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

 

i guess you missed the part where i used the word "about" ? meaning approximation, but yeah best stock time i have seen is 11.653215682563158613565841651658112 seconds @ 121.936851653651616516516 mph

extra precision for you since you dont get approximations

 

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

 

not sure where you got 1.8 for 60 ft as his time slip said 1.894, so not sure what your talking about

 

THE ONLY TIME the RWD is superior to the 4 Matic is when racing on a roll. RWD is technically quicker around the track WHEN YOU KNOW HOW TO DRIVE, but for 98% of us, you're better off with AWD.

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.

 

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.

 

Yeaaaahhhhh...

 

Nope.

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.

 

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

 

And to add insult to injury my best times were all done brake boosting race start times were all slower

 

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.

 

You really have no idea what you're talking about. Go race a stock M5 with Comp. Pack. Yes the RWD car will catch the 4matic.

Stephen

 

Practice makes perfect, stock 12-13 should be able to get a 1.8 60ft on summer tires. Your car will run 11.7's stock easy. Don't need AWD just practice.

 

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?

 

Your comment's leave wordy evidence you don't know what you're talking about so considering the source, I could absolutely care less what you think. There are always a few idiots on every forum, I'm quickly beginning to see who they are in this one.

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.

 

Lol and the trolls come out of the wood works

 

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.

 

I'm really not trolling, I've just found a couple of folks that make a lot of pompous assertions in various threads.

 

 

Agree. I don't know why so many think these cars won't run 11s completely stock. It's ridiculous.

 

Settle down guys. This is not fight club

 

If it was...you just broke the first rule......

 

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

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

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

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

btw remember that time when you rounded 1.894 down to 1.8 ? cant wait to see what you round your 1/4 mile times down to

oh and remember this brilliant statement of your ?

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

 

challenge!!!

 

Every time you open your mouth you reveal what you are, a BS artist. If you think that academics pay more that engineering, you're smoking crack. If I had a dollar for every idiot on every board that claimed they were math geniuses I'd be rich. You're a walking cliche. You don't understand anything about Math or you wouldn't make the pompous ignoramus statements you make.

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.

5% understated?? You mean 1.7993, LOL!!! You need to go back to college there jack . I'm glad you don't work for me. Now I know you're a certified retard (like I said, the more you open your mouth, the dumber you sound) . You have a logic problem as you're absolutely stuck on percentage of deviation to try and sucker people into your BS rounding of 11 second 1/4 mile times to a 12 flat . You completely missed the point. A 60 foot of 1.8 sucks and anyone who drag races will tell you that.

You say I'm bad at basic math but you don't even understand what you're trying to calculate!!!

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???

I'm 42 years old and by the sound of your stupid posts, I would hope you're a fair bit younger than me or I would be very worried if I were you.

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.

Maybe the dumbest thing you have said yet. I said DRAG (drivetrain resistance) in direct context to this, not drag coefficient as in the slipperiness of the car hammerhead

Really, so there is no difference in gearing between the RWD and AWD??? You don't reckon that this has any affect on when the RWD begins to pull on the AWD huh? Parasitic deltas between the drivetrains of RWD and AWD also don't factor in here? Are you serious??

You're a pompous ignoramus and you have no idea who you're talking to. I'm a business owner and I do quite well. I am not into bragging about how much money I make or trying to establish myself in the world by how much I earn. I am into nice cars that drive fast and enjoying myself in my free time.

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.

Oh you're a piece of work, this coming from the moron who rounds 11.7 second 1/4 mile times into a 12. LOL

"Of your?" You mean yours?

Yeah, I'm going to leave my beautiful residence in California to come to your **** hole neighborhood in Miami to race you. Yeeeeeaaaaaahhhhh... That's pretty grown up.

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.