War Tank

You know someone is doing good when all the haters come out to spoil the show.

BenzoBoi

Damn quick time. Congrats!

It'd be nice to see a mod list but I doubt it'll happen...oh well!

MarkoCL65

Congrats to everyone involved, that is one fast MB!


Either it's not 680 RWHP or it's not 4100 lbs, regardless of calculator. The laws of physics dictate performance, not calculators. But fast it is for sure.

RedBullJnky

Well said,mang! Good deal. At least your not hating! Either way, it is a fast asz run.

skratch77

I think that run is legit.I ran 11.3@4460lbs and only made 503who in a dynojet

dont forget the slr has a 3.06 final drive vs ours 2.65 and I thought the slr was 3600lbs stock?

ohh and you can bet your e55 that an slr on the back half of the 1/4 mile will have WAY lower intake temps over ANY e55 on this forum and this car has bigger upgraded top mount coolers.

why is there so much hate?maybe there dyno was reading low but I can see this car hitting this time without nos all day.

It has better drag over our cars and has way better gearing and shifts faster than any tcu tune on here.

Damn haters are always gona hate but please enough of the jealusy posts,if you think its on nos fly down there and watch him run.

the added torque threw gearing with its 3.06 final drive is enough to cut .5 seconds off its time if it can put the power down.

None of my times match anything I have ran on those 1/4 calculators and laughed when someone brought those up

go ahead and plug in your whp and wieght and see if it comes close to what you have ran

Zod

I mean the SLR doesn't have anything going for it..who would think such a thing...


I mean stock it has

• Different internal engine components (lighter/stronger)
• Different supercharger gear ratio/ supercharger
• Bigger pulley
• Massive top mount cooling
• Massive ram style intake
• Bigger TB
• Close loop fuel rail
• Different injectors
• Different CAMS
• different bypass flap (if it even has one )
• Different gear ratios and upgraded race trans
• Different shift speeds (S+, M1, M2 etc)
• Higher REV limiter
• different oil cooling system
• carbon brakes
• Weight of car
• Aerodynamics
• Wider rear end tiers

and last but not least WINGGED lambo style doors!

Insert sarcastic jpeg found below ;p

Its the ultimate 55k platform, a super car for God sake, of course if you take it and mod ontop of it you are going to get way more, then you would with a normal 55k car, let alone weight reduction, which by the way its way lighter then what you have been stating

Till this day 9 years or more later and we are still trying to copy its components, while not reaching its efficiency (insert sarcastic jpeg again )

Let's not forget that we still have the 722,the GT and the Stirling Moss versions of this beast that far exceed the normal SLR


55K cars are the result of mating (insert class vehical type) with an SLR...in essence we are driving SLR b*sta*d love child

Zod

Engine


The SLR McLaren sports a hand-built 5.4-litre, supercharged V8 engine
The SLR sports a 232 kg (510 lb) hand-built 5,439 cc (5.439 L; 331.9 cu in), supercharged, all-aluminium, SOHC V8 engine. The cylinders are angled at 90 degrees with three valves per cylinder and lubricated via a dry sump system. The compression ratio is 8.8:1 and the bore and stroke is 97 millimetre (3.82 in) and 92 millimeters (3.62 in), respectively. The Lysholm-type twin-screw supercharger rotates at 23000 revolutions per minute and produces 0.9 bar (13 psi) of boost. The compressed air is then cooled via two intercoolers. The engine generates a maximum power of 626 PS (460 kW; 617 hp)@6500rpm and maximum torque of 780 N·m (580 lb·ft)@3250-5000rpm.[5]
Unlike most of its contemporaries, its engine is front-mid mounted. McLaren took the original concept car designed by Mercedes and moved the engine 1 metre (39.4 in) behind the front bumper, and around 50 centimetres (19.7 in) behind the front axle. They also optimized the design of the center firewall.

Transmission

The SLR uses AMG SPEEDSHIFT R 5-speed automatic transmission with 3 manual modes. For durability Mercedes selected a 5-speed transmission rather than their 7-speed gearbox which was more complex and used more parts.
[edit]Performance


Performance

The car uses carbon fibre for its entire body construction in an attempt to keep the weight low. Despite CFRP materials the total curb weight is 1,750 kg (3,858 lb).

Car and Driver achieved a 0-60 mph (100 km/h) time of 3.4 seconds, and a quarter-mile time of 11.2 seconds at 130 mph (209 km/h) C&D suggests the times may be even lower if temperatures were lower. Motor Trend tested the SLR and achieved a 0-60 mph time of 3.3 seconds in April 2006. Car and Driver achieved top gear acceleration 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph times of 1.7 and 2.4 seconds, which are the fastest ever recorded by the magazine in a production car. The SLR also pulled 1.13 g on the skidpad.[6]

Road and Track tested the car in their July 2005 Road Test and reached 60 mph (97 km/h) from a standstill in 3.5 seconds. The 0 - 100 mph (160 km/h) sprint was achieved in 7.5 seconds and a quarter mile run was completed in 11.5 seconds at 126 mph (203 km/h).
In June 2004 the SLR was tested at Nardo and performed the 0-100 km/h (62 mph) exercise in 3.8 seconds, 0-200 km/h (124 mph) in 10.7 seconds and 0-300 km/h (190 mph) in 30.6 seconds.[citation needed]

Comparison

Despite its near 2-ton weight, the fuel economy is generally better than the lighter Lamborghini Murciélago, and its lighter, less expensive, less powerful sibling, Gallardo.[7] Still, on the Episode 2 from Season 13 of BBC car show Top Gear the Lamborghini Murciélago LP670-4 SV performed a little slower than the SLR McLaren 722 Edition during a race special in Abu Dhabi although the Lamborghini weighed 1,565 kg (3,450 lb) and had about 20 PS (15 kW; 20 hp) more. Also, the same show put the SLR and the Porsche Carrera GT on its track, and after multiple attempts, the Porsche beat the SLR-McLaren by just over a second (1:19.8 vs. 1:20.9[8]). However, on a separate race around their short track, the SLR was fractionally quicker than the Carrera GT. In a straight line, the SLR is quicker after around 100 miles per hour.

Not the best source some times, but you get the idea, it is still the MB super car king
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_SLR_McLaren

TMC M5

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...aren-road-test

Car & Driver ran the 1/4m in 11.6 @ 125mph. Also Car & Driver (and other US magazines) use the GPS trap speed at 1,320'....whereas drag strips average the last 66' of the run using timing lights. I have found that the drag strip traps are about 1.5% lower than the GPS trap using my vbox at the track. So if you are going to compare magazine trap speeds to drag strip trap speeds, you need to factor that into the equation. so a 125mph GPS trap would likely be 123-123.5mph drag strip trap. A 130mph GPS trap would likely be a 127.5-128mph trap.

Tom

chawkins2001

Quick time fo sho, I am waiting for MarkoCL65 to see this, and come on in

RedBullJnky

He did post 128.

MarkoCL65

Nothing to "hate" about a 9 or 10 sec Benz.

What bothers people is misrepresentation on a forum that was founded on us coming together as a community and helping each other out and exchanging information(notice Ahmad and Ricker are among the first to offer help or info). I feel that those frustrations are warranted and that unethical business practices are in play (on RT's part). The core of the discontent(among members here) has nothing to do with RT cars' performance, but rather the use of this forum for propaganda and promotion by means of deception.

Zod

I am sorry, i did not mean to upset the bench race king
The info was just an fyi on some of its configuration , race data was just bundled in.

Bottom line is the SLR has way more in it then a normal 55k car, so you can not really compare them and expect the results to be similar, giving them both the same treatment

RedBullJnky

I agree with you and I fully understand where your coming from. I'm not a RT fan. I have never been.

I will admit, I was out of line when I made that post towards the Ricker. So, Ricker if your reading, I appologize for what I wrote. It doesn't mean I'm scared of anything. Never have been and never will be. But I am a man and I can admit when I'm wrong.

If it wasn't for the members of this forum, I wouldn't have a fast car. I've learned a lot about these engines. so thank you for that!

bghark

Love to see the full build info on this car but darn, 9.67 is flying. Even the posers who have never been on a track and lie about thier cars don't claim they can runs sub 10 seconds. Have to respect that run.

TMC M5

No...I actually bring my cars to the track... you are the one quoting ...or misquoting (using made up # from) car magazines and trying to compare car magazine times to drag strip times....

Tom

chawkins2001

Ah, there you are

If that car weighs 3600lbs, made +600rwhp and gobs of TQ, damn efficient cooling, supreme traction, 9s are possible imo. I have seen TONS of cobras close to same weight, and HP numbers, run 9s all day long.

Thericker

RENNtech/SGC reported the 9.6x 1/4 in Question weighed 4100 lbs with SGC IN IT, what I said all along as well as the 680 rwhp they listed makes a very difficult equation to support a 9 sec 142 mph run w/OUT NITROUS... Guys look back @ where this SLR started, the bodykit didn't remove 100's of lbs nor did the HP/TQ improve enough to beat its old records by nearly a full second, nor was it a glorious super duper 1.30 60' as the Trap Speed is a giant killer etc..

Best Post on this subject PERIOD...^^^^^

Marko, writes the most level headed informative info that cuts through the regular overzealous I myself fall victim to, too many times (I'm sorry coming off kurt & long winded @ times, just a huge enthusiast/fan of everything FAST I love modding cars/boats/etc & get too involved @ times)

PS I respect what nitrous can do, (personally I'll never use it) but if it's used why lie about it? the prior data recorded w/same car speaks volumes that some massive power adder was used in cutting so much off ET & increasing Trap speeds @ same time etc.

Thericker

All good brutha I go a bit far & apologize likewise..

e500slr

Agree on everything except aerodynamics.

MarkoCL65

680RWHP = 680RWHP. The mods you listed have nothing to do with the equation that states that there is a finite amount of energy required to accelerate a specific mass. Physics doesn't care what the mass consists of.

e55amgrocket

I guess you didn't get the memo either. Physics don't apply to the Renntech SLR. They have parts that change how physics work

gaspam

physic DOES care very much about the mass of an object when applied to acceleration... F=MA (newton's second law) holds true in a vacuum but when applied outside of a vacuum then there are scalar and vector quantities that affect the F=MA equation....

you are forgeting about the 3rd law that dictactes that the same force exerted on different objects that weight the same will react differently depending on the shape (scalar quantities) of the objects, creating different resistances and therefore, different acceleration rates. A cubed block of iron does not accelerate the same and a block of iron shaped with a concave V that weighs the same...

not to mention the differences in lift, drag, and frictional heat caused by a less areodynamic object cutting through the air vs a more aerodynamic object.

also do not forget how fluids under load react when force is applied (ie, acceleration) . how they expand an create internal drag within an engine, how they displace or retain heat given the efficiency of the journals, pumps ,etc all of which fall under the Navier-Stokes equations and not newton's second law of physics.... 2 engines of equal power does not mean they get to that max HP number the same way or hold onto as long as the other one under load.

there are plenty of cars that weigh the same with the same power that do not run the same time... not all "x"hp engines are equal

simple test, take 2 exactly the same engines and leave one in the car it was originally in and put the other on a block of iron weighing the same and see if they accelerate the same... on top of that change the final drive ratio, the transmission gearing, the diameter of the wheels (keeping the weight the same) and see again if the 2 equal mass objects accelerate the same

or simpler test, get a piece of plywood an and arrow that weigh the same and go drop them both off a 10 story building and see if they accelerate the same and reach the ground the same time... i guarantee you they will not.

or the most obvious example, add a deployed parachute behind car A and race it against exact same car B without parachute and delete some weight from car B equal to the weight of the parachute car A has... they will not accelerate the same despite having the same mass... physics cares about what mass consist of and how its shaped

MarkoCL65

No sh*t. I said Physics doesn't care what that mass consists of. Aerodynamics plays a negligible role here, no need to elaborate on it as it cannot make a significant impact in this example. Try to read and understand a person's post before wasting time out of your life to prove a point that you happen to already be in agreement with.

I am aware of the effects that a parachute has on a car, I've trapped over 170 many times. Thanks for bringing to light the fact that my car is faster without the chute deployed, I was really wondering about that one.......

gaspam

umm pretty sure you said physics doesnt care what the mass consist of... and that is wrong... again, run you car with parachute deployed and you will see that physics DOES care about what mass consist of.... car still has same mass but will not accelerate the same.

MarkoCL65

Are you a female?