Update: MHP ECU/TCU Tuning (Throttle Blipping, etc, DONE!)
#1001
Administrator
there plenty that trap what rock typically traps although none have matched his personal best yet (perhaps only because they haven't run under ideal conditions). however impromptu freeway runs don't mean too much because of so many variables so if you think there's any comparison between rocks pr of 124mph and andy's c63 at 117mph you really need to get off the koolaid.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
#1002
MBWorld Fanatic!
Agreed. These were short impromptu runs in traffic and not in a controlled environment. I reported that I could not pull on his car in the few seconds that we were both on the accelerator and that his car was very fast. Our trap speed discrepancy was not realized during our encounter.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
#1003
MBWorld Fanatic!
it's too bad andy seems to be of the belief that any attention is good attention. if he had any sense, he'd put your muzzle back on. just because you're used to having his sack in your mouth doesn't give you the right to put words in everyone else's. i never said you have anything to gain by your ignorance. and your quasi credentials don't impress me and don't make your cheer leading any less miserable to witness.
as far as your pointless question is concerned, there plenty that trap what rock typically traps although none have matched his personal best yet (perhaps only because they haven't run under ideal conditions). however impromptu freeway runs don't mean too much because of so many variables so if you think there's any comparison between rocks pr of 124mph and andy's c63 at 117mph you really need to get off the koolaid.
as far as your pointless question is concerned, there plenty that trap what rock typically traps although none have matched his personal best yet (perhaps only because they haven't run under ideal conditions). however impromptu freeway runs don't mean too much because of so many variables so if you think there's any comparison between rocks pr of 124mph and andy's c63 at 117mph you really need to get off the koolaid.
#1004
MBWorld Fanatic!
Agreed. These were short impromptu runs in traffic and not in a controlled environment. I reported that I could not pull on his car in the few seconds that we were both on the accelerator and that his car was very fast. Our trap speed discrepancy was not realized during our encounter.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
#1005
MBWorld Fanatic!
Agreed. These were short impromptu runs in traffic and not in a controlled environment. I reported that I could not pull on his car in the few seconds that we were both on the accelerator and that his car was very fast. Our trap speed discrepancy was not realized during our encounter.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
Just think of all the fun that will be had on this board after MIR.
Tom
#1006
Mikey, no offense man, but please read my above post. 63's/7 speed are not trapping anywhere close to 55/6 speeds, not sure why, but don't base your conclusion entirely on trap speeds....besides, the last time I checked the highest trap speed does not determine the winner of a race, the E/T does.
#1007
MBWorld Fanatic!
Look at ROCKS sig, 11.7 @ 124.6, I'm looking at a pile of my time slips right now and I have a few 11.7's @ 118, I have a few 11.4's @ 121-122. The 55's are always trapping 5 plus mph faster on equal E/T passes...........Why? Hell I have an 11.39 slip that is only 123.9 mph, over 4/10th quicker than ROCKS E/T but still slow MPH???????
#1008
MBWorld Fanatic!
Regarding trap speeds. If you guys recall that there were some questions as to my HP and such early this summer when I posted up some impressive E/T's but my MPH was in the 116-118 range. All of the nay sayers were chiming in, Mikey was one of them if I'm not mistaken. The 63's with the 7 speed trans missions are never going to trap as high as a 55 with a 6 speed. A few weeks ago on my last trip to the strip there was a CLS55 running 12.30's and an E63 running 12.35's anyone want to take a gander at the MPH discrepency between the two? Anyone............? Anyone? I'll help you all out, it was between 4-5 mph on every pass. My car has only trapped at 125 on the bottle on an 11.29 pass, but acording to most of you it should be trapping closer to 130. Bottom line, for whatever reason the 7 speed 63's don't trap nearly as high as the 6 speed 55's, so you can't compare Andy's trap speed to you 55 trap speed and try to come up with a logical expalination.
With regards to the NOS, I would check your jetting MB cars run very high fuel pressure and throws off the jetting, just a suggestion. As far as how much you pick-up out the back that all dependes on how much rwhp the shot is giving you.
#1009
MBWorld Fanatic!
Jcart no offense to you but all that was said that 116-118 was on the low side for a car making 500 rwhp. Which you later proved by traping 120+ which is what the car should run in your weather conditions.
With regards to the NOS, I would check your jetting MB cars run very high fuel pressure and throws off the jetting, just a suggestion. As far as how much you pick-up out the back that all dependes on how much rwhp the shot is giving you.
With regards to the NOS, I would check your jetting MB cars run very high fuel pressure and throws off the jetting, just a suggestion. As far as how much you pick-up out the back that all dependes on how much rwhp the shot is giving you.
#1010
MBWorld Fanatic!
What bottle pressure do you run ?
Have you dynod the car with the nos ? The ecu could be dumping to much fuel negating some of the gains even though the shot you are using is very small and is probably closer to 75 hp at the flywheel. To pick up 8-10 mph out the back you would need closer to 100+ rwhp on the nos.
Have you thought about switching to a wet kit?
Last edited by rflow306; 10-07-2008 at 10:48 AM.
#1011
MBWorld Fanatic!
My bad, I thought you had a wet system.
What bottle pressure do you run ?
Have you dynod the car with the nos ? The ecu could be dumping to much fuel negating some of the gains even though the shot you are using is very small and is probably closer to 75 hp at the flywheel. To pick up 8-10 mph out the back you would need closer to 100+ rwhp on the nos.
Have you thought about switching to a wet kit?
What bottle pressure do you run ?
Have you dynod the car with the nos ? The ecu could be dumping to much fuel negating some of the gains even though the shot you are using is very small and is probably closer to 75 hp at the flywheel. To pick up 8-10 mph out the back you would need closer to 100+ rwhp on the nos.
Have you thought about switching to a wet kit?
#1012
MBWorld Fanatic!
Regarding trap speeds. If you guys recall that there were some questions as to my HP and such early this summer when I posted up some impressive E/T's but my MPH was in the 116-118 range. All of the nay sayers were chiming in, Mikey was one of them if I'm not mistaken. The 63's with the 7 speed trans missions are never going to trap as high as a 55 with a 6 speed. A few weeks ago on my last trip to the strip there was a CLS55 running 12.30's and an E63 running 12.35's anyone want to take a gander at the MPH discrepency between the two? Anyone............? Anyone? I'll help you all out, it was between 4-5 mph on every pass. My car has only trapped at 125 on the bottle on an 11.29 pass, but acording to most of you it should be trapping closer to 130. Bottom line, for whatever reason the 7 speed 63's don't trap nearly as high as the 6 speed 55's, so you can't compare Andy's trap speed to you 55 trap speed and try to come up with a logical expalination.
there's no reason you can't compare 55's to 63's but there's no way you can compare andy's 117mph trap to rocks 124mph unless andy's car does wheel stands and knocks out 1.4-1.5 60ft times. since that isn't the case it's quite safe to say those cars aren't in the same league on the drag strip. now if rock's car wasn't running as perfect as it was the night of his p/r then that can bring the cars closer for discussion. but in my book you still can't even compare a 117 to a 122.
Last edited by chiromikey; 10-07-2008 at 12:01 PM.
#1013
MBWorld Fanatic!
Mikey, are you going to MIR? I hope to see you there.
Conditions are obviously of paramount importance. Hopefully we are going to have some great conditions at MIR in November. That will level the playing field for those of us who are forced to run at elevations from 650-1000 above sea level and in very high humidity. We will finally be able to put some of the specualtion aside. People have corrected some of my passes to 11.0's. I believe Andy's corrected out to an 11.7, which is pretty impressive for an other than ECU bone stock C63. I believe my 11.47 motor only pass corrected out to and 11.26 would it have been run at MIR, which, if I am not mistaken would shatter the quickest motor only pass on record made by any 55. I don't put too much faith in corrected numbers, I think a time slip with hard numbers are the only numbers that should matter. MIR should be very interesting and answer a lot of questions that have arisen over the past few months.
Conditions are obviously of paramount importance. Hopefully we are going to have some great conditions at MIR in November. That will level the playing field for those of us who are forced to run at elevations from 650-1000 above sea level and in very high humidity. We will finally be able to put some of the specualtion aside. People have corrected some of my passes to 11.0's. I believe Andy's corrected out to an 11.7, which is pretty impressive for an other than ECU bone stock C63. I believe my 11.47 motor only pass corrected out to and 11.26 would it have been run at MIR, which, if I am not mistaken would shatter the quickest motor only pass on record made by any 55. I don't put too much faith in corrected numbers, I think a time slip with hard numbers are the only numbers that should matter. MIR should be very interesting and answer a lot of questions that have arisen over the past few months.
#1014
MBWorld Fanatic!
#1015
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
#1016
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
#1017
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
there's no reason you can't compare 55's to 63's but there's no way you can compare andy's 117mph trap to rocks 124mph unless andy's car does wheel stands and knocks out 1.4-1.5 60ft times. since that isn't the case it's quite safe to say those cars aren't in the same league on the drag strip. now if rock's car wasn't running as perfect as it was the night of his p/r then that can bring the cars closer for discussion. but in my book you still can't even compare a 117 to a 122.
I'll tell you what the difference is so you can stop speculating. It's called TQ and the fact that 90% of a drag race is determined in the first 60'. 63s will never holeshot like 55s unless we throw a PD blower on top. From a roll, it's different story especially since the 7A keeps us in the band better/longer than your 5As.
#1018
MBWorld Fanatic!
I am blessed with East coast tracks because this is where I live. Although this is true, you mis understood what I meant. I dont put faith in the correction data, there are too many variables. Its great for conversation, but in my opinion thats about it. No correction factor can accurately predict how my car will run under said conditions. Contrary to popular belief we east coast guys do run at positive DA 90% of the year.
#1019
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
I am blessed with East coast tracks because this is where I live. Although this is true, you mis understood what I meant. I dont put faith in the correction data, there are too many variables. Its great for conversation, but in my opinion thats about it. No correction factor can accurately predict how my car will run under said conditions. Contrary to popular belief we east coast guys do run at positive DA 90% of the year.
This isn't directed toward you specifically (so don't take it that way) but it cracks me up when people talk about corrected numbers like they don't mean anything. When you go to a dyno, what do you put more faith in, corrected or uncorrected numbers? Anytime someone posts a dyno sheet that's uncorrected they immediately get called out for the most legit CF (SAE, Smoothing at 5).
Now explain to me why correcting a timeslip is any different. DA plays such a HUGE role in how any car will run on any given day, it seems absurd to me to not correct for it. Yes there are many variables, but they are taken into consideration (humidity, DA, temp, track elevation, etc. are all factored in).
It seems like those that are most resistant to using corrected #s are those that run at sea level tracks (that can experience neg DA unlike the rest of the country) or those that are seriously old school.
Now take a car that runs 12.0 at MIR/Cecil/ATCO/NED and run it at Bandimere. You'd be lucky to run 12.80 or better. So if said car never runs on the East Coast, is it really a 12.80 car?
Finally it seems like a lot of people are also under the impression that corrected ETs/Traps are always quicker/faster than actual numbers. Well, as we'll see after 11/15, that's not always the case. I guess the real question post 11/15 is, will you claim the negative DA # or the corrected number?
Is correcting track data the end all be all answer? No, however, it's the most accurate method we have, just like correcting dyno #s is.
Jay, if you post the date/time/track and numbers (to the hundredth place) for ET/Traps on your record runs I'll be glad to correct them for you to see what you get.
Last edited by MHP; 10-07-2008 at 01:12 PM.
#1020
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'll tell you what the difference is so you can stop speculating. It's called TQ and the fact that 90% of a drag race is determined in the first 60'. 63s will never holeshot like 55s unless we throw a PD blower on top. From a roll, it's different story especially since the 7A keeps us in the band better/longer than your 5As.
#1021
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.
#1023
MBWorld Fanatic!
My only point is that I hope all these correction factors for MIR are correct becuase I'm going to suprise a lot of locals if they are.
#1024
MBWorld Fanatic!
I guess you missed the part about the launch being important...
Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.
Our 60s suck by comparison, meaning we aren't putting anywhere near the power to the ground that you are during launch (which I think we both agree is the most important aspect of any race?) which is where the trap discrepancy comes into play. After first gear, we don't have an issue since we never fall out of our powerband.
#1025
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG