Are tuned 12/13 faster than tuned 14+
#26
Member
The Video Peterubers posted is pretty spot on. The 4matic cars will lead from the dig to 1/4 or maybe even before 1/2 mile but after that the high speed game is better for the rwd.
Likewise our W212 4matic S's wins the 0-110mph game to the M5 CP but 110+ the M5 will slowly creep up and away.
Both scenarios have this outcome because of the AWD lugging the front wheels.
Stephen
Likewise our W212 4matic S's wins the 0-110mph game to the M5 CP but 110+ the M5 will slowly creep up and away.
Both scenarios have this outcome because of the AWD lugging the front wheels.
Stephen
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 202 Likes
on
155 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
extra precision for you since you dont get approximations
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by gaspam; 07-02-2016 at 12:15 PM.
#28
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,908
Received 2,109 Likes
on
1,472 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
At the speed at which the rwd is superior to the awd e63, I'm likely to lose my license or go to jail or be convicted on grounds of implied malice
Hence I went with the e63S over the M5 or 2013 E63
Hence I went with the e63S over the M5 or 2013 E63
#30
Member
I just came out of a 996 911 Turbo that was AWD and I would racing anything on a roll and win 98% of the time. So it's not inherently AWD, it's that AWD in some cars induces more drag than others. It certainly doesn't hurt Porsche or Audi for most street use cases.
#31
Member
The average enthusiast should be able to run 11.7s pretty consistently on good street tires with Race Start. As you can see by the 1.8 60 foot on the 11.7 run, even poor 60 foot times don't matter too much.
Last edited by proxygeek; 07-03-2016 at 01:01 AM.
#33
Member
The Video Peterubers posted is pretty spot on. The 4matic cars will lead from the dig to 1/4 or maybe even before 1/2 mile but after that the high speed game is better for the rwd.
Likewise our W212 4matic S's wins the 0-110mph game to the M5 CP but 110+ the M5 will slowly creep up and away.
Both scenarios have this outcome because of the AWD lugging the front wheels.
Stephen
Likewise our W212 4matic S's wins the 0-110mph game to the M5 CP but 110+ the M5 will slowly creep up and away.
Both scenarios have this outcome because of the AWD lugging the front wheels.
Stephen
Once an AWD car pulls far enough ahead, an RWD still isn't catching it. It depends on the pull/jump, seen it over and over again.
#34
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 202 Likes
on
155 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
Your APPROXIMATION is grossly wrong. Almost anyone who can make Race Start work can get their car to an 11.7/11.8. There is a BIG difference between 11.7/11.8 and 12 second flat 1/4 mile times. These cars run 11s all day long. There have been faster stock 1/4 mile runs than 11.6 BTW, so...
The average enthusiast should be able to run 11.7s pretty consistently on good street tires with Race Start. As you can see by the 1.8 60 foot on the 11.7 run, even poor 60 foot times don't matter too much.
The average enthusiast should be able to run 11.7s pretty consistently on good street tires with Race Start. As you can see by the 1.8 60 foot on the 11.7 run, even poor 60 foot times don't matter too much.
first off if you are using 11.7/11.8 vs 12 and calling it "grossly wrong" , then you dont know how math works... that is a 1.7% to 2.5% margin of error, which is considered highly accurate in most statistics (btw i know plenty of M157s are in the 11's, ive been around amgs a long time)
second and more importantly, you missed the whole point and have a hard time understanding logic it seems... we were counting seconds on a youtube vid to see how long it took from when the cars on the vid started until when they reached the end, to interpolate at what point the rwd started pulling on the awd to get an approximation of what MPH it was since we knew it started at 0 mph and ended at 155 mph
so using an average of 12 sec 1/4 @120 mph helps us solve that equation.... using 11.7 @121 would not of improved that equation since the youtube vid is in whole seconds and a rough gestimate at best, so no need for super accuracy when pausing youtube vids to estimate the mph at which rwd started to pull on awd
have fun trolling newbie
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by gaspam; 07-03-2016 at 11:38 AM.
#36
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Venice Florida
Posts: 4,542
Received 669 Likes
on
525 Posts
2018 S560 and 2019 E450 Wagon.
Yes, I have not seen real good results with race start. I think it would be a tall order to get a 12 or 2013 under 12 seconds stock unless it had drag radials. I think my 60 foot time was 2 seconds as I remember, not all that great.
#37
Member
Stephen
The following users liked this post:
gaspam (07-03-2016)
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Venice Florida
Posts: 4,542
Received 669 Likes
on
525 Posts
2018 S560 and 2019 E450 Wagon.
It might be because the track I ran at is in Florida and it's pretty hot, but that's good to know the car will run under 12 seconds stock, I did not think it was possible. Could it be the 2013's are a little faster than the 2012's due to the extra turbo cooling provisions that were added for that Model Year?
Last edited by 2012 merc amg; 07-03-2016 at 10:17 PM.
#40
Member
You completely missed the point. The M5 Comp Pack (an overpriced and overrated car incidentally) is a similarly powered and weighted car. While the 4 Matic will smoke the **** out of it 0-60, 1/8 mile, and 1/4 mile, I would agree that if you keep going the M5 will begin to pull ahead (DUH). With that said, if you take a car rated at 500 HP or less with the same weight as the M5, the E63 S is going to pull far enough away to where that car won't catch it. I have been racing cars a long time and I know this for a fact.
The following users liked this post:
gaspam (07-04-2016)
#42
Member
sure thing bro keep trolling lol
first off if you are using 11.7/11.8 vs 12 and calling it "grossly wrong" , then you dont know how math works... that is a 1.7% to 2.5% margin of error, which is considered highly accurate in most statistics (btw i know plenty of M157s are in the 11's, ive been around amgs a long time)
second and more importantly, you missed the whole point and have a hard time understanding logic it seems... we were counting seconds on a youtube vid to see how long it took from when the cars on the vid started until when they reached the end, to interpolate at what point the rwd started pulling on the awd to get an approximation of what MPH it was since we knew it started at 0 mph and ended at 155 mph
so using an average of 12 sec 1/4 @120 mph helps us solve that equation.... using 11.7 @121 would not of improved that equation since the youtube vid is in whole seconds and a rough gestimate at best, so no need for super accuracy when pausing youtube vids to estimate the mph at which rwd started to pull on awd
have fun trolling newbie![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
first off if you are using 11.7/11.8 vs 12 and calling it "grossly wrong" , then you dont know how math works... that is a 1.7% to 2.5% margin of error, which is considered highly accurate in most statistics (btw i know plenty of M157s are in the 11's, ive been around amgs a long time)
second and more importantly, you missed the whole point and have a hard time understanding logic it seems... we were counting seconds on a youtube vid to see how long it took from when the cars on the vid started until when they reached the end, to interpolate at what point the rwd started pulling on the awd to get an approximation of what MPH it was since we knew it started at 0 mph and ended at 155 mph
so using an average of 12 sec 1/4 @120 mph helps us solve that equation.... using 11.7 @121 would not of improved that equation since the youtube vid is in whole seconds and a rough gestimate at best, so no need for super accuracy when pausing youtube vids to estimate the mph at which rwd started to pull on awd
have fun trolling newbie
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
For you to confuse statistical correlation with physics is absolutely hilarious
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Second, you can't "Interpolate" anything from watching a YouTube video as there are too many real world factors that determine when that RWD car may pull away, least being wind and drag coefficient, with final drive and gear ratios playing in prominently even when accounting for wheel HP, rolling resistance, and weight. You can't simply make that determination by knowing you started at 0 and ended at 155. It doesn't work that way.
I may be new, but you can post 5000 times and once an idiot, always an idiot.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
Last edited by proxygeek; 07-04-2016 at 12:51 AM.
#43
Member
#44
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,908
Received 2,109 Likes
on
1,472 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
![Popcorn](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/popc1.gif)
The following users liked this post:
proxygeek (07-04-2016)
#45
Member
The following users liked this post:
proxygeek (07-04-2016)
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: miami / delray beach
Posts: 2,841
Received 202 Likes
on
155 Posts
2014 E63s amg 4matic, 2009 C63, 2006 E55 AMG , 2001.5 AUDI S4 stg 3+ w/meth
First off, I majored in math and physics in college and make my living as an electrical engineer. So maybe you should know who you're talking to before you begin spouting off about mathematics, something you laughably NO NOTHING about.
For you to confuse statistical correlation with physics is absolutely hilarious
. Based on your logic problem, we might as well just round 1/4 mile times. So 11.7 or 11.8 should just be 12 flat, LOL LOL LOL
.
Second, you can't "Interpolate" anything from watching a YouTube video as there are too many real world factors that determine when that RWD car may pull away, least being wind and drag coefficient, with final drive and gear ratios playing in prominently even when accounting for wheel HP, rolling resistance, and weight. You can't simply make that determination by knowing you started at 0 and ended at 155. It doesn't work that way.
I may be new, but you can post 5000 times and once an idiot, always an idiot.![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
For you to confuse statistical correlation with physics is absolutely hilarious
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
Second, you can't "Interpolate" anything from watching a YouTube video as there are too many real world factors that determine when that RWD car may pull away, least being wind and drag coefficient, with final drive and gear ratios playing in prominently even when accounting for wheel HP, rolling resistance, and weight. You can't simply make that determination by knowing you started at 0 and ended at 155. It doesn't work that way.
I may be new, but you can post 5000 times and once an idiot, always an idiot.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
and seriously dont talk about rounding when you rounded a 1.894 60 ft time down to 1.8! pot meet kettle black
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
and the fact that you think you cant make educated guess as to what approx mph the rwd is pulling on the awd in a video, based on start and stop speed and time of said run, knowing both cars are stock and knowing their power levels and what they run appox in the 1/4, shows your math/logic skills are laughable at best and more likely you are a 15yr old kid coming on the internet to agrue and troll lol
final drive ratios and drag coefficients are not relevant for what was being discussed on the video.... what was being discussed it "what speed does the rwd start to catch up to the awd in the video from 0 to 155mph?".... no need for final drive ratios or drag coefficients to pause the video and approximate speed given the facts we already know lol
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
have fun being an amazing physicist mathematician turned electrical engineer with an average salary of 90K
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
btw remember that time when you rounded 1.894 down to 1.8 ?
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
oh and remember this brilliant statement of your ?
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
Last edited by gaspam; 07-04-2016 at 01:44 PM.
#49
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,908
Received 2,109 Likes
on
1,472 Posts
2014 E63S; AMS 100 octane ecu tune; edok tcu tune; BB intakes; dyno tuned
![](https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.mbworld.org-vbulletin/320x240/ypgawu_938730566b9ad341eda0c35ba78748f7f6764e42.gif)
challenge!!!
Last edited by PeterUbers; 07-04-2016 at 02:03 PM.
The following users liked this post:
proxygeek (07-04-2016)
#50
Member
sure you did bro, so you majored in math and physics and instead of working as physicist or mathematician you went to work as an electrical engineer that gets paid less than mathematician/ physicist....cool story and smart move.... my paycheck as a MBS trader building black scholes and OAS models says i know dat dare math stuff too cool guy ![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
I never claimed to be a mathematical genius, I do claim however to be quite good in math or at least highly competent, which you're clearly not. You keep using percentages as the basis for your BS argument for rounding and I find it laughable. Rounding from 11.87 to 11.8 is one thing, rounding from 11.87 to 12.0 is grossly inaccurate as far as drag racing is concerned. Your own words were these cars run about 12 flat @120, if you use this formula (which took me all of 5 minutes on my crappy windows calculator, pardon if it's not perfect):
t = 5.825* ( w / h ) 0.3333333 s = 234 * ( h / w ) 0.333333
Where "t" = 1/4 mile time, where "w" = weight of your car, where "h" = horsepower, and where "s" = trap speed
I calculate a 4700 pound E63 S (with driver) would need 537 crank HP to run a 12.0 @113. Of course this isn't factoring in gravity, drag, rolling resistance, torque, gear ratios, final drive, on and on. It's a HUGE ballpark. 577 HP (just using the factory number) will show our cars run 11.7 @116 using this formula. I think you pulled the 12 flat @120 number out of your ***...ahem...mouth, LOL.
and seriously dont talk about rounding when you rounded a 1.894 60 ft time down to 1.8! pot meet kettle black
btw your rounding was less precise than mine as you went from 1.894 to 1.8 = 5% understated.... you say i went from 11.8/11.7 to 12 so overstated by 1.7-2.5%..... man for such a math savant you seem to pretty bad at basic math ![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
![rolf](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/rofl.gif)
![crazy](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/crazy.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
You say I'm bad at basic math but you don't even understand what you're trying to calculate!!!
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
For a relative predictive outcome between a RWD and AWD car, you need to factor in gravity, aerodynamic drag, and rolling resistance, those are the three basic forces you must overcome to move forward. Can we agree on that? We also need to factor in work and and wheel size, but I'm sure that's too complex for you to understand.
This is our core formula before adding what I mentioned in my previous post. The faster the car goes (velocity), the more air pushes against the car (you also have to factor in the density of the air and the effect it exerts on the car but I doubt you thought of that), this all factors into drag coefficient. So given a RWD 2014+ W212 E63 S has the same aerodynamic drag coefficient as its AWD brother, we're now beyond the shape and slipperiness of the car and down to... wait for it... wait for it... Weight, rolling resistance, torque, gear ratios, final drive, traction, OMG it could go on and on.
So if one runs an 11.49 1/4 mile, do we not colloquially say we ran an 11.4? You asserted that these cars run 12 flat 1/4 mile times @120 (which I believe you pulled out of your butt). So using your logic, if I run an 11.7 and overstate by 2.5 percent, I actually ran an 11.4075. I don't know of any drag racer that would agree with your penchant for overstating by 2.5%, NOT ONE. There is a reason we don't understate or overstate 1/4 mile times genius. Do you know what that reason is???
and the fact that you think you cant make educated guess as to what approx mph the rwd is pulling on the awd in a video, based on start and stop speed and time of said run, knowing both cars are stock and knowing their power levels and what they run appox in the 1/4, shows your math/logic skills are laughable at best and more likely you are a 15yr old kid coming on the internet to agrue and troll lol
You can absolutely make an educated guess as to what MPH the RWD is pulling on the AWD IF YOU HAVE SOME FACTS. If you knew what you were talking about then you would understand that total weight, unsprung weight (ceramic versus iron brakes for example), gear ratios, final drive differences between RWD and AWD, etc all factor into your "Prediction". So in fact you can get very close. However, because you're an idiot, you don't realize that "The Average" 1/4 mile times for these cars VERY WIDELY. So it's not that simple JACK.
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
have fun being an amazing physicist mathematician turned electrical engineer with an average salary of 90K
then after 20yrs you might make 115K
.... i'll continue working in the in MBS/ABS market making more in a year than you will in 5 years, using my terrible math skills lmao
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
I called you out because you're very cocky and you're just plain stupid. There is one of you on every board. Sorry for taking up board space on you, but I couldn't resist myself. I love putting jerks like you in your place.
![thumbs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif)
![Big Grin](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
"Of your?" You mean yours?
for a scientist mathematician engineer, you dont speak like one as they dont usually speak in such absolutes especially when they are sooooo wrong lol.... so in your super smart statement above, i would like to make a proposition to you... bring your awd e63 down to miami, and i will line up a nice rwd car to try and catch you... you can have a 60ft head start.... lets do $1,000 since your a mathematician/physicist turned engineer and on a budget... you dont need to know how long the road is or what rwd car is or its power is since you said rwd will never catch awd
put your money where your mouth is kid... we will make a friendly wager video
![naughty](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/naughty.gif)
With enough HP, a RWD WILL NOT catch an AWD. I have raced my AWD 911 Turbo for years and can attest to this. There will be a point when the AWD pulls away far enough that the RWD WILL NOT catch it. If you're really concerned with being beat on a roll in an AWD, just add more HP.
Tool.