rotor doesn't affect sprint runs . wheel yes .

Unsprung weight is unsprung weight it would effect it just as the wheels do If light weight rotors did not make a difference no one would upgrade.

yes you right , my bad .

I just was just trying to say I think it makes quite a bit of difference and its something that gets overlooked alot more than I realized. I made this mistake myself. A good real world example of this is comparing the new MustangGt350 and the 350R same motor/tranny/suspension but the GT350R has Carbon fiber wheels and runs 0-60 .3 faster

wheels/rotors will not be equal to turbo upgrade , no way . it will help though

His engine failed at 5000 miles and so did mine. So there's no reason for him to find it weird that I'm interested in talking to him.

If it's the exact same failure then maybe we could learn something to prevent it happening to someone else. Anyway Inshaallah I will find a way to get ahold of him myself.

instagram , name you have .

Thats not what I was implying

Lighter rotors will make a very minor difference in acceleration and braking. They will substantially improve suspension compliance. The further the unsprung weight reduction is from the center of rotation, the more it will improve braking and acceleration. Lighter tires and wheels with very light barrels will make a significant difference in acceleration and braking.

This is right on. I kept records of every mod on my E55 and saw no notable acceleration gains in lightweight rotors.

my English is so bad lol

I thought the race there where the renntech beat the weistec car, that renntech was a RWD and the weistec w4 was an e63 4matic so up top woudnt the AWD fall behind the RWD car?

AWD loses to RWD if the engines are producing the same power. Which goes back to my original remark and warning that the W3 turbo performs similar to stock Turbo.

I have read a few posts about rwd vs awd and sometimes I want to kill a kitten with some of the opinions posted around the forum.

Doesn't matter awd or rwd, car with the most power wins assuming driver doesn't completely suck. Awd can win with less power from stop if it's hard to launch rwd well. Rwd will win up top assuming similar power levels

i agree but it's one of those things that's hard to gauge.

Up top with similar or less power AWD will always lose to RWD.

The question is how much extra power in this case would AWD need to outrun a RWD from a roll.

Ive always wondered how much higher the drivetrain loss is with the 4matic 33/67 they use vs RWD.

speaking of that... how are your new rotors and brake performing?

A timeless classic

one of the problems with all-wheel drive and the staggered setup is a difference in rolling circumference which will add to the drivetrain loss by introducing a second element of drag where all four wheels want to turn at the same speed but are forced to turn at different speeds because of different rolling circumference. I don't know how much this adds to the drag whether it's negligible or significant. You can put identical wheels up front and behind or you can use pilot supersports 295 30 19 rear and 255 35 19 front. This is the only combination I'm aware of that has identical rolling circumference for front and rear. 295 will not fit on the factory 9.5" wide rear wheels, Michelin recommend minimum 10" width wheel

Awd vs rwd race
https://youtu.be/OxWhFn68MIs

check up the new thread I just started asking
about the AWD vs RWD race with the e63 va cls63.

From this video you posted, which I did as well it doesn't look to be a huge difference in drivetrain losses.

Im not sure how much more the staggered tires add but it seems like only a 5-6% difference.

In in this video however it looks like the drivetrain loss is MUCH higher but I don't believe it's accurate. Something seems off because the cls creams the E despite the E having equal weight and extra 20 hp. Let's not forget than in the 1/4 mile there's only a 1-2mph advantage for RWD e63 vs AWD e63 if not anything.