Thanks for the reply. I understand what Marcus is saying but I'm just trying to make sense of it. DA is important to me because I'm really trying to predict what my car will do in different conditions. This is really fun and exciting for me and I'm taking a real passion into drag racing. I'm actually think of purchasing another car just to drag in so I'm not beating the crap out of my benz. I may look into purchasing a Supra or something similar, it's just a thought for now.

As for my RT's....not even worth mentioning because I've solely concentrating on just trying to get a clean launch. The few times I did concentrate on my RT's I did hit .1xx a few times but never down into .0xx. I've only been to drag strip 7 times starting from the beginning of this year.

 

Hey checked out the info on zeitronix web site, It looks like a hot setup, I would however call them first and make sure your dasdaq is compaitable with the unit, They state several times "The Display is preconfigured with Zeitronix driver and screens. I like the the idea of one unit doing everything, I currently do all my OBD looging on my lap top with Palmer performance PCMSCAN, and then run have to run seprate software that the zeitronix uses,I have an old version of the software but the new one has support for all of inputs fron the zeitronix(afr,egt,boost,tps) as well. I guess I should upgrade! If you were starting from scratch this option is 210.00for the odb logging and about 500.00 for the full zeitronix setup, barring you have a laptop.

 

Neither Alan nor myself were arguing that the difference in performance is identical for a specific difference in DA. The improvement in performance may not be linear but may still be significant. Marcus, unfortunately, has this idea that we (Alan, myself, Juicee, and others here on the west coast) seem to think of DA as the God of racing or something as evident by his post here....

This assumption that we think that negative DA will give us an instant rocket boost is inherently incorrect. Ironically, almost all of our statements and observations regarding DA come directly from comparisons of real world numbers provided by many members on this site. In fact, we have gathered so much real world data by running our own cars at different tracks with very different DAs, such as, Sacramento, Famoso, Fontana, LACR, etc.... that we are able to predict very closely how the cars will react in different conditions. We even try to expand our data pool by including data from runs in different states then comparing the results. We compare actual real world runs in the east coast versus comparable runs here in the west coast. For instance, when I ran my car (factory stock) at Famoso one day with a DA of +200 ft, I hit 12.24 @ 115 mph; if you compare this run to oldgixxer's run (also a stock E63) which resulted in 11.95 @ 118 mph with a DA of -1400 ft, you get a difference of 0.3 seconds in ET and 3 mph in trap speed. Now this difference may be negligible to some people but it is significant to me and possibly others.

Marcus believes that Rodney and Alan ran at a difference of 600 ft of DA, but as Rodney stated, his run took place on 11/23/08 not 11/13/08, as there was a date typo in his video. When I checked the DA on 11/23/08 using dragtimes' calculator, I found that the best DA on that day was -950 ft and the worst was -600 ft. I don't know the exact time of Rodney's run but even assuming he ran at the worst DA of the day (which was -600 ft), we still get a difference of 1600 ft. Rodney ran 12.05 @ 125 vs Alan's 11.05 @ 130 mph. As you can see, a difference of approximately 1600 ft in DA (even if taken place near zero level) still generated a difference of nearly 5 mph especially given the fact that Marcus believes the two cars are similarly powered (within 20 rwhp of each other).

Again.... to some, this difference maybe negligible but to others, it is more significant

Our data and statements actually prove one of Marus' statements that the effects of DA get much worse at higher values and show that we do not believe, as Marcus stated, that "the lower the DA the better ad infinitum". Compare, for instance, Alan's most recent runs at Sacramento with his runs at Fontana a month earlier: at Fontana, in a DA of +4000 ft (it was actually a bit more but to put some minds at ease, I'm using this estimate), Alan ran 11.6 @ 122 to 123 mph while at Sacramento, in a DA of approximately +1000 ft, he ran an 11.05 @ 130 mph. There was a difference of 7 to 8 mph which is indeed great. However, even though the effects of DA is smaller near zero level, that does not mean they do not or should not count, as they maybe significant to others despite the fact that they are smaller than the effects at higher values.

Contrary to popular belief, we actually use very solid and evident data to estimate the effects of DA on our cars. We travel very long distances and spend a lot of money to run our cars at varying tracks with varying DA and varying conditions. In my personal opinion, I respectfully disagree with Marcus and believe things do get much better than at 1000 ft of DA. Eventually, it is only a matter of time until one (or at least one) of the west coasters is able to run his/her car at -2000 ft of DA and report back the results. And however significant or insignificant they may be, they will definitely make for an interesting analysis.

 

Agreed that would make an interesting analysis.

Of course, since we all agree all these handbuilt AMG motors vary quite a bit in power output, you really can't compare different cars (e.g. you and Rob) and accurately deduce that DA is the sole factor causing the performance (e.g. 0.3 @ 3 mph) differences - just like comparing two different cars' dyno results, different dynos, operators, states, days, etc. is interesting conversation but otherwise not particularly useful. Rob's car may be quicker/faster than yours, or not... you really have to run 'em same track same day to draw any definitive conclusions, I'd think. DA correction factors might get you close - have you corrected Rob's run and your run to sea level for illustrative purposes?

Bottomline, IMHO, if Alan hauls his E55 out to MIR, ATCO, E-town, et. al. for a fall/winter track day with significantly negative DA, I'm confident he'd establish new PBs that he might not ever be able to replicate at his home track(s).

 

Agree it is not the SOLE difference, nobody ever stated this.
It certainly accounts in our case for the majority of the variance in trap speeds.
Please understand nobody even corrected the time slips. Alan ran 130 mph uncorrected.

My 1.479 is whisked over as a non event when in fact it is the quickest 60 ft time ever achieved in a MB at any track at any DA.

I thought Alans 11.0@130 would finally prove the DA stuff since in the exact same car weeks previous he ran 7-8 mph slower

 

I do not think it was the sole factor, but do believe it was the majority contributor to the difference in performance. Except for a few "freak" cars, the same AMG model cars do not actually vary too greatly. Mercedes/AMG have a very strict variance tolerance on these engines and pride themselves on creating them very to be very close from each other. Nevertheless, they do vary....
Yes..... according to dragtimes' calculator, Rob's run corrects to 12.13 @ 116.x while my run is down to 12.23 @ 115.x. However, dragtimes' calculator seem to be off in terms of estimating DA. Other calculators corrected Rob's runs to 12.2x @ 115.x. As you can see, the cars are very close in terms of performance.

Your statement above concurs with our (west coast guys) beliefs and predictions regarding DA

 

juicee, first things first - your 60' is amazing, I hope it doesn't seem like people don't respect it, I (for one) certainly do. That you did it with the heavier CLS platform makes it all the more noteworthy.

Second - you're correct, MB Forever didn't say "sole" - but please reread his post, it sure seems to suggest DA differences as the only thing meaningfully different between his run and oldgixxer's - in reality, there are worlds of variables going on... different tracks, track prep differences, different cars, different drivers, different atmospheric conditions, etc.

I'm not saying better DA isn't a factor, but so many other factors are in play here, that it's difficult to draw any definitive conclusions - that's my only point. Heck, they could line up and MB Forever might be a .1 & 1 mph quicker/faster - my point isn't that MB Forever's car is in any way slower... my point is there's no way to know - you know?

Last point - big ups and respect for what the "west coast AMGers" have brought to their respective platforms, at least from this one east-coaster with his lowly 32; no need for

look forward to seeing what the fall/winter brings everyone, including the left coasters!

 

East Coast Fo Life Biyatches!!!!

 

Dyno number really don't mean squat!! Some dyno can be manipulated. Compare dyno sheets to dyno sheets is only for references. The only thing that really matter is the ET and trap speed at the track!!

 

If I got to choose a coast I gotta choose the east. I live out there so dont go there. But that dont mean a **** cant rest in the west, see some nice breasts in the west... All I got is beef with those that violate me, I shall annihilate thee
I've been saying this forever

 

Agreed, dyno numbers are just that numbers. The dyno should be used as tool and a point of reference.

I ran a great time in summer but yet I have Marcus Frost bringing my name into Dave's thread (when he claims he didn't) referencing me to the high DD dyno in the bay area. Why even do that crap? I was told to back my **** up and I did....period. I don't give a crap if I dynode 400 rwhp and ran my times, but I do give a crap when someone calls BS on my numbers. I shouldn't let haters bug me like that but I just can't help it. Marcus and I use to speak on the phone but yet he can't even congratulate me on my times. I never brag about my car or even post my times in my signature like most do, I just love running my car and that's good enough for me.

Bottom line, don't comment on other peoples **** if you're not out there doing it yourself.

 

Agree that dynos are simply a point of reference, and you did indeed "back it up" with strong track performance - hope she goes even quicker/faster for you this fall as the weather improves.

The thread you're referring to actually wasn't Dave's thread - it was Fluid's, sharing the dynos of his car after his custom PC tune. A handful of people started in on "bashing" the shop and PC, since the baseline was with an IC malfunction, and the increase was with it fixed. In addition, several of the same posters thought the results seemed low, and that stock E55s are in the same range, etc.

Marcus's post (as I read it) was in defense of the shop and PC, stating that those are good numbers given what he has witnessed on the Chicago area DDs, and that his opinion is the bay area DD that others have experience with (including you) seems a bit high by comparison. Unless there's "behind-the-scenes" info that only you know and he knows, I don't really see much "haterism" in his post...

You've accused him of being "sensitive" but from what I can tell, you're the only one still worked up about this enough to still be posting about it - have noticed several stinging barbs you've put in recent posts, but didn't want to stir the pot so didn't bother replying.

Sincerely hope that eventually we can all move forward without hard feelings or any lingering animosity.

 

True, it still bugs me and I need to move on. I have ranted on enough about this and will put it to rest. Marcus has moved on and so will I.

 

I miss ya bro!

Happy LD

 

You can never be certain of anything , hp production certainly is not a constant. This is the point.

Alan backed up his dyno with a world record pass. Marcus chose to do something illogical. Ignore the track numbers and deflect the discussion to DA?

Hard to drop this when Marcus chose to include several of us in his post that were not involved in his dyno debate whatsoever.

Sorry Im responding to you when I really should be responding to Marcus but he caused a stir then decided to leave.

 

Alan's car is a monster....I've seen it on the dyno and it makes every bit of power he claims.

Alan - You should go with the Phormula Knock Detector....they are great tools and the KS2 / KS3 works out of the box. It comes with an extra Bosch 02 sensor and all you need to do is mount it under the blower and plug it in. We have them installed on a few cars and it's nice to know when the car is having a "bad" day.

 

couldn't agree more, best thing I put on my car

 

Your right Marcus...there was little difference.

 

Hey Rodney, If you run your car in different conditions you'll come up with your own correction factors for your car and your mods. It seems that most of the cars here that are highly modified correct closer to the "Stock and Mildly Modified Naturally Aspirated Engines", but I could only speak for my car. I have several time slips that gives me my own calculations and what to expect in varying conditions. In the end, what you run is what you did but it gives me piece of mind knowing if my car is performing well on that day given the conditions.

Good luck and get your car back to the track!!!!!!

 

What does your 130mph at +1000 DA correct to at -600 DA?

Yeah I've only taken my car twice to the track on real cold days in Chicago where the temps were anywhere from 40-60 degrees. Once when I was stock and the other when I ran the 125 trap. Never went to the track on a warm day as I knew the car wouldn't run its fastest.

I would go to the track more often but most of my friends would rather hit the road course than the dragstrip these days. Back in my Supra days from '97-'01 we probably hit the dragstrip at least 10-15 times a year...and on the days of very warm temps my times and traps were really effected.

My car is currently on my lift in the process of installing my midpipe section. My friend accidentally stripped one of the 4 bolts that connects one of the midpipe sections to the vadim's shorty header (Man is it a pain to get those 4 bolts tighetened up! There is barely any room to fit a 13mm socket on the screw as it is right next to the pipe). So once I re-tap that, I can finish it up and head to the track!

 

It calculates out to be 10.87 @ 132. Please remember I'm not saying this is what I ran but more so a good estimate using my time slips and how they corrected to varying DA. So far it's been pretty accurate and I would guess it to be pretty close. I know Marcus believes that the DA correction will be reduced as it gets closer to zero and negative numbers, but I can't correct for something I've never experience. This fall/winter will answer many question in regards to this.

Haha...I know what exactly what flange you're talking about. Just make sure you use a long enough bolt, but no too long or you'll have clearance issues on the backside. Did you end up getting the race cats?