MHP v2 63 Tuning Track Results!
10-12-2008, 02:18 PM
#76
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
10-12-2008, 02:20 PM
#77
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Obviously your runs are effected by weather and since altitude never changes it has the same effect on your car each time you run. Altitude is a constant , the DA calculation is dependent on your measurement and the accuracy of the device utilized.
Imperical data from you car suggests weather does matter more than altitude.
On November 17th 2006 your car produced the following in stock configuration,(E55)
11.901@117.23 your short time was 1.727(+.017)
The DA as recorded by NWS was Positive 541.20 feet
On November 12th 2007 you run an astounding 11.775@118.69 on a 1.71
The DA as recorded by NWS was Negative 661.50
11.901-11.775=.126
1.727-1.710=.017
60ft time impact .017*2=.034
Had your 60ft time been identical you would have run 11.867 ET1/4 mile
Now we have factored out the 60 ft
the difference in your times and trap can only be attributed to WEATHER
The net change in DA from your Nov 06 run and your Nov 07 run was 1202.7 ft
E.T. 11.901 (sec)
Trap Speed 117.23 (mph)
Measured DA 541.20 (feet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected to -661.50(feet) DA
Corrected ET 11.751 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 118.756 (mph)
Now we add in the difference in the 60ft time and we get
11.785 which is a mere 1/100th from what you actually ran(11.775)
The corrected trap is within 66/100ths
The 1202 feet difference was the significant factor in going from 11.901 to 11.775.
for my car every 1000 ft is appx 1/10th a 100 ft change =1/100th this matters especially when choosing your dial times in a heads up NHRA match.
You make a great example simply because you are the most consistant driver on this site. You should not feel slighted because we look at weather as a factor during a pass.
Your stock 11.775 is monumental, it is freakish, you are a tremendous driver and my discussion of formula's and calcs is in no way meant to diminish your pass.
Back on topic.
The C63 hitting 118+ in a positive DA is purdy damn impressive
Imperical data from you car suggests weather does matter more than altitude.
On November 17th 2006 your car produced the following in stock configuration,(E55)
11.901@117.23 your short time was 1.727(+.017)
The DA as recorded by NWS was Positive 541.20 feet
On November 12th 2007 you run an astounding 11.775@118.69 on a 1.71
The DA as recorded by NWS was Negative 661.50
11.901-11.775=.126
1.727-1.710=.017
60ft time impact .017*2=.034
Had your 60ft time been identical you would have run 11.867 ET1/4 mile
Now we have factored out the 60 ft
the difference in your times and trap can only be attributed to WEATHER
The net change in DA from your Nov 06 run and your Nov 07 run was 1202.7 ft
E.T. 11.901 (sec)
Trap Speed 117.23 (mph)
Measured DA 541.20 (feet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected to -661.50(feet) DA
Corrected ET 11.751 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 118.756 (mph)
Now we add in the difference in the 60ft time and we get
11.785 which is a mere 1/100th from what you actually ran(11.775)
The corrected trap is within 66/100ths
The 1202 feet difference was the significant factor in going from 11.901 to 11.775.
for my car every 1000 ft is appx 1/10th a 100 ft change =1/100th this matters especially when choosing your dial times in a heads up NHRA match.
You make a great example simply because you are the most consistant driver on this site. You should not feel slighted because we look at weather as a factor during a pass.
Your stock 11.775 is monumental, it is freakish, you are a tremendous driver and my discussion of formula's and calcs is in no way meant to diminish your pass.
Back on topic.
The C63 hitting 118+ in a positive DA is purdy damn impressive
Again props to Lorenzo for having a FAST *** E55.
10-12-2008, 02:22 PM
#78
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
We're based out of Columbus OH (midwest I guess) but I race at Norwalk Raceway Park (when I can as the local track National Trail sucks!). Typical DA at norwalk is 1500-2500' from June-Sept. Only in October after the sun goes down do we see 1000' or lower DA--I agree, I'll take 1000' or lower all day long here. The ****ty part is that the track's altitude is 850' above sea level which doesn't compare to any East coast or FL track.
Thanks
10-12-2008, 03:12 PM
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
Im sorry--I should have been more clear in my post. I was refering to the speculation in the other thread about this C63 keeping up with Rocks car. As others have pointed out---you can't compare the FASTEST E55 run under the MOST ideal conditions over the course of 5 years to Andys 5th run.
The point is that---this car CAN keep up with a healthy stage 3...
The point is that---this car CAN keep up with a healthy stage 3...
10-12-2008, 03:50 PM
#80
Super Member
Andy, I will work on a part number and price for the crank for you, I have a reliable connection that can get me this type of info. It's same guy that got me the "europeon only" aero package wing that everyone said "nobody could get", and the same guy that told me about the SL 65 Black Series nearly a year ago. Give me a couple days and I should have something for you.
And great numbers Andy! I do wish you were doing headers/exhaust for MIR, but all in good time I suppose.
10-12-2008, 03:51 PM
#81
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-12-2008, 06:29 PM
#84
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-12-2008, 09:14 PM
#85
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sorry to stray off-topic, but can your guy get the part # for the C63 safety car front bumper as well jrcart? Just curious if something like that is even possible to get. Thanks.
And great numbers Andy! I do wish you were doing headers/exhaust for MIR, but all in good time I suppose.
And great numbers Andy! I do wish you were doing headers/exhaust for MIR, but all in good time I suppose.
10-12-2008, 09:17 PM
#86
Administrator
Haha Juicee. I think I have cut you deep in the past and I apologize. I may have to quit this forum with those kind of insults.................................. or, I may have to post the following pm's that you sent to me:
1. How to own a CLS63 while living in a trailer park.
2. My favorite periodical subscriptions: "It's Bigger Than It Looks" and "Some Girls Like It Small".
3. Why did I name myself Juicee?
1. How to own a CLS63 while living in a trailer park.
2. My favorite periodical subscriptions: "It's Bigger Than It Looks" and "Some Girls Like It Small".
3. Why did I name myself Juicee?
Last edited by Rock; 10-12-2008 at 09:32 PM.
10-12-2008, 09:25 PM
#87
Member
As we all surmised--there would have been a big differance between a 124mph car and a 116mph car from a roll on....but andy and rock confirmed their runs were equal. Rock said he ran ~120mph last time out---which is very close to the 118.8mph andy just ran....which clearly validates their runs.
I am in NO WAY saying that the 63 will beat the STRONGEST stg5 E55's...but we see that this car IS faster than stock E55's and close to average pulley tune E55's.
one car is in not indicative of general results....other C63's may actually be slower-----or Faster. A sample size of 1 is not reliable.
10-12-2008, 09:26 PM
#88
MBWorld Fanatic!
Haha Juicee. I think I have cut you deep in the past and I apologize. I may have to quit this forum with those kind of insults.................................. or, I may have post the following pm's that you sent to me:
1. How to own a CLS63 while living in a trailer park.
2. My favorite periodical subscriptions: "It's Bigger Than It Looks" and "Some Girls Like It Small".
3. Why did I name myself Juicee?
1. How to own a CLS63 while living in a trailer park.
2. My favorite periodical subscriptions: "It's Bigger Than It Looks" and "Some Girls Like It Small".
3. Why did I name myself Juicee?
just getting you back a wittle.
You forgot a few
" how to get the most out of your pump"
" What to do when your super charger isnt so super anymore"
10-12-2008, 09:41 PM
#90
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Thanks
10-13-2008, 02:27 PM
#91
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: California, USA
Posts: 9,137
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
E63 P30, CL500 Sport
At the risk of hijacking Andy's thread (sorry, Andy) - the DA on the day of my 11.775 run (and a bunch of 11.80X's) varied from neg 200 to neg 300 ft, but with humidity of over 60%, as measured at the track.
I have been through the DA issues before. I believe raw altitude is much more of a factor than the DA. I have run within 1/10th and 2 mph in fluctuations of almost 2,000 ft of DA at the same track using data collected from the same handheld weather station. If DA was as significant a factor as some would believe, the times from those two days (with almost the same 60' time in each) should have been very different.
Back on topic - A 12.0 from a C63 on a 1.8 60' time is great. Congrats.
I have been through the DA issues before. I believe raw altitude is much more of a factor than the DA. I have run within 1/10th and 2 mph in fluctuations of almost 2,000 ft of DA at the same track using data collected from the same handheld weather station. If DA was as significant a factor as some would believe, the times from those two days (with almost the same 60' time in each) should have been very different.
Back on topic - A 12.0 from a C63 on a 1.8 60' time is great. Congrats.
Maybe there's something else to it.... something we're missing
10-13-2008, 02:31 PM
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
?changes a few things, as we are nto talkign about the same car here when it comes to engine
and ANDY wicked results man
glad it came through for you!
10-13-2008, 02:55 PM
#93
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
10-13-2008, 04:20 PM
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
His car may show less of an effect but it is clear he will run SLOWER in 90 degrees than he does at 55. I would bet 700 billion on it
10-13-2008, 09:39 PM
#97
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'09 C63 AMG
Thanks!
On the dyno slightly better than my car due to the moderately less restrictive exhaust. At the track, I'd rather wait for real results than take a stab at guessing. Until then I'll say pretty damn well.
On the dyno slightly better than my car due to the moderately less restrictive exhaust. At the track, I'd rather wait for real results than take a stab at guessing. Until then I'll say pretty damn well.
10-13-2008, 10:54 PM
#98
MBWorld Fanatic!
Obviously your runs are effected by weather and since altitude never changes it has the same effect on your car each time you run. Altitude is a constant , the DA calculation is dependent on your measurement and the accuracy of the device utilized.
Imperical data from you car suggests weather does matter more than altitude.
On November 17th 2006 your car produced the following in stock configuration,(E55)
11.901@117.23 your short time was 1.727(+.017)
The DA as recorded by NWS was Positive 541.20 feet
On November 12th 2007 you run an astounding 11.775@118.69 on a 1.71
The DA as recorded by NWS was Negative 661.50
11.901-11.775=.126
1.727-1.710=.017
60ft time impact .017*2=.034
Had your 60ft time been identical you would have run 11.867 ET1/4 mile
Now we have factored out the 60 ft
the difference in your times and trap can only be attributed to WEATHER
The net change in DA from your Nov 06 run and your Nov 07 run was 1202.7 ft
E.T. 11.901 (sec)
Trap Speed 117.23 (mph)
Measured DA 541.20 (feet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected to -661.50(feet) DA
Corrected ET 11.751 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 118.756 (mph)
Now we add in the difference in the 60ft time and we get
11.785 which is a mere 1/100th from what you actually ran(11.775)
The corrected trap is within 66/100ths
The 1202 feet difference was the significant factor in going from 11.901 to 11.775.
for my car every 1000 ft is appx 1/10th a 100 ft change =1/100th this matters especially when choosing your dial times in a heads up NHRA match.
You make a great example simply because you are the most consistant driver on this site. You should not feel slighted because we look at weather as a factor during a pass.
Your stock 11.775 is monumental, it is freakish, you are a tremendous driver and my discussion of formula's and calcs is in no way meant to diminish your pass.
Back on topic.
The C63 hitting 118+ in a positive DA is purdy damn impressive
Imperical data from you car suggests weather does matter more than altitude.
On November 17th 2006 your car produced the following in stock configuration,(E55)
11.901@117.23 your short time was 1.727(+.017)
The DA as recorded by NWS was Positive 541.20 feet
On November 12th 2007 you run an astounding 11.775@118.69 on a 1.71
The DA as recorded by NWS was Negative 661.50
11.901-11.775=.126
1.727-1.710=.017
60ft time impact .017*2=.034
Had your 60ft time been identical you would have run 11.867 ET1/4 mile
Now we have factored out the 60 ft
the difference in your times and trap can only be attributed to WEATHER
The net change in DA from your Nov 06 run and your Nov 07 run was 1202.7 ft
E.T. 11.901 (sec)
Trap Speed 117.23 (mph)
Measured DA 541.20 (feet)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected to -661.50(feet) DA
Corrected ET 11.751 (sec)
Corrected Trap Speed 118.756 (mph)
Now we add in the difference in the 60ft time and we get
11.785 which is a mere 1/100th from what you actually ran(11.775)
The corrected trap is within 66/100ths
The 1202 feet difference was the significant factor in going from 11.901 to 11.775.
for my car every 1000 ft is appx 1/10th a 100 ft change =1/100th this matters especially when choosing your dial times in a heads up NHRA match.
You make a great example simply because you are the most consistant driver on this site. You should not feel slighted because we look at weather as a factor during a pass.
Your stock 11.775 is monumental, it is freakish, you are a tremendous driver and my discussion of formula's and calcs is in no way meant to diminish your pass.
Back on topic.
The C63 hitting 118+ in a positive DA is purdy damn impressive
10-14-2008, 01:10 AM
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
10-14-2008, 01:59 AM
#100
Member
Note: crank part number did change 3 times for some reason. But the above is the most current.
