mikeevo

Flat area where is that. I watched your video and that has a constant incline with just a small area of less incline that wouldnt last a second on video at speed. I will do some math for you, at 60 mph you travel 88 ft per/sec at 120mph your 176 ft/sec that whole section of road would be gone in 8-10 secs and you video lasted 20 secs and it seems you were on top of the hill. You really need to race on a level road or if you dont think it would matter , then race down hill and see whats up. they are both your cars so you probably dont care which one wins since they are both fast. enjoy.

urbamworm

Come on man, I drive on that road everyday, how are you going to tell me it isn't flat (or at least close enough to call it "flat" after you are down in that area between the two bridges. Then you are telling me how quick the road is going to go by, how in the world do you know how long that section is to calculate it should have been covered in 8 seconds?!!! I will measure it out for you with my odometer tomorrow and update the thread. I would go do it now but I am about to leave town to head to the track and that is in the opposite direction. I have done 1/4 mile passes in that area using a Gtech computer so I know it is atleast 1/4 mile and the times and speeds from the meter were on par with what I do at the track in the Audi, so if it was some big hill like you are thinking then it would have been reflected by the metered runs. And for what it is worth, Google Earth said that whole area was 9' above sea level, I would say the elevation change would be maybe 2-3' through out that area once you are down in it but they are saying 9' the whole way.

It seems like you are trying to hard to make excuses for the E55 to justify the results, but like I mentioned, they are both my cars so I wouldn't try to put one down to make the other look better. Hopefully the temps drop enough tonight to get close to 80 degrees which is the same weather those runs were done in and we will see exactly what the car does at the 1/4 mile tonight.

pullejo

What's the highest point in all of FL anyway? Ummm...like 16' above sea level?

Let's see the track results! Have fun!

urbamworm

Lol, yeah really, this place is flat. Waiting on my damn friend to get here so we can take off. Should have been here 20 minutes ago!

mikeevo

Hey just calling it like I see it. I am not there but from the video it looks like an up hill shot. If you say its not then Ok. but your first drag video , you can see where you start with low rails, about 0:59 sec and then you can see the larger Bridge rails at then about 1:20 sec, just shoot us the info from the drag strip it will help keep thinks on a even playing field thats all I am saying. go smoke'em

CWW

Well you're on one of the intracoastal bridges heading to the beaches...I can keep guessing there aren't that many possibilities. My next guess would be wonderwood.

And the grade for a large bridge doesn't start at the bridge, it starts a mile or so beforehand. Your whole run happened on an increasing grade, as can be seen in your video. This exacerbates the weight difference.

You seem to have a bias for the audi in this discussion. Which is fine, but at least set up a fair run instead of going uphill which hobbles the heavy car and by comparison benefits the lighter car.

CWW

I also drive the only two places that video could have been filmed at regularly, and neither is flat. Your video actually shows the incline, if you look at the road vs. the treeline. This combined with your audi bias is making me wonder why all the trouble? If you want a dispositive race, just put them both on flat ground. There are lots of good flat stretches between the dames point bridge and 95 heading north on 9A, it's not heavily traveled and there are rarely cops. It's not far from you, why not go there (where everybody else goes) instead of racing uphill and then claiming it's flat when you can clearly see otherwise in the video?

urbamworm

You are being absolutely rediculous, plain and simple, the road did not make the difference! There is no need for me to favor one car over the other.

The track tonight told the story, I am assuming the car is having a major heat issue causing massive timing pull and probably dumping fuel running pig rich. I need to get a logger to see what is going on and then will most likely be buying methanol injection. I started out in the upper 80s outside temps, don't know what the actual track temps were and then it got down to the lower 80s outside temps while at the track. The car did terrible, it ran between 112-114mph traps and 12.4-13.1 ETs. 60ft times were between 2.0.-2.2 and I actually seemed to get a better 60ft with esp off trying to feather the throttle but it would still start spinning a lot after I got in to it so I would have to let off briefly. I don't understand why it didn't do any better after letting it cool down for one of the runs but I guess going through 3 gears from a stop just had the temps skyrocket if I had to guess. Looks like the 180mm pulley is no good in warm weather. I really don't know why it would perform so bad since it has the upgraded johnson pump and eurocharged heat exchanger with the separated coolant system and the pump is wired to always run.

First run was right after getting there after driving close to 1.5 hours, it was done in sport with esp on and ran 12.7@114 then did it with esp off and ran 12.6@112 and ran once more with esp off and in manual mode to a 13.1@112 going sideways in 2nd gear. Parked the car for about 25 minutes with a bag of ice on the supercharger and then went back out and did 12.5@114 forget if it was in manual or auto but had esp off. That was the only time I actually parked the car and let it cool down, after seeing it not make any difference really I just kept going back to the line, then ran like 12.6@113 and last run was 12.4@113.

Makes perfect sense why the Audi would slightly edge it out in those runs since it usually traps 115-116mph with the highest being the 118.6mph and it has meth injection so it stays pretty consistent. Imagine that, it wasn't the mountain I was racing up, it was other factors

Now I just have to get it sorted out so it can run to the potential it should be.

stevebez

I just can't understand why

a) you are that surprised by the result, and
b) why its annoying you so much?

Bottom line thats one friggin quick Audi. Maybe (as I said) your E not running its best (lets not forget the hot ambients), and you probably not seeing the max power output, and if you do its not for long when the heat soak sets in.

Power:weight ratios are within 1% from what I can work out so, it should be close and if you consider the E55 being more succeptible to heat soak, it hardly surprising result despite the poor shifting on the Audi... its still shifting!

Not going to get into the slope argument, but if there is a slope the argument is valid and the effective power:weight will shift towards the Audi.

urbamworm

I was surprised/confused by the result because the E55 "should" have won in my opinion going off of the mods it has and what is known to be "the norm" for track numbers (talking trap speed). I was not expecting to see what happened last night at the track at all especially after letting it cool down. And it was high 70s (78-80)when the video was taken vs Audi so it isn't like it was blazing hot outside so to me the way the car acted/is acting is somewhat puzzling.

I see you have damn near identical mods in yours, did you run that setup without the meth injection in hot weather and notice a big drop off in performance compared to when it is much cooler outside? And then did you get the car retuned when you added the meth injection or just slapped it on more for fighting heat? And then did it make a substantial difference? I know with the Audi it makes a good difference because the car runs quite a bit more timing holding more constant intake air temps so I would hope the same result would be seen in the Benz but at the same time I figured it would do a little better than going from a car that should trap around the 120 range to trapping 112-114 because temps are over 80 degrees fahrenheit.

stevebez

On my Aquamist kit, I only run water and not that much at mom. Do I notice a difference? Well its difficult to guage my car runs like a man possesed one day and feels a little muted on other days. I did not alter the tune for the kit as I am only pumping water at this stage, maybe if I do 50:50 Ill look at a custom tune....

I did have an exhaust leak (yes another one) but that was due to loose header stud and thats now sorted and since then the car has felt super strong... so need to get in it more - I maybe drive it once every 2weeks!

I have not data logged the water injection, but thats the next step and slowly Ill dial in more flow and see where things begin to tip. As fas as I can see it can only help keep power levels more constant for longer, which is exactly what I am after.

Bottom line is our cars are so sensitive to heat its very easy for the car to really pull timing quite hard or just dump fuel as protection.

Maybe your tune is not quite sorted, or maybe it just wasnt your beasts' day?


Looking again at your mods ... wow... pretty comprehensive. Only thing I would add is a rear reservoir, and perhaps the larger injectors / tune not quite working for you?

urbamworm

The car has a tune that was done on a dyno and it has made power. It did ~500whp and ~580wtq when it was tuned and then on a different dyno jet recently did ~500whp and ~550wtq. it did that number after sitting for 20 minutes icing the supercharger. Before doing that it was running a few minutes on the dyno and did ~465whp then dropped to ~450whp on the 2nd run, but like I said it did 500 after letting it cool down. The tune was done some what safe but it has still dynoed those numbers above so it has made power. The dyno was done with 80* outside temps and the dyno monitor said 93* but didn't feel that hot.

urbamworm

But a dyno is also only through one gear compared to going for much longer for a pull through the gears where I could then be seeing the IAT problems arising.

GT-ER

I still think there is something wrong with the E55 just due to the fact that you lose 80whp in the upper rpms. Forget max power, your powerband is screwed up for some reason.

Craigo

http://www.youtube.com/user/urbamwor...36/HwXivJzSPuU <-- can't believe you still have this video up in your uploads. hahaha. dave you are too funny.

LOCO 05' E55

E55 clearly Falling on its face on top..that 507whp easily became 430 whp after 90mph

Next up for you -> Datalogger..Great cars!

stevebez

+1

GT-ER

Interesting, you said 507 when the op said 499...yet in my sig I put 507. Too many numbers getting you confused? LOLL.

stevebez

I bet when you hit top rpm, your bigger injectors are flooding your motor...

urbamworm

It was tuned with the injectors by Jerry. Watch my dyno video and I have a video of the dyno monitor showimg the a/f when it did 499 uncorrected. It was upper 11s. It did run more rich up top on the first run though after it had been idling for several minutes before doing the run and then it dumped a ton on the 2nd run and i saw 10.2 on the screen and the car did like 450 on that run.

stevebez

hmm heat combo from multiple gear pulls = 450hp

urbamworm

I was just thinking, even if I were to have been losing say 80whp and my peak hp was like 420 instead of 500 that is still higher than a stock E55 which does better than 112-114mph. I started thinking about that part way through the day and that has me puzzled.

GT-ER

Not necesarily, you lost 80whp during a one gear pull. You have no idea how much you are losing in a 3-4 gear, much longer, pull. Also, my E55 bone stock did 429whp and did 114mph in the 1/4 mile.

LOCO 05' E55

Heatsoak makes the ECU pull timing and dump all that fuel to cool off the cylinder chamber..It all depends on where your IAT stand at the begginging of the run.

With a logger you will see where your IATs are before the runs..

I couldnt trap higher than 116mph on the same tune in 90f last summer with a horrible heatsoak issue

Not the same to start a run with IATs sitting at 85-90 than 105-115f where if the IC system is not properly working you'll easily hit 160s-170s even 200 :0

If ambient temps were 78f you should've been around mid 90's in the highway

urbamworm

Well technically it was 50hp loss from my best run which was the 3rd run after cooling car to my worst run which was done right after the first run after the car had been running for several minutes on dyno. Do you remember what kind of weather temps you dynoed in to get the 429whp number? And what kind of weather did you do the 1/4 in that you trapped 114?

I completely understand what you are saying, I have always done 100% of my own work on my cars (Built the engine in the Audi and installed all the mods and understand datalogging with tons of logs for that car). I guess since I hadn't ever raced another car or been to the track I was just expecting what I have seen on the internet for trap speeds and seeing how the car compares in runs vs other cars such as the M5 or stage 3 B5 S4s, etc.

Does everyone only run these things vs other cars or go to the track when it is cold out?

Loco, you say you trapped 116 with the heat soak issue last summer, what did you trap with the same setup in cooler weather (or with meth injection if you have it)? And was the setup completely the same from the 116 trap to a significantly higher one, with only weather being different?

I am 100% going to be installing meth in this car now that I have seen these results. I am leaving town for a little over a month for work in a few days so I will have to wait until I get back home but I will also get something like the Kiwi Wifi so I can log the IATs and other things with my iphone to see how terrible they may be getting in this hot weather.


Also I decided to bleed the supercharger coolant system for the heck of it to be sure there weren't a bunch of bubbles and it seemed to be pretty good. click here