Stock M4 vs Stock E55. 60-130mph Who wins?
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 39
From: San Diego
E55
I will do ecu reset for sure. From what I seen. The quickest stock M4 can run with the quickest stock E55. About the same Et's and MPH. Average times both in the low 12s. Heat soak is another story. E55 must be kept cool
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,429
Likes: 61
From: Cypress, TX
'06 E55, '15 Jeep SRT8, '94 Mustang GT
E90 or F30 M3?
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 318
Likes: 6
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
2006 E55 AMG
Lol!
Definitely a stock M4 - it was mate's car. He'd bought it new and was in fact testing it against mine as he was about to install a JB4 and wanted a basis for comparison after the installation. He then installed a JB4 and before we could re-test, his car was in an accident which prompted him to sell it.
On reflection, your quarter mile time (in your signature) is close to what the M4s run here. I'm at 5500 feet above sea level i'm not sure what the M4s run at the coast.
Either way, I'm obviously pulling for the Merc.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 39
From: San Diego
E55
Lol!
Definitely a stock M4 - it was mate's car. He'd bought it new and was in fact testing it against mine as he was about to install a JB4 and wanted a basis for comparison after the installation. He then installed a JB4 and before we could re-test, his car was in an accident which prompted him to sell it.
On reflection, your quarter mile time (in your signature) is close to what the M4s run here. I'm at 5500 feet above sea level i'm not sure what the M4s run at the coast.
Either way, I'm obviously pulling for the Merc.
Definitely a stock M4 - it was mate's car. He'd bought it new and was in fact testing it against mine as he was about to install a JB4 and wanted a basis for comparison after the installation. He then installed a JB4 and before we could re-test, his car was in an accident which prompted him to sell it.
On reflection, your quarter mile time (in your signature) is close to what the M4s run here. I'm at 5500 feet above sea level i'm not sure what the M4s run at the coast.
Either way, I'm obviously pulling for the Merc.
How can an M4 run the same sea level numbers when at 5,500 feet above sea level. There is just no way that can happen. Something isn't adding up.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 511
Likes: 8
E55 AMG | Buell Lightning XB12
Depends on your basis of comparison. FI cars don't suffer nearly as much as NA when it comes to DA.
For example, my stock run was 12.2 at 1150'.
For example, my stock run was 12.2 at 1150'.
Understood. But, I know for a fact and from personal experience on various cars 5,500 feet above seal level is 1 second slower then sea level.
How can an M4 run the same sea level numbers when at 5,500 feet above sea level. There is just no way that can happen. Something isn't adding up.
How can an M4 run the same sea level numbers when at 5,500 feet above sea level. There is just no way that can happen. Something isn't adding up.
Last edited by Rob CL; Jan 12, 2017 at 07:01 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 318
Likes: 6
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
2006 E55 AMG
Understood. But, I know for a fact and from personal experience on various cars 5,500 feet above seal level is 1 second slower then sea level.
How can an M4 run the same sea level numbers when at 5,500 feet above sea level. There is just no way that can happen. Something isn't adding up.
How can an M4 run the same sea level numbers when at 5,500 feet above sea level. There is just no way that can happen. Something isn't adding up.
You're overlooking the effect that altitude has on supercharged cars VS the effect it has on turbocharged cars. I'm losing about 3-4 psi of boost up here (and about 20% of power) while the M4 is able to maintain boost up here while losing about 5% of power because of the diminished air density.
Nevertheless, my car is making 520whp at altitude compared to a stock F10 M5 which, on the same dyno, made around 505whp, as I recall it. I've had a rolling run against a mate's F10 M5 (40kph to 200kph) and while I opened a gap of about 2 car lengths shortly after the get-go (because of the huge torque advantage I have), I wasn't able to increase the gap and at 200kph I finished about 2 car lengths ahead. No doubt the M5s superior gearing and gearbox helps it keep up notwithstanding its torque disadvantage. Obviously a like-race at sea level would be far more favorable to me.
Hope this explains things more clearly
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 39
From: San Diego
E55
You're overlooking the effect that altitude has on supercharged cars VS the effect it has on turbocharged cars. I'm losing about 3-4 psi of boost up here (and about 20% of power) while the M4 is able to maintain boost up here while losing about 5% of power because of the diminished air density.
Nevertheless, my car is making 520whp at altitude compared to a stock F10 M5 which, on the same dyno, made around 505whp, as I recall it. I've had a rolling run against a mate's F10 M5 (40kph to 200kph) and while I opened a gap of about 2 car lengths shortly after the get-go (because of the huge torque advantage I have), I wasn't able to increase the gap and at 200kph I finished about 2 car lengths ahead. No doubt the M5s superior gearing and gearbox helps it keep up notwithstanding its torque disadvantage. Obviously a like-race at sea level would be far more favorable to me.
Hope this explains things more clearly
Nevertheless, my car is making 520whp at altitude compared to a stock F10 M5 which, on the same dyno, made around 505whp, as I recall it. I've had a rolling run against a mate's F10 M5 (40kph to 200kph) and while I opened a gap of about 2 car lengths shortly after the get-go (because of the huge torque advantage I have), I wasn't able to increase the gap and at 200kph I finished about 2 car lengths ahead. No doubt the M5s superior gearing and gearbox helps it keep up notwithstanding its torque disadvantage. Obviously a like-race at sea level would be far more favorable to me.
Hope this explains things more clearly
It does, and thanks for that. I wasn't overlooking... That's like saying any turbo car runs almost as hard as in sea level at high altitude with the same boost? Not that I ever seen. SC does lose as much as NA actually. Even though it's forced induction altitude hurts it just as much. And You are correct about turbo losing less then SC or NA. But they still both run about a second slower without touching the boost pressure. Your air quality and or DA must be better where you are. Your car sounds fast and I am not trying to argue with you. Just think we don't agree on how much a car loses at high altitude. Like mile high.
What Ive seen. It's about 1 full second give or take a tenth @ 5,500 above sea level. Ive seen it on Turbo Supercharged and ,nitrous and just NA cars. tuned 335s, C63, V8 Biturbo amgs of all kinds, C7 vette, GTR, Hellcats. Even My car ran exactly 1 second slower at 5,500 ft above sea level then it did 1,000 feet above sea level when it ran 11.9@118.
Your car sounds like a beast. You should post some videos when you have the chance!
Last edited by Max.H; Jan 13, 2017 at 12:07 AM.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 318
Likes: 6
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
2006 E55 AMG
Max, a very reliable source of quarter mile times achieved by bone stock cars at 5,500 feet above altitude can be found at truespeed.co.za. That website lists the results of tests of new cars undertaken at altitude (where I live) by a motoring journalist I know who writes for a popular newspaper circulated locally. I haven't looked at the specifics of late but to the best of my recollection, the M4 ran low 12s with an exit speed of around 190kph. The tests are all done at a local test track and the results are an accurate reflection of what the cars are capable of up here
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2012
Posts: 318
Likes: 6
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
2006 E55 AMG
I've just had a look at the truespeed website. Unfortunately, the link to the M4 test appears to be damaged but have a look at the Test of the M4 GTS which is marginally quicker than the stock M4 and which ran a 12.08 with an exit speed of about 192kph
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,429
Likes: 61
From: Cypress, TX
'06 E55, '15 Jeep SRT8, '94 Mustang GT
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 39
From: San Diego
E55
GTS is substantially lighter and has more power. So, About mid 12s for normal M4 where you are. Mile high tracks in N americara like colorado etc. They run about low 13s to 12.9 at best. I guess your air quality is better.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 39
From: San Diego
E55
M4 is a pumped up 335. Sounds pretty much the same to me. Sporty.. My next door neighbor has a tuned 335i down piped and it is loud. not in a beastly AMG V8 way. But, like really loud chainsaw on steriods loud. Quick car though.
Super Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 511
Likes: 8
E55 AMG | Buell Lightning XB12
