Renntech gets 569 Wheel 624 Trq with Tune Only on the new TT???
10-12-2011, 07:04 PM
#76
Super Member
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2017 991.2 Turbo PDK 2017 C63S Coupe Ceramic Brakes 2015 CLS63S AMG Full House
They "Serious"
10-15-2011, 04:42 PM
#78
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
First of all, a 65 car will not do low 11's@122-125mph without some very decent tires. Just because ONE may have done so doesn't make it the norm. As a matter of fact, the quickest STOCK CL65 in dragtimes did 11.8@120mph and the quickest STOCK S65 did 11.9@118mph. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the use of regular street tires as well. There are plenty in the 12's though.
They are fast no doubt, but pushing around a 4600-4700lb car is not easy.
Also, the 65's not only weight 300-400lbs more ( which is HUGE )...they also have 30whp less than a TUNED 63TT. A 63TT with a tune should utterly destroy a 65.
I see it very possible for a bone stock 63TT to race against a 65 car and at least give it a good race.
FWIW...Motortred has tested both cars and their numbers are the following:
CLS63 PP
12.1@121
CL65
11.8@120
While the CL65 seems to have launched better...it looks like the CLS63 would beat out a CL65 in a street race ( the CLS63 put a better trap speed ). A CLS63 with a tune should annihilate it.
They are fast no doubt, but pushing around a 4600-4700lb car is not easy.
Also, the 65's not only weight 300-400lbs more ( which is HUGE )...they also have 30whp less than a TUNED 63TT. A 63TT with a tune should utterly destroy a 65.
I see it very possible for a bone stock 63TT to race against a 65 car and at least give it a good race.
FWIW...Motortred has tested both cars and their numbers are the following:
CLS63 PP
12.1@121
CL65
11.8@120
While the CL65 seems to have launched better...it looks like the CLS63 would beat out a CL65 in a street race ( the CLS63 put a better trap speed ). A CLS63 with a tune should annihilate it.
that knows what he's doing 11.27 @ 123.5 I believe that falls with in my
claim of LOW 11's @ 122-125 mph (I said the 65 in GENERAL is CAPABLE of these #'s NOT everyone that owns or drives a SL65 is capable of running these low ET's & high Trap speeds it does take skill & myriad of other variables to allign perfectly to unleash these 65's FULL potential http://www.d &ragtimes.com/Mercedes-...lip-17908.html
So here's a cls63 tt w/ecu TUNE & DRAG RADIALS, https://mbworld.org/forums/w211-amg/...mph-video.html bad DA but still VERY stout car & again just like I said earlier in this thread "A STOCK or TUNED cls PP would be a VERY close great race vs STOCK SL65.
do you still think it'll
Also a TUNED 63TT. A 63TT with a tune should utterly destroy a 65
A CLS63 with a tune should annihilate it.
Again, the CLS trapped more meaning that in a street race it would win...period.
TUNE on the SL65 &
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...slip-7670.html 10.85 E/T
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...lip-22579.html 128.3 mph Traps are possible..
Last edited by Thericker; 10-15-2011 at 05:54 PM.
10-15-2011, 06:11 PM
#79
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
V12-Biturbo
i said it in the begining, MB is no honest with PP is being 30hp more than the stock one.
clearly on street ( i raced a non PP CLS63TT, smoked him by more than 5 car lengths and was pulling away) and on the dyno the diffrence is way more than 30hp at the crank.
so don't just take the numbers from MB and compare.
it is true that it may has less TQ than 65, but remeber this:
65 TQ falls down after 4k RPM and 63TT does not fall the much
65 revs less by 1000 RPM than 63TT
63TT has its MAX hp from 4500 - 7000 RPM and does not fall.
so in real life, when we race RPM is never below 3000 RPM to use the huge TQ from 65s. driving @ maximum hp is on the 63TT side. MCT shifts way fast and CLS/E are lighter.
it may be true 65 i raced had bad cooling or maybe our hot weather is not in favor with 65 owners.
but i wrote what i experienced in real life with my own car.
i am not claiming every 63TT is faster than 65.
so just to conclude everything in a simple way.
i would rater to have a car that has 530rwhp from 4000 - 7000 rpm. than to have a car that has 550rwhp from 6000 - 6200 rpm.
my friend, you will need to drive one and test it by yourself.
some members do own some and we are sharing what we experience and see.
so please don't just argue with articles you read or figures from brouchers.
65s who got below 12 were inspecting their cars well and prepared for the drag ( tires, IC pumps, etc)
in real life, not all of them will do it or will launch their cars perfectly.
clearly on street ( i raced a non PP CLS63TT, smoked him by more than 5 car lengths and was pulling away) and on the dyno the diffrence is way more than 30hp at the crank.
so don't just take the numbers from MB and compare.
it is true that it may has less TQ than 65, but remeber this:
65 TQ falls down after 4k RPM and 63TT does not fall the much
65 revs less by 1000 RPM than 63TT
63TT has its MAX hp from 4500 - 7000 RPM and does not fall.
so in real life, when we race RPM is never below 3000 RPM to use the huge TQ from 65s. driving @ maximum hp is on the 63TT side. MCT shifts way fast and CLS/E are lighter.
it may be true 65 i raced had bad cooling or maybe our hot weather is not in favor with 65 owners.
but i wrote what i experienced in real life with my own car.
i am not claiming every 63TT is faster than 65.
so just to conclude everything in a simple way.
i would rater to have a car that has 530rwhp from 4000 - 7000 rpm. than to have a car that has 550rwhp from 6000 - 6200 rpm.
my friend, you will need to drive one and test it by yourself.
some members do own some and we are sharing what we experience and see.
so please don't just argue with articles you read or figures from brouchers.
65s who got below 12 were inspecting their cars well and prepared for the drag ( tires, IC pumps, etc)
in real life, not all of them will do it or will launch their cars perfectly.
PS just looking @ 1 of my Dyno's my TQ DOESNT dramatically fall off after 4k, neither do 65's
Mine in particular reads peak rwTQ @2500 rpm's and is tabe top FLAT thru 4000 @ 700+ rwtq then sarts to very gradually go down ie 650 rwtq @ 4500, by 5000 rpm STILL making 600 rwtq, @ 5500 rpm's @ 530 rwtq by 6k making measily 500 rwtq, you really shouldn't guess or assume. RWHP? Peak #'s thru redline 4k-6k (this s ecu/tcu +mods )
Last edited by Thericker; 10-15-2011 at 06:33 PM.
10-15-2011, 06:59 PM
#80
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
In response to the young morons on the 3rd page:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
Yes I have both the M5 and SL55 AMG. Cahiil, get bent. And yes, I've beaten my own SL with the M5. Both stock with the M5's charcoal filters removed.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/6711562...n/photostream/
Yes I have both the M5 and SL55 AMG. Cahiil, get bent. And yes, I've beaten my own SL with the M5. Both stock with the M5's charcoal filters removed.
10-16-2011, 06:01 AM
#81
Good for you 93 Octane, you got the easy question out of the way. BTW no one ever said your heavy SL was faster than your M5. Now answer the harder questions regarding your baseless claims:
So someone you "know" drove an M5 around the track and that automatically made it faster than a Panamera Turbo S. Seat-of-the-pants claim? Did "he" drive a Turbo S on the same day, same track?
Just because your imaginary friend (Gustav) said so, you now claim it is a fact?
Just because your imaginary friend (Gustav) said so, you now claim it is a fact?
10-16-2011, 10:54 AM
#82
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
Sooo.... is BMW M lying now to him? Come on... And it's just a rolling race which is believable. From a dig it's a totally different scenario.
And me beating my own SL is only to show how strong the M5 pulls after 100 mph. Adds validity to my additional claim that I've beaten a stock CL55 AMG also. Didn't race an E55 AMG at all but I have a feeling I can pull one although slowly and not as easily as I can with the CL55 and SL55 most likely due to weight. Pulling my own SL wasn't that easy either as it's still strong but it was a clear kill.
10-16-2011, 12:46 PM
#83
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sorry dude, but I'll take Gustav's word for now. He has driven the F10 M5 extensively and wasn't trying to be biased even when confronted/asked by his own board members this time around. He got the information he said straight from BMW M when he was test driving the car in Spain.
Sooo.... is BMW M lying now to him? Come on... And it's just a rolling race which is believable. From a dig it's a totally different scenario.
And me beating my own SL is only to show how strong the M5 pulls after 100 mph. Adds validity to my additional claim that I've beaten a stock CL55 AMG also. Didn't race an E55 AMG at all but I have a feeling I can pull one although slowly and not as easily as I can with the CL55 and SL55 most likely due to weight. Pulling my own SL wasn't that easy either as it's still strong but it was a clear kill.
Sooo.... is BMW M lying now to him? Come on... And it's just a rolling race which is believable. From a dig it's a totally different scenario.
And me beating my own SL is only to show how strong the M5 pulls after 100 mph. Adds validity to my additional claim that I've beaten a stock CL55 AMG also. Didn't race an E55 AMG at all but I have a feeling I can pull one although slowly and not as easily as I can with the CL55 and SL55 most likely due to weight. Pulling my own SL wasn't that easy either as it's still strong but it was a clear kill.
1) The person you are referring to has to be one of the biggest BMW M fan boys around and runs his website based on this (pssst sponsorship). This is no secret, how else do you think he gets access to such things?
2) When you say beating your car, I am assuming you mean from a higher speed roll as you stated, what about a dig race..who wins that?
Allow me to answer, as all the facts are there and known:
Stock 1/4 goes to 55k
Modded 1/4 goes to 55k
Stock rolling speeds goes to M5
Modded rolling speeds goes to 55k
Everyday usage & practicality 55k
Weekend & track day events M5
Did i miss anything
?
10-16-2011, 02:16 PM
#84
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
Stock fastest time and trap for a SL55 AMG was a similar year 03 with 115 mph 12.4 or so seconds. Stock best time for my similar year M5 V10 is around the same time but the trap was 116-117 mph easily...
You're right about stock rolling. Modded you are wrong. Bolt on M5s and Dinan Stroker M5s pull VERY hard in rolling races. I have the SL 2 seater. For everyday driving and torque, it's easier because it has torque and is an automatic. But for a usable trunk, hauling people and some stuff, the M5 is better. And handles better and is a little bit lighter.
10-16-2011, 02:31 PM
#85
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yes you did miss some stuff.
Stock fastest time and trap for a SL55 AMG was a similar year 03 with 115 mph 12.4 or so seconds. Stock best time for my similar year M5 V10 is around the same time but the trap was 116-117 mph easily...
You're right about stock rolling. Modded you are wrong. Bolt on M5s and Dinan Stroker M5s pull VERY hard in rolling races. I have the SL 2 seater. For everyday driving and torque, it's easier because it has torque and is an automatic. But for a usable trunk, hauling people and some stuff, the M5 is better. And handles better and is a little bit lighter.
Stock fastest time and trap for a SL55 AMG was a similar year 03 with 115 mph 12.4 or so seconds. Stock best time for my similar year M5 V10 is around the same time but the trap was 116-117 mph easily...
You're right about stock rolling. Modded you are wrong. Bolt on M5s and Dinan Stroker M5s pull VERY hard in rolling races. I have the SL 2 seater. For everyday driving and torque, it's easier because it has torque and is an automatic. But for a usable trunk, hauling people and some stuff, the M5 is better. And handles better and is a little bit lighter.
If your comparing to an M5, then use its actual rival the E55
As for bolt on, still it goes to 55k
As for stroker ...how much would it set you back again?
How many are they on the streets?
what does it run?
Last edited by Zod; 10-16-2011 at 03:12 PM.
10-16-2011, 02:43 PM
#86
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
I'll admit, the 55K is a great modding platform. Better than the NA V10. Both pull hard and drive differently stock and modded.
Even compared with E55 and M5.
10-16-2011, 06:47 PM
#87
MBWorld Fanatic!
First of all, a 65 car will not do low 11's@122-125mph without some very decent tires. Just because ONE may have done so doesn't make it the norm. As a matter of fact, the quickest STOCK CL65 in dragtimes did 11.8@120mph and the quickest STOCK S65 did 11.9@118mph. Keep in mind, I'm talking about the use of regular street tires as well. There are plenty in the 12's though.
They are fast no doubt, but pushing around a 4600-4700lb car is not easy.
Also, the 65's not only weight 300-400lbs more ( which is HUGE )...they also have 30whp less than a TUNED 63TT. A 63TT with a tune should utterly destroy a 65.
I see it very possible for a bone stock 63TT to race against a 65 car and at least give it a good race.
FWIW...Motortred has tested both cars and their numbers are the following:
CLS63 PP
12.1@121
CL65
11.8@120
While the CL65 seems to have launched better...it looks like the CLS63 would beat out a CL65 in a street race ( the CLS63 put a better trap speed ). A CLS63 with a tune should annihilate it.
They are fast no doubt, but pushing around a 4600-4700lb car is not easy.
Also, the 65's not only weight 300-400lbs more ( which is HUGE )...they also have 30whp less than a TUNED 63TT. A 63TT with a tune should utterly destroy a 65.
I see it very possible for a bone stock 63TT to race against a 65 car and at least give it a good race.
FWIW...Motortred has tested both cars and their numbers are the following:
CLS63 PP
12.1@121
CL65
11.8@120
While the CL65 seems to have launched better...it looks like the CLS63 would beat out a CL65 in a street race ( the CLS63 put a better trap speed ). A CLS63 with a tune should annihilate it.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html
The CLS63's trap was 121.3mph.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...est/specs.html
I would be a little reluctant to definitively say that the CLS63 traps higher than the CL65...just based on a .4 mph between two tests on completely different days. To me that is practically a dead heat.
Tom
10-16-2011, 07:08 PM
#88
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
I forgot. Dinan strokers are very fast from a roll. Easily pull stock 997 Mark 1 Turbos and according to Steve Dinan, can be a dead heat race with a Dinan Stroked M6 and a Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano.
10-17-2011, 06:33 PM
#89
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yes you did miss some stuff.
Stock fastest time and trap for a SL55 AMG was a similar year 03 with 115 mph 12.4 or so seconds. Stock best time for my similar year M5 V10 is around the same time but the trap was 116-117 mph easily...
You're right about stock rolling. Modded you are wrong. Bolt on M5s and Dinan Stroker M5s pull VERY hard in rolling races. I have the SL 2 seater. For everyday driving and torque, it's easier because it has torque and is an automatic. But for a usable trunk, hauling people and some stuff, the M5 is better. And handles better and is a little bit lighter.
Stock fastest time and trap for a SL55 AMG was a similar year 03 with 115 mph 12.4 or so seconds. Stock best time for my similar year M5 V10 is around the same time but the trap was 116-117 mph easily...
You're right about stock rolling. Modded you are wrong. Bolt on M5s and Dinan Stroker M5s pull VERY hard in rolling races. I have the SL 2 seater. For everyday driving and torque, it's easier because it has torque and is an automatic. But for a usable trunk, hauling people and some stuff, the M5 is better. And handles better and is a little bit lighter.
10-17-2011, 07:27 PM
#90
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: THE Orange County, California
Posts: 11,921
Received 796 Likes
on
495 Posts
2020 Audi R8 V10, 2016 AMG GTS, 2018 E63S Edition 1, 2018 Porsche GTS Cab, 2012 C63 BS
10-18-2011, 12:48 AM
#91
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
Belieavable yes. Due to the weight, the SL55 is very likely a little bit slower overall stock for stock compared to the E55K. However I believe the SL55 does have a different stock differential to somewhat help the vehicle or something.
Either way, I don't disagree. The SL55 is likely a slower by a little bit. I never ran another E55 before I think I might be behind by a car length by 130 mph.
Either way, I don't disagree. The SL55 is likely a slower by a little bit. I never ran another E55 before I think I might be behind by a car length by 130 mph.
10-18-2011, 01:06 AM
#92
MBWorld Fanatic!
Guys this is slowe60m5 the stupid troll from last year with his fake sl55.go take a picture of the engine bay with the cap off the antifreeze.
He knows someone with an sl.this is def e60m5.
Better yet post up the registration
He knows someone with an sl.this is def e60m5.
Better yet post up the registration
10-18-2011, 08:57 AM
#93
Hey skratch, as much as I don't like his bold claims and childish name calling, I don't think it's slowe60m5. He is sos.swatxv2 from M5Board, and he does have an SL based on his posts there. By blindly believing everything Gustav says and claims Dinan made, he's just more of an M fanboy than an AMG fanboy. To each his own I guess.
10-18-2011, 09:59 AM
#94
MBWorld Fanatic!
He was slowe60m5 on this forum.search his posts and you will see its the same type of posts and the second he mentioned the m5 beating the amg top end gave him away.
10-18-2011, 02:05 PM
#95
MBWorld Fanatic!
No wonder he keeps talking about his M5...... faster than SL55. This make sense, he doesn't even have SL55 or maybe not even the M5 
10-18-2011, 06:59 PM
#96
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
You too Skratch. Did you see my post on the 3rd page you imbecile?
10-18-2011, 07:30 PM
#99
MBWorld Fanatic!
i didn't see any pix in page 3 azhole
10-18-2011, 07:57 PM
#100
Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 SL55 AMG
Skratch, since you like requesting and asking so many confirmation pictures and things, I will have the picture of both of my car's insurance policy together in one frame in the next hour. Still at work.
Last edited by 93 Octane ABC; 10-18-2011 at 07:59 PM.
