cls55tt

Keep posting un finished header pics that look like they were fabricated by an 8th grader.

AMGPilot

Just because it's a turbo doesn't mean that you need to spin it to 7K. Plenty of reasons NOT to. But then you probably wouldn't understand that

RedBullJnky

Keep it coming!

blackbenzz

Lets keep it civil. It's great that all these turbo cars are coming out and can't wait to see results from everyone

RedBullJnky

You mean real results right.

schino

That escalated quickly!

For reference my stock e55 made 342 on the same dyno as cls55 car.

twinscrewFTW

Here is my compound setup compared to the twin turbo CLS55 on the same dyno that schino is talking about, compound 55 is red turbo cls55 is black, you can't dispute hard data

pas6201

Binh,

I will shoot you a text in a little while. I think what others are wanting to see on the graph is the A/F on the run and the run all the way to redline. Those are the things we are still working on with my TT E55.

RedBullJnky

Bingo!!!

All those dyno pulls don't really mean ****. Hit the track!

RedBullJnky

Go watch more of my vids. thanks for the views!

urbamworm

I have to admit, I wasn't impressed when I read the car trapped 127, in fact, another member ironically even pmed me asking what I though of it since he wasn't that impressed either for what it is.

I think it is absolutely freaking awesome that there are now twin turbo E55s/CLSs or even compound charged E55s, but for the money and effort to do a twin turbo setup I would want more of an outcome than trapping 127. When there are guys out there in E55s running damn near the same thing on stock blower and that isn't counting the ones that all went faster on race gas tunes with weight removed, I would expect more. Yes that car would spank my run of the mill E55, but I would still want more.

As for making 700whp if on a dynojet, I don't think I am going to buy that either, my V weights basically the same 4300lbs, and dynoed 638whp on a dynojet and during a summer night with 1450ft DA on plain jane 93 octane one week after dynoing I was able to trap almost 131mph (130.8) on one run with all at 129 or 130. I would wager a guess that since you don't live in hot and humid Florida (which is still hitting highs in the 80s right now in December) and your run was recent that the weather you ran in was better as well where the car should go faster.

That is just my 2 cents though.

On another note, what is with the personal attacks? This place lately has had people going at each other.

FinanceMike

It's disturbing to see three grown men make personal attacks towards another guy while hiding behind a computer screen.
Elliott is one of the nicest guys that I've met in a long time. He adds alot to the community.
Keep the discussion to cars, drop the other bull*****.

V12Godspeed

I have been watching the build and the fabrication is top notch. Congrats to the owner and builder. For it to trap 127 with that kind of power i'd say car is doing very well. When dialed in, I am almost sure it will see 130+. Now stop bashing each other and let's be grown men, aren't we all driving the same brand?

cls55tt

Urbamworm,

You have to realize I only took the car to the track ONE time. Things were far from perfect too. I think running 127 mph on pump gas first time out isn't too shabby. It takes A LOT of work to get a stock blower car to trap 127.

Also, it would help if you compared apples to apples. Did you know a CLS weighs a lot more? Has larger tires? Has a tighter converter than an e55 from the factory?

The great thing about the setup is that is easy enough to turn the wick up. A few psi increase and the car easily gains 30-40 whp.

cls55tt

Thanks Jody I have to say getting a ride in your v12 tt swap might have swayed me into attempting this.

60nomad

CLS55- 2006 4069LBS others not specifying year were 4329 and 4308lbs

CTSV- 4313LBS

So, that theory is out the window! At best they are the same weight. Urb is certainly not bashing anyone here and he is, indeed, comparing apples to apples as far as weight goes. I agree that I just don't get it either but I am rooting for all the guys with all this work into these amg's to go 9's and lo 10's at well over 130mph. It is just the time and money to attempt it doesn't add up. What I do understand is that guys want to overachieve and be 'THE' guy to do this or that and do it well! Kind of a competition or self gratifying...so I do understand that part of it. Dollars, cents and time? I will never understand it...that's just me!

Keep in mind...I am a big fan of the AMG's and what I am going to do with in the next year is get a 2012 E63 and do a downpipe and tune and go 10.80's at right around 130mph! NOW THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME! lol
When this happens I am still keeping the V!

efiftyfizzle

The time and money doesn't add up to add turbos to the E55, but it does to spend 4 times the money and buy a car that will perform the same on the track? If you don't think these TT E55 / CLS55 guys will be able to do the same if not better than a downpipe / tune E63, you're crazy.

60nomad

I never said that! We are talking ONLY downpipe and tune for 10.80's! Another $5k-$7k, a fraction of what is into these other cars, and I will probably smoke them and drive it everyday, everywhere on top of having a 2012 car! Just my opinion!

The point was what Urb was saying about all this work to trap 130mph...I trapped a best of 133.6mph and went a best of 10.58 in my V for $4k in parts, tune and minor exhaust work! That's the point but I fully explained that 'they' are doing it to a different car! Understandable in my eyes for what 'they' feel like doing. Everyone isn't looking for the 'best bang for the buck'. 'They' want to do it to 'this' car or 'that' car. I understand that for them...not for me! I said I love the AMG's but the V aint a bad lookin car either!

urbamworm

Talking specifically about weight an E55 vs CLS, we can talk about E55AMGROCKET's car which weighted close to 4400lbs if I remember right and he dynoed 620s on a dynojet and trapped 130+ while being full weight. Even if his car was 100lbs less that isn't gonna make up 3+mph and lets not forget that since we are comparing dyno numbers (your "low" reading mustang or "probably" 700 on a dynojet) went 3+mph slower. I would have to dig around but I think it was 131 maybe even 132 but I am just saying 130 as to what his car ran.

Now his car does have a lot of work done to it with ported heads and cams also but we aren't talking about specific mods at the moment, just a hp number and the related trap so if we want to compare a dynojet number vs mustand we are saying his car if on a mustang would make under 600 and went faster?

There are also a handful of guys who have ran 126-127 with the basic stuff for the E55 (big crank pulley and some with upper as well, headers, throttle body, etc) while not gutting the car.

cls55tt

I'd love an e63 but they are out of my price range . How much are those mods as well? I'm in at less than 35k total investment including the price of the car.

Urbamworm,

Let me reiterate again, the car has seen the track ONE time for a shake down run. She's not even turned up and only on pump gas. Do you know how a super tight stall affects launching a tt car? Let me get some more seat time and work the kinks out so I can build more than 0 psi off the line Soon enough I'll post dynjet numbers, pictures of it on a scale, and have some more results this spring.

For now, I'm really enjoying the car for what it is - my daily driver.

urbamworm

I am not hating on your times (ET) I know a high stall building boost at the line can make a good difference in your time, I don't see your trap changing much though with it. And I really don't care what it does on race gas, I am more for what it does as a daily, so its potential with pump gas in the tank is what it is all about, so how you have done it so far is how I would want to see it.

If you can make more power on pump awesome, if you are going to have to put race gas in it to do it, then I honestly think that is a failure. I would hope it could make close to another 100whp on 93 octane.

Gutting a car and running race gas is great and all, but glory runs don't show what the car truly is when you encounter it out on the road, just like running skinnies up front and some small light wheel that you only run at the track getting an extra 1-2mph or 1-2 tenths is great but not what the car does as a daily so I don't care so much (not talking about you in this regard, just making a general statement).

cnterline

Brian screw the Benzs what's that ford wagon with the flames in the back ground now that's what I've been looking for .

urbamworm

That sir, is to much for you to handle

cls55tt

I had this car built solely to run on pump gas. I wanted it to be practical and it is. Full weight, full interior, and zero weight reduction.

As an example, the best 60 ft I was able to get was 2.2. That wasn't from traction issues. The car just wouldn't build boost at the line. Soon enough I will remedy that issue. If you use simple math (distance divided by time) the difference between 2.2 60 ft with traction and a 1.8 60 ft with traction is significant. You don't think that will translate to a faster trap speed considering the car pulls power all the way to redline?

Anyway, I wouldn't make any assumptions as I am far from done. I just wanted to get it out there before the season was over. I'm not swinging my dick anywhere. I simply posted pictures and videos to share with the forum. In my opinion shes plenty fast and the sleeper factor is what makes it fun for me

Out of curiousity, do you guys know what the fastest CLS55 out there is?

efiftyfizzle

The newer E63 is a 5.4L V8 twin turbo and the E55 with turbos will also be a 5.4L V8 twin turbo... from a very simple perspective, they may have the same / similar potential down the road from a engine stand point. The main difference is, ~$60k for the base car.