New 63 Record???
07-26-2008, 08:01 AM
#79
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)
Jcart
Congrats on your times - in the right conditions you will see traps significantly improve, but remember that as 60Ft and ET's come down, so too does the trap speed.
But more importantly - that is one BEAUUUUUUTIFUL car. Just driving that BS is all you need to put a smile on your face!!! Just love it!
Congrats on your times - in the right conditions you will see traps significantly improve, but remember that as 60Ft and ET's come down, so too does the trap speed.
But more importantly - that is one BEAUUUUUUTIFUL car. Just driving that BS is all you need to put a smile on your face!!! Just love it!
07-27-2008, 01:23 PM
#80
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Car & Driver: is your dyno lying?
Also, you have a rather obvious conflict of interest in this matter, and in my opinion it really doesn't look appropriate for you to assail others' motives for honestly expressing their opinions. Nobody said that "dynos all lie", or anything close to that.
The point is that many of us would expect a car making 500 rwhp and weighing in at 3800 pounds to be trapping significantly higher than that, particularly with the excellent 60' time he got.
Last edited by Improviz; 07-27-2008 at 04:14 PM.
07-27-2008, 02:28 PM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
Trap speeds are a very accurate indicator of traps, while dynos can, and do, make errors:
Car & Driver: is your dyno lying?
Also, you have a rather obvious conflict of interest in this matter, and in my opinion it really doesn't look appropriate for you to assail others' motives for honestly expressing their opinions. Nobody said that "dynos all lie", or anything close to that.
The point is that many of us would expect a car making 500 rwhp and weighing in at 3800 pounds to be trapping significantly higher than that, particularly with the excellent 60' time he got.
Car & Driver: is your dyno lying?
Also, you have a rather obvious conflict of interest in this matter, and in my opinion it really doesn't look appropriate for you to assail others' motives for honestly expressing their opinions. Nobody said that "dynos all lie", or anything close to that.
The point is that many of us would expect a car making 500 rwhp and weighing in at 3800 pounds to be trapping significantly higher than that, particularly with the excellent 60' time he got.
07-27-2008, 08:27 PM
#82
MBWorld Founder
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ones too fast according to CHP!
Trap speeds are a very accurate indicator of traps, while dynos can, and do, make errors:
Car & Driver: is your dyno lying?
Also, you have a rather obvious conflict of interest in this matter, and in my opinion it really doesn't look appropriate for you to assail others' motives for honestly expressing their opinions. Nobody said that "dynos all lie", or anything close to that.
The point is that many of us would expect a car making 500 rwhp and weighing in at 3800 pounds to be trapping significantly higher than that, particularly with the excellent 60' time he got.
Car & Driver: is your dyno lying?
Also, you have a rather obvious conflict of interest in this matter, and in my opinion it really doesn't look appropriate for you to assail others' motives for honestly expressing their opinions. Nobody said that "dynos all lie", or anything close to that.
The point is that many of us would expect a car making 500 rwhp and weighing in at 3800 pounds to be trapping significantly higher than that, particularly with the excellent 60' time he got.
Jim has had the car on THREE different dyno's in TWO states (CA and IL). The dyno reading at evo was the lowest of all three, FYI. If people claim that the car is not making the power, then they ARE stating that dyno's lie. It is impossible to get three different dynos at three different facilities in two very different geographical locations and environments to all read basically the same, unless the numbers are correct.
Second, Jim is spinning the tires when shifting into second (badly) and if you do not understand the impact that has on a 1/4 mile run, then you may want to do a little research.
Third, the car is 4069 with a 190lb driver in it. Jim stated he is 200+. This is according to our race scales (as we corner balanced it). So your ASSUMPTION is only off by almost 300lbs, I am sure that is trivial, right?
I really have no bias or care in what he runs, I just think that it is really funny when people make blanket statements of FACT without actually having the facts (ie: the fact that the tires are spinning and he is letting off of the gas - It is funny that one poster suggested that, but nobody picked up on it; or the fact of how much the car really weighs).
If you don't believe that Jim makes the power that HE claims it does (he makes the claims, not evosport - we told him what it made and he verified it at two other independent facilities), then it is simple. Challenge him. He is very motivated by such challenges, just be sure to bring your checkbook, as he only plays for money.
As you may agree, the proof is in the pudding, and I know he likes the flavor of his pudding!
thanks
Brad
07-27-2008, 09:09 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
STS,FGT,12C,P85D,M4
I didn't see him mention tires spinning or letting off the gas during the runs, maybe I missed that..... which I why I asked that question.... For those who frequent the track and look closely at slips, it sure doesn't look like he was spinning badly or letting off the gas....
I don't think anyone here would 2nd guess the car at all if he came out saying he had all kinds of traction problems down the track.... It's a little odd to start spinning after the 60' in this level of car unless you're way out of the track groove, have A LOT of power, or spraying nitrous after the launch, the slips show great passes though....
as for the weight, can you clarify the weight? it was 4069 pounds including the 190 pound driver?
Second, Jim is spinning the tires when shifting into second (badly) and if you do not understand the impact that has on a 1/4 mile run, then you may want to do a little research.
I really have no bias or care in what he runs, I just think that it is really funny when people make blanket statements of FACT without actually having the facts (ie: the fact that the tires are spinning and he is letting off of the gas - It is funny that one poster suggested that, but nobody picked up on it; or the fact of how much the car really weighs).
thanks
Brad
I don't think anyone here would 2nd guess the car at all if he came out saying he had all kinds of traction problems down the track.... It's a little odd to start spinning after the 60' in this level of car unless you're way out of the track groove, have A LOT of power, or spraying nitrous after the launch, the slips show great passes though....
as for the weight, can you clarify the weight? it was 4069 pounds including the 190 pound driver?
Second, Jim is spinning the tires when shifting into second (badly) and if you do not understand the impact that has on a 1/4 mile run, then you may want to do a little research.
I really have no bias or care in what he runs, I just think that it is really funny when people make blanket statements of FACT without actually having the facts (ie: the fact that the tires are spinning and he is letting off of the gas - It is funny that one poster suggested that, but nobody picked up on it; or the fact of how much the car really weighs).
thanks
Brad
07-27-2008, 09:27 PM
#84
MBWorld Founder
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ones too fast according to CHP!
I didn't see him mention tires spinning or letting off the gas during the runs, maybe I missed that..... which I why I asked that question.... For those who frequent the track and look closely at slips, it sure doesn't look like he was spinning badly or letting off the gas....
I don't think anyone here would 2nd guess the car at all if he came out saying he had all kinds of traction problems down the track.... It's a little odd to start spinning after the 60' in this level of car unless you're way out of the track groove, have A LOT of power, or spraying nitrous after the launch, the slips show great passes though....
as for the weight, can you clarify the weight? it was 4069 pounds including the 190 pound driver?
Thanks
Brad
07-27-2008, 09:46 PM
#85
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,662
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
STS,FGT,12C,P85D,M4
thanks, so the car is about 100 pounds heavier than I thought.....
next time at the strip take a walk down the track, you're shoes will stick to it.... I'm sure his car spins like mad on the street, but at the drag strip it's much stickier... My E55 puts down 540 rtwq @ 3k RPM and I can't spin past the 60' with a good launch, and that's probably around 100 ft/lbs more than his car is making.....
next time at the strip take a walk down the track, you're shoes will stick to it.... I'm sure his car spins like mad on the street, but at the drag strip it's much stickier... My E55 puts down 540 rtwq @ 3k RPM and I can't spin past the 60' with a good launch, and that's probably around 100 ft/lbs more than his car is making.....
Well, the real problem with this car is that it has too much tq low in the revs. It really needs to have the curve re-shaped to move the area higher in the rev-range. The car just lights up the tires in 2nd and 3rd under full throttle (and this is with DOT-R's).
I don't know the strip very well, I am a circuit racer. I am sure you know about all things drag much more then me (not being sarcastic). However, I do know this car. All of them we have done with the same mods have the same problem - traction.
Yes, that is correct. So with Jim at 215+, that is nearly 4100lbs as opposed to the 3800lbs that seems to be thrown around.
Thanks
Brad
I don't know the strip very well, I am a circuit racer. I am sure you know about all things drag much more then me (not being sarcastic). However, I do know this car. All of them we have done with the same mods have the same problem - traction.
Yes, that is correct. So with Jim at 215+, that is nearly 4100lbs as opposed to the 3800lbs that seems to be thrown around.
Thanks
Brad
07-27-2008, 09:52 PM
#86
MBWorld Founder
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ones too fast according to CHP!
thanks, so the car is about 100 pounds heavier than I thought.....
next time at the strip take a walk down the track, you're shoes will stick to it.... I'm sure his car spins like mad on the street, but at the drag strip it's much stickier... My E55 puts down 540 rtwq @ 3k RPM and I can't spin past the 60' with a good launch, and that's probably around 100 ft/lbs more than his car is making.....
next time at the strip take a walk down the track, you're shoes will stick to it.... I'm sure his car spins like mad on the street, but at the drag strip it's much stickier... My E55 puts down 540 rtwq @ 3k RPM and I can't spin past the 60' with a good launch, and that's probably around 100 ft/lbs more than his car is making.....
We have 55k motors that make more HP ant TQ on the dyno, but the BS cars are much faster on the street and much more RAW and touchy. I have never had a 55K car, even one with 100+ more torque (NOS) then yours break rears loose on the street the way the BS does.
I am sure you have been around cars long enough to know that there are cars that perform better on the street then the dyno and some vice-versa. Then you get some that do both! Those are the keepers!
Again, I don't know the strip, I just know cars. And I will recommend that you drive a stock then modified BS. They are not like other MBZ's. That is part of what makes this car very special really.
BTW, your 55 sounds like a great ride.
Thanks
Brad
07-27-2008, 10:04 PM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
The thing that doesn't make sense is if his car was spinning that bad on the 1-2 shift and again at the 2-3 shift his trap differential would be higher.
If you take his 1/8 traps and compare it to his 1/4 mile trap speed he is picking up 24.68 mph out the back which is average.
If you take his 1/8 traps and compare it to his 1/4 mile trap speed he is picking up 24.68 mph out the back which is average.
07-27-2008, 10:17 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
LOL, please lets keep facts straight. I did not "assail" anyone, I made a simple two line post. lol, I mean, lets not over-react here. But....
Jim has had the car on THREE different dyno's in TWO states (CA and IL). The dyno reading at evo was the lowest of all three, FYI. If people claim that the car is not making the power, then they ARE stating that dyno's lie.
Jim has had the car on THREE different dyno's in TWO states (CA and IL). The dyno reading at evo was the lowest of all three, FYI. If people claim that the car is not making the power, then they ARE stating that dyno's lie.
It is impossible to get three different dynos at three different facilities in two very different geographical locations and environments to all read basically the same, unless the numbers are correct.
Second, Jim is spinning the tires when shifting into second (badly) and if you do not understand the impact that has on a 1/4 mile run, then you may want to do a little research.
Second, Jim is spinning the tires when shifting into second (badly) and if you do not understand the impact that has on a 1/4 mile run, then you may want to do a little research.
I really have no bias or care in what he runs, I just think that it is really funny when people make blanket statements of FACT without actually having the facts (ie: the fact that the tires are spinning and he is letting off of the gas - It is funny that one poster suggested that, but nobody picked up on it; or the fact of how much the car really weighs).
If you don't believe that Jim makes the power that HE claims it does (he makes the claims, not evosport - we told him what it made and he verified it at two other independent facilities), then it is simple. Challenge him. He is very motivated by such challenges, just be sure to bring your checkbook, as he only plays for money.
If you don't believe that Jim makes the power that HE claims it does (he makes the claims, not evosport - we told him what it made and he verified it at two other independent facilities), then it is simple. Challenge him. He is very motivated by such challenges, just be sure to bring your checkbook, as he only plays for money.
Exhibit A: BMW M5, tested June 2003, 13.3@108.5, as-tested weight: 4040 pounds. 4040*(108.5/234)^3 = 402.73 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 394. Accuracy: +2.2%
Exhibit B: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra, tested July 2004, 13.4@107.0. Car's as-tested weight: 3870 pounds. 3870*(107.0/234)^3 = 370 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 390. Accuracy: -5%, but this 'stang is trapping low. Others have tested in the 110+ range, giving rated horsepower.
Exhibit C: Pontiac GTO, same test as 'stang. 13.9@103.6. Car's as-tested weight: 3960 pounds. 3960*(103.6/234)^3 = 343.65 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 350. Accuracy: -2%.
All of these cars were six-speed manuals with RWD. So, how about a five-speed manual with FWD:
Exhibit D: Honda Civic SI, tested July 2002. Car's as-tested weight: 2905 pounds. 15.9@87.8. 2905*(87.8/234)^3 = 153.45 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 160. Accuracy: -4%.
How about a FWD six-speed manual, with totally different gearing, from the same test:
Exhibit E: Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, same test. 2940 pounds, 15.6@90.3. 2940*(90.3/234)^3 = 168.95 horsepower. Rated: 175. Accuracy: -4.5%.
So, could it be less accurate when the horsepower varies by over 200%?
Exhibit F: Ford GT. Tested 12/2003. 3570 pounds, 12.2@121.6. 3570(*121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Rated: 500. Accuracy: +0.19%.
So, how about an AWD car?
Exhibit G: Audi S4, Tested 12/2003. 4080 pounds, 13.9@101.2. 4080*(101.2/234)^3 = 330.03 horsepower. Rated: 340. Accuracy: -3%.
So, maybe the Cd will screw it up. A Ford SVT Lightning pickup truck has a significantly larger Cd than any of the above cars. Unfortunately, Road & Track doesn't seem to have tested it, can't find it at Car & Driver...but Edmunds has it. They ran one against the Dodge SRT-10. The vehicle weighed 4670 pounds without driver. Add 180 for driver/equipment, you get 4850. Tested at 14.2@98.5 . 4850*(98.5/234)^3 = 361.74. Rated: 380. Accuracy: -5%.
Exhibit B: Ford SVT Mustang Cobra, tested July 2004, 13.4@107.0. Car's as-tested weight: 3870 pounds. 3870*(107.0/234)^3 = 370 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 390. Accuracy: -5%, but this 'stang is trapping low. Others have tested in the 110+ range, giving rated horsepower.
Exhibit C: Pontiac GTO, same test as 'stang. 13.9@103.6. Car's as-tested weight: 3960 pounds. 3960*(103.6/234)^3 = 343.65 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 350. Accuracy: -2%.
All of these cars were six-speed manuals with RWD. So, how about a five-speed manual with FWD:
Exhibit D: Honda Civic SI, tested July 2002. Car's as-tested weight: 2905 pounds. 15.9@87.8. 2905*(87.8/234)^3 = 153.45 horsepower. Car's rated horsepower: 160. Accuracy: -4%.
How about a FWD six-speed manual, with totally different gearing, from the same test:
Exhibit E: Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V, same test. 2940 pounds, 15.6@90.3. 2940*(90.3/234)^3 = 168.95 horsepower. Rated: 175. Accuracy: -4.5%.
So, could it be less accurate when the horsepower varies by over 200%?
Exhibit F: Ford GT. Tested 12/2003. 3570 pounds, 12.2@121.6. 3570(*121.6/234)^3 = 500.98 horsepower. Rated: 500. Accuracy: +0.19%.
So, how about an AWD car?
Exhibit G: Audi S4, Tested 12/2003. 4080 pounds, 13.9@101.2. 4080*(101.2/234)^3 = 330.03 horsepower. Rated: 340. Accuracy: -3%.
So, maybe the Cd will screw it up. A Ford SVT Lightning pickup truck has a significantly larger Cd than any of the above cars. Unfortunately, Road & Track doesn't seem to have tested it, can't find it at Car & Driver...but Edmunds has it. They ran one against the Dodge SRT-10. The vehicle weighed 4670 pounds without driver. Add 180 for driver/equipment, you get 4850. Tested at 14.2@98.5 . 4850*(98.5/234)^3 = 361.74. Rated: 380. Accuracy: -5%.
4080*(118.25/234)^3 = 526 crank. This is what that trap and weight show, and this equation is within 5%, reliably.
Rearranging equation for speed gives: spd = 234 x (hp/w)^0.3333
With 500 rwhp = 610 crank w/18% driveline loss, he should trap at 234*(610/4080)^0.33333 = 124 mph.
Hopefully, whatever is causing this discrepancy will be worked out and fixed soon, but this is why the numbers don't make sense to some of us.
Thanks....
07-27-2008, 10:19 PM
#89
MBWorld Fanatic!
The thing that doesn't make sense is if his car was spinning that bad on the 1-2 shift and again at the 2-3 shift his trap differential would be higher.
If you take his 1/8 traps and compare it to his 1/4 mile trap speed he is picking up 24.68 mph out the back which is average.
If you take his 1/8 traps and compare it to his 1/4 mile trap speed he is picking up 24.68 mph out the back which is average.
I agree with Albert, had he been spinning the Trap would actually be higher and the ET would as well. This is a great pass on a great 60ft. It is great for a 63 to see three 1.8 short times in sequence.
Jim's Et is also outstanding but the car seems to flatten, perhaps this is gearing? Jim has trapped 119 according to him with crappy ET of 12.1, onthis occassion wheel spin off the line and perhaps shiffting from 2nd to 3rd hurt his ET and helped his trap.
My car is 4120 empty and 4350 with me inside. My car hit 116.56 same altitude as Jim who trapped 1.6 mph higher. This car needs 1-2mph more on the back 1/8th IMHO.
I definately see 11.60's @ 122-123 at MIR w/o NOS
07-27-2008, 10:25 PM
#90
MBWorld Fanatic!
OR that maybe there are other factors which are causing the car to trap several mph slower than it should w/that weight and horsepower....you're inferring more than they meant, imo. Point is that (as I'll show in a moment), the trap speed of a car is a very reliable indicator of its crank horsepower.
I have. His numbers are spot on what I'd expect in a car that hooked up well and the further-down-the-track numbers don't exhibit any post-launch issues.
I assumed nothing. I was going by what JRCart himself said, here:
The reason some of us are throwing this figure around is that he's claimed it.
I don't need to challenge him to a race to see that the trap speed is well below what it should be for that level of power and weight. Perhaps there are mitigating factors here, but this equation is very accurate, on fwd, rwd, awd cars with manual/automatic transmissions, even w/pickup trucks, as the following examples show (quoting from an earlier post of mine):
As you can see, the equation is quite accurate, phenomenally so given that it uses only first order effects, and for his car it indicates (using the weight you provided):
4080*(118.25/234)^3 = 526 crank. This is what that trap and weight show, and this equation is within 5%, reliably.
Rearranging equation for speed gives: spd = 234 x (hp/w)^0.3333
With 500 rwhp = 610 crank w/18% driveline loss, he should trap at 234*(610/4080)^0.33333 = 124 mph.
Hopefully, whatever is causing this discrepancy will be worked out and fixed soon, but this is why the numbers don't make sense to some of us.
Thanks....
I have. His numbers are spot on what I'd expect in a car that hooked up well and the further-down-the-track numbers don't exhibit any post-launch issues.
I assumed nothing. I was going by what JRCart himself said, here:
The reason some of us are throwing this figure around is that he's claimed it.
I don't need to challenge him to a race to see that the trap speed is well below what it should be for that level of power and weight. Perhaps there are mitigating factors here, but this equation is very accurate, on fwd, rwd, awd cars with manual/automatic transmissions, even w/pickup trucks, as the following examples show (quoting from an earlier post of mine):
As you can see, the equation is quite accurate, phenomenally so given that it uses only first order effects, and for his car it indicates (using the weight you provided):
4080*(118.25/234)^3 = 526 crank. This is what that trap and weight show, and this equation is within 5%, reliably.
Rearranging equation for speed gives: spd = 234 x (hp/w)^0.3333
With 500 rwhp = 610 crank w/18% driveline loss, he should trap at 234*(610/4080)^0.33333 = 124 mph.
Hopefully, whatever is causing this discrepancy will be worked out and fixed soon, but this is why the numbers don't make sense to some of us.
Thanks....
07-27-2008, 10:32 PM
#91
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
I didn't see him mention tires spinning or letting off the gas during the runs, maybe I missed that..... which I why I asked that question.... For those who frequent the track and look closely at slips, it sure doesn't look like he was spinning badly or letting off the gas....
I don't think anyone here would 2nd guess the car at all if he came out saying he had all kinds of traction problems down the track.... It's a little odd to start spinning after the 60' in this level of car unless you're way out of the track groove, have A LOT of power, or spraying nitrous after the launch, the slips show great passes though....
as for the weight, can you clarify the weight? it was 4069 pounds including the 190 pound driver?
I don't think anyone here would 2nd guess the car at all if he came out saying he had all kinds of traction problems down the track.... It's a little odd to start spinning after the 60' in this level of car unless you're way out of the track groove, have A LOT of power, or spraying nitrous after the launch, the slips show great passes though....
as for the weight, can you clarify the weight? it was 4069 pounds including the 190 pound driver?
I am going to not only prove this to you guys, but i am going to rectify it as well. One of the many calls I have made over the past few days in my quest for the fastest AMG at the MIR event in November in addition to NOS, CF drive shafts, cams, heads, axles and rear-ends was to a couple of on-board telemetry companies. I am going to have sensors placed all over my car to tell me what's happening during at pass at the drag strip as well as on a road course. This is going to show me wheel speed vs throttle position vs actual speed. This is going to allow me to fine tune my car in a way you guys can only dream of. I told you I was taking this thing to a whole new level...there's still more to come. Guys like you all motivate me to do crazy stuff. I may not be an engineer, but I have the money to pay for a few. So until November there's no use on speculating on if my car has 300whp or 600whp, we will all know soon enough won't we?
...one more thing, take a look at my front diffuser/splitter and rear spoiler, these can't be helping my trap speed either I would assume.
Last edited by jrcart; 07-27-2008 at 10:34 PM.
07-27-2008, 10:53 PM
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
I am getting wheel spin that is starting beyond the 330' mark. I posted on another thread a couple days before even making these record setting passes at the strip that my car gets violently sidesways at about 70mph. I think it might have been in the VRP CF airbox thread, I'm really not sure. I almost lost control and crashed about two weeks ago while racing a crotch rocket, I was going in a straight line, peddle mashed to the floor and then all of a sudden I'm sideways heading for the center island.
I am going to not only prove this to you guys, but i am going to rectify it as well. One of the many calls I have made over the past few days in my quest for the fastest AMG at the MIR event in November in addition to NOS, CF drive shafts, cams, heads, axles and rear-ends was to a couple of on-board telemetry companies. I am going to have sensors placed all over my car to tell me what's happening during at pass at the drag strip as well as on a road course. This is going to show me wheel speed vs throttle position vs actual speed. This is going to allow me to fine tune my car in a way you guys can only dream of. I told you I was taking this thing to a whole new level...there's still more to come. Guys like you all motivate me to do crazy stuff. I may not be an engineer, but I have the money to pay for a few. So until November there's no use on speculating on if my car has 300whp or 600whp, we will all know soon enough won't we?
...one more thing, take a look at my front diffuser/splitter and rear spoiler, these can't be helping my trap speed either I would assume.
I am going to not only prove this to you guys, but i am going to rectify it as well. One of the many calls I have made over the past few days in my quest for the fastest AMG at the MIR event in November in addition to NOS, CF drive shafts, cams, heads, axles and rear-ends was to a couple of on-board telemetry companies. I am going to have sensors placed all over my car to tell me what's happening during at pass at the drag strip as well as on a road course. This is going to show me wheel speed vs throttle position vs actual speed. This is going to allow me to fine tune my car in a way you guys can only dream of. I told you I was taking this thing to a whole new level...there's still more to come. Guys like you all motivate me to do crazy stuff. I may not be an engineer, but I have the money to pay for a few. So until November there's no use on speculating on if my car has 300whp or 600whp, we will all know soon enough won't we?
...one more thing, take a look at my front diffuser/splitter and rear spoiler, these can't be helping my trap speed either I would assume.
07-27-2008, 10:58 PM
#93
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
....as for the telemetry and it's costs, I have not reached budget for my toys yet this year and the year is flying by.
07-27-2008, 10:58 PM
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
This would assume SAE condition which sorry to say was not the case during this 118.25 trap , agree with you though it is still a few mph shy on the back half. Car should hit 119.8-120.4 in the Air density range of 1275-1575. Take itto standard zero and you could expect 122-123 so yeah looks like your equation works under SAE conditions
07-27-2008, 11:19 PM
#95
MBWorld Fanatic!
07-27-2008, 11:22 PM
#96
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Read your quote above. Please explain. As far as I know any wing/spoiler/diffuser which creates downforce will slow down a car. I don't think you can have both. Big wing = lots of down force = slower top speed, Right or wrong?
07-27-2008, 11:30 PM
#97
MBWorld Fanatic!
right...but my implications were that your big wing/diffusers aren't giving you enough downforce to compensate for an improper set up...which could be a reason your car would get "violently sideways at about 70mph" when going in a straight line.
07-27-2008, 11:47 PM
#98
MBWorld Fanatic!
Obviously the wing and spoiler hurt his trap so pull em off for drag strip action rather than spend monies on sensors.
07-28-2008, 02:06 AM
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
J-cart.....
Since your so hell bent on proving your BS is the baddest thing on the block, what ever happened to your race w/Zlicious C6 Z06??
& what is all this extra
going to do towards proving your original 500 rwhp set-up is the fastest AMG?
Nothing.... You keep adding mods to that BS every time you post? How's that going to verify your BS as it sits right now, being capable of 122-124mph traps??
Your traps are NO greater than Oldgixer's BONE STOCK E63 (It weighs more than your BS too)
What is your RWTO?? What is your final drive ratio?? (I could look it up, but I figured you prolly modded that too?)
& what is all this extra
in my quest for the fastest AMG at the MIR event in November in addition to NOS, CF drive shafts, cams, heads, axles and rear-ends
Nothing.... You keep adding mods to that BS every time you post? How's that going to verify your BS as it sits right now, being capable of 122-124mph traps??
Your traps are NO greater than Oldgixer's BONE STOCK E63 (It weighs more than your BS too)
What is your RWTO?? What is your final drive ratio?? (I could look it up, but I figured you prolly modded that too?)
07-28-2008, 09:51 AM
#100
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Since your so hell bent on proving your BS is the baddest thing on the block, what ever happened to your race w/Zlicious C6 Z06??
& what is all this extra going to do towards proving your original 500 rwhp set-up is the fastest AMG?
Nothing.... You keep adding mods to that BS every time you post? How's that going to verify your BS as it sits right now, being capable of 122-124mph traps??
Your traps are NO greater than Oldgixer's BONE STOCK E63 (It weighs more than your BS too)
What is your RWTO?? What is your final drive ratio?? (I could look it up, but I figured you prolly modded that too?)
& what is all this extra going to do towards proving your original 500 rwhp set-up is the fastest AMG?
Nothing.... You keep adding mods to that BS every time you post? How's that going to verify your BS as it sits right now, being capable of 122-124mph traps??
Your traps are NO greater than Oldgixer's BONE STOCK E63 (It weighs more than your BS too)
What is your RWTO?? What is your final drive ratio?? (I could look it up, but I figured you prolly modded that too?)
