is with standard equipment only. So we'll have to find an E55 without any additional options. Also, some E55s did not come with spare at all.

ItalianStallion

Aftermarket intakes on a Z06 produce around 10-15whp with no tuning. You can feel a SOTP difference with them in.

Improviz

Well, what I've seen indicates more like 430 rwhp stock on the E55s (just browsing this forum); I've seen some lower than this but 390?? Haven't seen one that low, or even below 400 that I can recall. When I last looked, most were in range of 420 to 430.

But anyway, this is getting to be a side issue, as we're discussing jangy's car, which dyno'd at 503 rwhp. I only mentioned the 430 to point out that E55s are rated at 469, which given the vehicles' trap speeds and dynos that we've seen pretty much everyone here agrees is a ridiculously low number...and again, this itself was to show that using the Z06s factory rated number and "estimate" a dyno figure is not necessarily the best way to go, as there are plenty of stock dynos out there, and we *really* don't know what their driveline loss is (nor do we, for that matter, w/Benz ).

You certainly said nothing about removing them. You wrote: This doesn't give any indication of removal...

Well, with dynos (including jangy's), you're always at the mercy of the person who done it, and of the dyno itself. Personally, I would not want to risk engine damage/wear to pick up a few extra hp and remove my filters altogether, and honestly, you're getting into hypothetical territory here. Either we agree that these dynos are representative, or we may as well end the discussion, as we can argue about hypotheticals till the proverbial cows come home without proving anything.

Well, if you want to go that route, there's no proof other than the tuner's word, who does, you will hopefully admit, have a conflict of interest in that higher numbers = better sales (not accusing them, just pointing out the obvious) w/jangy's car. So one could just as easily cite this as reason not to believe that either, but again: where does that leave it?

The thing is, though, that since neither of us has any proof that either jangy's tuner posted an unrepresentative dyno, or that the Z06 dynos presented were not fraudulent, then unless you can give some reason better than a hypothetical to dismiss them, I see no reason to dismiss them.

Or maybe this, or maybe that...again, you can argue hypotheticals ad infinitum, but it's really not proving anything one way or the other.

This is really not something you can prove, so I'm not going to discuss it unless you've got something other than unsubstantiated allegations to establish it.

I was citing measured rwtq on jangy's dyno vs. the C6 Z06 dyno. What you're doing is citing measured rwtq from jangy's dyno and then *calculating*, using an *estimated* driveline loss figure, what *you* think the Z06 *should* be getting.

Again: if you have some reason to rule out the Z06 dynos and not jangy's fine, but otherwise this is an apples-to-estimated-oranges comparison.

I was present at an airstrip event where, I'm sad to say, E55s ran M5s all the way up to 130-ish mph, from dead stop runs and roll, and the M5s won each and every run. The only guy there who beat any M5s in a Benz was me, and those were E39s.

Presuming someone could design one which would do that, which so far no one has. Point is, at higher speeds, the M6s walk the E55s, despite having 369 lb-ft vs over 500, so obviously, torque ALONE is not a predictor of an outcome.

Which you were trying to argue it is, by comparing jangy's rwtq to a Z06s rwtq. Obviously, that argument simply does not hold water, because it fails to take into account mass, gearing, range of torque, range of engine rpm, and innumerable other factors.

The reason weight/hp is a good predictor of acceleration is that horsepower is work over time, making it a good number to plug into Sir Issac Newton's equation F=MA, or A = M/F. Here M is mass, F is force, and remarkably enough, this foundation of modern physics has managed to survive, unscathed, for the several hundred years which have elapsed since Sir Issac first proposed it.

But you're getting away from my original point. You cited torque as somehow being "the" deciding factor in a dragrace. It is not. Torque is an *instantaneous* measurement. To measure things over *time*, we look at the integral (calculus) of the power applied to accelerate the vehicle. So while a stock E55 makes far more torque than an F460, it isn't going to out accelerate it, at least not for long.

And yes, gearing is a factor too, never said it wasn't, but take a look at the gearing/final drive numbers for a Z06 and compare them to an E55. The Z has more agressive gearing *and* a lower final drive. This gives it more torque multiplication, so it can be faster despite having lower torque.

Or, if you're inclined: the E320 BT makes 400 ft-lb of torque, an M5 makes 369. Care to wager on which one would win? But if you compare horsepower, it's pretty obvious, which is why, again, weight/hp is the more reliable predictor: Sir Issac was right.

The equation is normally accurate to within +-5%. If you've got a better one, post it. Wrt Enzom's dyno, consider that 1) you estimated 17% loss, when we don't know what it is; 2) depending upon dyno, other factors may result in lower/higher readings.

Also note that the numbers you're providing are SAE corrected, and I'm not sure if the ones we've seen running 430-ish were, but I'll have to check. Uncorrected, his numbers were a bit higher: Also also note that Enzom's 118 mph runs were done in 52 degree weather, while his dyno results were SAE corrected to Air temp 77 deg F (25 deg C), 29.235 Inches- Hg (990 mb) altitude-corrected barometric pressure, 0 ft ( 0 m) altitude, 0% relative humidity. A 25 degree drop in temperature will result in higher horsepower, and thus, a faster trap. So, to give a truly accurate number, you'd need to correct his trap speed with the proper temp/pressure/humidity data from that day. This will account for some of the error in the hp calculator, which is, of course, supposed to reflect SAE-adjusted hp.

But again, to use the reasoning you cited earlier in your post: one could just as easily argue (which, for the record, I am NOT, only using this for an example) "well, Enzom's dyno could be phony, his slip could be phony, his car might not have been "really" stock down to the air filters, stock tire pressure, spare, yadda yadda ya...."....so, you know, with that sort of argument, there's not much to discuss, is there?

I mean, if you want to basically accept some data as totally factual but dismiss other evidence as false when both have equal proof, then how can you debate anything?

What I've done is, now that I've seen it, grant the same weight to jangy's dyno as I've granted to the Z06 owners' dynos, which is fair. What you're doing, to dismiss the Z06s dynos while accepting his, is neither fair nor logical, unless you can give some good reason why your argument should only cut one way, in favor of the Benz owner, rather than against him.

Anything else?

Improviz

?? Why?? How is this applicable?

Says whom?

MB_Forever

There were a couple of posted dynos of 380, 390 and 399 whp. Two of them belonged to one car and the third was a completely different car. I'll look for the link when I can.

I agree.... no body really knows the drivetrain loss unless they dyno the engine at the crank then dyno at the wheels, but we can estimate an amount. Most experts seem to agree on 15% loss for manual and 20% loss for "regular" automatic. For high performance automatics like our AMGs, it is estimated to be 17 to 18% which is better than "regular" automatics, but still not as good as manual.

I mentioned "air filter mod" which can be "any" modification to the air filter. Using different ones, using custom ones, or not using one at all, etc....

Most of Jangy's dynos were witnessed by him, Vadim, other techs, and maybe even some members on here. Most of these people are respected and trusted members of the boards vs "anonymous" dragtimes info. For instance, you can come down here and see Jangy's car being dynoed and verify it yourself, but we can't say that about all those Z06s on dragtimes.

I'm not arguing hypotheticals, I was just mentioning that these are plausible realistic situations that could arise.

It is hard to prove or disprove, but like I said, there are many examples of BMW 335 0-60 times by different magazines reporting different times. This at least shows that something is going on.

But that's what you did you when you assumed that the Z06 that Jangy raced has a similar dyno to the one on dragtimes and not one of the other dynos. We don't know how much hp the car he raced actually has. But anyways, assuming the stock Z06 makes 505 hp and 470 tq at the crank, then how come you drop the hp to 440 to get the wheels but the torque to only 440. The hp dropped 65 hp but torque dropped only 20 to 30 hp.

Again, Jangy's runs were witnessed by many members on here. You can chose to not believe them, but you can come here and verify them yourself while the other Z06 dynos can be posted by anyone.

So were the E55s ahead to at least 115 mph? From countless 1/4 mile times on here, m5boards, and dragtimes, we know that in the 1/4 mile, the E55 puts at least 2 to 3 car lengths to an average speed of 114 mph. That would mean, the M5 made up the difference between 15 mph.

That was kind of my point about the calculator. If both cars are estimated to have same hp but give different trap speeds, your calculator will give different hp numbers for these cars.

That would make your argument about the calculator off as well since the calculator does not take into account any of these factors. By the way, I wasn't trying to argue it, I was suggesting that since we have dynos from only one side (the benz) and no dyno from the actual Z06 he raced, that we should use average estimated numbers published by the manufacturer.

But starts to fail (or needs additional support) when going towards the new quantum physics

I was talking about 1/4 mile drag races. Most of the data available shows that even though the M6 has similar hp and even less weight, it gets beaten by the E55 repeatedly.

I never said torque alone is the decider or the most important. I said the extra 100+ wtq should help a lot in overcoming some of the weight disadvantage of the E55. To be more relevant, your wager should be comparing two similarly powered cars (ex: E55 to M5) but one with much higher torque in a 1/4 mile drag race

Consider the race between the 997 GT2 and Z06 in the following video:

http://www.autocar.co.uk/VideosWallp...AR=231915&CT=V

Both cars are similarly powered and weight the same yet one easily destroys the other. And this difference will show on your calculator yet they are very close in hp.

But I used the same loss percentage as I did when applying the formula to other cars. But even if you use your 18% loss that you used, then his car will have 560+ hp at the crank.

Even corrected to zero altitude, his runs come out to be sub 12s and 116 mph traps.

This is slightly different. Many members on here met Enzom and witnessed his car on the track. He is not just a random dragtimes poster.

But that's NOT equal proof. Maybe similar but definitely not equal. Jangy's car can be dynoed at any time; you can come watch it on the dyno, and verify it yourself. It also has been verified by very well respected members on the boards while the dragtimes Z06 times (up to now) are unknown. Anybody can post them.

MB_Forever

Because Mercedes defines curb weight as weight with standard equipment (does not include ANY options).


According to members here, all 2003 E55s had no navigation and no spare (except Presidential edition came with Navi but not sure about spare). Please run a search.....

Improviz

Well, that's only two cars total....I would like to see the links, whenever you get time.

No disagreement here.

Whatever, not worth arguing over frankly...you said that some people regard not using "stock air filters" as "stock", from which one would have to be a fortuneteller to divine that you meant no air filters. And anyway, you have no proof that anyone at dragtimes.com did this, so it's moot.

Who witnessed his 503 run? He certainly didn't. It was posted by the tuner. Did you witness it? If not, how can you vouch for its authenticity, other than by making a subjective judgement based upon interactions with people here, many of whom you may not personally know?

Shoot, at one time lots of people would have "vouched" for jangy's dear friend Eric Fletcher, and, well, we all know how *that* turned out.

And we can't say they're not, either, but that's not stopping you from doing your damndest to cast aspersions on them. Have you stopped to consider that these runs might have been posted by reputable members of other forums, and might just have witnesses too? Shoot, some of them posted videos of the event as well..shall I consider these too to be fraudulent?

You are arguing hypotheticals, and that is the very definition of it. You are basically setting up straw men and knocking them down, and have absolutely no evidence to support any of these "plausible realistic situations which could arise" are applicable to any of the dynos posted on that site, any more than you have evidence of life on Mars. It is certainly within the realm of possibility, but it is a hypothetical argument, because it is formed using supposition and hypothesis, and is therefore neither established nor proven.

OK?

Yes, like different cars, different drivers, different ambient conditions, etc, none of which does anything to prove your allegation that magazines fabricate their data to support different manufacturers.

No, what I did is compare a bunch of Z06 dynos to his one. You compared his dyno to your estimate of what you think a stock Z06 should have at its rear wheels, even though jangy said the guy had intake and exhaust mods. I'm comparing measured to measured, you're comparing measured to estimated.

Big difference.

I didn't "drop" anything. I cited the rwtq numbers from dragtimes.com from the dynos. Read more carefully, please, I did note this.

Well, I'll read it again, but I don't recall anyone listed in that thread you provided, and jangy has already said that he wasn't present. But even if it was, this hardly proves that the dynos at dragtimes.com were not.

And, conversely, you can choose to believe that each and every dyno and slip posted at dragtimes.com is fraudulent, without bothering to investigate any of them, which to me is illustrative of bias on your part.

Yes, which is because, if you had bothered to research the issue as I have, the gearing of the E55 up through third, combined with its higher torque, offsets the M5/M6's gearing advantage, and allows it to run equal to faster, depending upon launch.

Beyond that speed, the gearing advantage of the M cars allow them to pull away, because after that point, the superior torque multiplication of their gearing overcomes the E55's to-that-point relative parity in torque-to-the-wheels once the E55's engine runs out of steam in third and its torque multiplication in fourth drops off sharply.

Also, you're forgetting that the horsepower of these cars is the same. I've asked you this once, and I'll ask again: why cannot a 400 lb-ft E320 BT outrun a 369 lb-ft M5?

Lastly, the science behind automobile acceleration is well-established, and I'm really not inclined to waste an entire afternoon going back and forth about it with you ad infinitum. If you want to understand what I'm trying to say, read this, it explains it very well:
Torque and horsepower: a primer

Well, if they're "estimated to have the same hp", then prima facie you're admitting that the horsepower is estimated, right? Which does not establish that they're the same, right? But different trap speeds would be an indicator that one is faster than the other, right? Would this not indicate that it therefore is making more power, or has a more efficient driveline, etc.?

Nor does your driveline loss estimate take into account the fact that given production tolerances, any two given drivelines will likely produce different losses, but you're using it as though all drivelines produce exactly the same loss. Again, the calculator is advertised to be within +-5%, and to check it I went and ran literally dozens of mag tests (where trap and as-tested weight are readily available), and it is really quite remarkably accurate. Try it yourself.

Well, you're contradicting yourself, because as you yourself have shown, dynos on E55s are NOT all producing the same hp. Yet you want to "assume" that this Z06 produced *exactly* rated hp, which it may, or may not, have done....suppose it was lower?

Otoh, we know it to be modded (per jangy), so why are you not accounting for this in your hypothetical numbers? ItallianStallion pointed out that an air intake gives 10-15 rwhp, and jangy said the guy had intake mods.

Did you factor that in?

No.

Jangy said the car had exhaust mods, probably good for another 20-30 rwhp.

Did you factor that in?

No.

So you're using ideal stock numbers to calculate data for what jangy has said is a modded car. If you want to do it that way, you should at least give the thing another 30-45 rwhp to be halfway fair. Don't you think?

Unfortunately (or fortunately), we're not using that stuff here.

Sure, in the US, because they don't have launch control here; that's a pretty big handicap to be giving up! The mags tested them about the same, as did the European publications w/launch control. Obviously, this is all in the 60' time, or else in the 20-30 mph rollons we've seen, the E would have pulled a similar margin, which it doesn't.

Again: you have not established that his car produces 100+ lb-ft of peak tq, and the dyno numbers at dragtimes.com put it at more like 70. So I'm not ceding you this point, unless you can prove that the dynos at dragtimes are fraudulent. Sorry....

I disagree.

Oh, come on...this is a standing-start race with one car that has launch control, which gives a HUGE advantage, vs. another w/bad synchros and which is obviously running weak, to the point where the tester thought it had the wrong gasoline, hardly representative. How is this applicable to a rolling-start run where launch is out of the picture?

Motor Trend tested a GT2 and ran a 11.4 @ 127.9 in it, which is definitely faster than they got in the Z06 they tested...not enough for a margin like that, but they've got competent test drivers.

Also bear in mind that standing-start, P-cars have a huge advantage thanks to having most of the weight over the real wheels, so they can be launched more agressively than the 'vette, and if you add LC to that mix, it's a pretty huge advantage off the line, especially when matched up against a clearly underpowered example...there are plenty of tests in Europe and here of Z06s running faster than that, and check out Fifth Gear's Z06 test to see how the two cars' lap times compared there--with the same driver.

We don't know what the trap speeds were, but given how far down on power that Z06 was, it's again not a very fair comparison. Further, its AWD-like traction at launch *will* shorten its 60' time, which *will* shorten its 1/4 mile time, but *won't* help w/trap speed. Look at Subaru WRX STi, for example: thanks to AWD launch it'll run like a 13.3, but only traps at 103 or so. But starting from a roll, an E39 M5, which traps in the 107 range, will run it down easily.

Unfortunately, we're talking about a rolling-start race between jangy and the vette, not a standing start where one car has an enormous traction advantage over the other and where (in your vid) the other is clearly a weak example.

As to driver skill, I've said from the beginning, if the Z06 driver in question drove incompetently, of course jangy could have won. What I'm saying is that with a well-driven Z, this would not have happened as he described it. And, with all due respect, so far nobody has presented anything that shows that it should have happened as described, excluding egregeous driver error.

Lastly, as to the calculator: Motor Trend tested a GT2 and ran a 11.4 @ 127.9 in it, which is a bit faster than they got in the Z06 they tested. And my handy-dandy calculator gives me (w/150 pound driver) about 540 hp, 10 over rated, i.e. within 2% of rated. Not bad!

And those extra 2 mph make the difference! A 116 trap with his weight calculates out to 528 hp. With an 18% driveline loss, that works out to 433 rwhp. I said the formula is within +-%%. Subtract 5% from 433, and wow, what do you know, you get 411, same rwhp as EnzoM got on his dyno, and this assumes 100% accuracy on the part of the dyno, and the run itself, which of course is not necessarily a safe assumption. Still, it shows that the calculator is pretty accurate, far and away the best one I've seen.

Did you personally go and investigate the dyno posts on dragtimes.com, and find that they were witnessed by no one, that they were posted by people nobody knows, that they were not posted by reputable members of other forums?

No?

So why assume this to be so, then? It *could* happen, but one would have to investigate them, in turn, before simply dismissing them out of hand simply because of a maybe!

They are unknown to you, just as jangy is probably unkown to members of other forums, in which these dynos might well have been witnessed by multiple members, etc.... So your claim that, just because jangy is known here, or EnzoM is known here, and that people from here may or may not have witnessed these runs, does not establish that the same is not also true for the dragtimes.com runs.

Yet you are acting as though it has been, and there's simply no reason to presume this is true.

Improviz

Hello! McFly!! Are we talking about Mercedes' curb weight, or jangy's?

jangy's.

Is jangy's car a stripper with no options?

No.

So I ask again, why is this relevant?

jangy's car is not a 2003, it is a 2006, so this too is irrelevant.