TMC M5

I am not sure that is an absolutely true statement. There are so many variables at play that can change the outcome. How much ground did the AWD car gain at the launch? What speeds are they going up to?

PeterUbers

I don't think a rwd stock Miata will ever catch an awd e63S... Soooo... At THAT point...

TMC M5

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mazda-Miata...lip-23178.html

I am not so sure about that...

Oops didn't see the "stock" part

PeterUbers

Ok, stock Miata full tank of gas vs stock e63S with full tank of gas, endless strip, I think ultimately the 63 runs out of gas first and stops... And the Miata with it's top up at its top speed keeps going and maybe passes the dead e63... Solve for x

gaspam

^ you cant read as i never said being a math/ physics teacher makes more, i said an actual physicist/ mathmatecian ... learn to read

lol you came up with formula by COPY PASTING from this website moron! that's a well established formula that you DID NOT INVENT LMAO!!!! YOU'RE A COMPLETE BS ARTIST BRO!
https://www.easycalculation.com/othe...calculator.php

look familiar copy cat? purely brilliant you are



hmm lets see, you rounded 1.894 to 1.8, so using basic math (you couldnt find another formula from google to pretend it was yours? ), (1.894-1.8)/1.8 = 5% understated 60ft time.... but your crying about me using an average of 12 sec 1/4 mile as an assumption





omg none of that matters in the youtube vid in trying to guestimate when the rwd started pulling on the awd! you are far to dense to understand that and trying to demonstrate an intellectual prowess which you just dont possess



no one is talking about rounding their 1/4 times genius, well except you... we are talking about a benchmark conservative estimated average stock 1/4 mile time to use as a starting point... you're the moron that cant seem to grasp that and instead is like "no way! 11.6565198 all day long! 12 is wayyyy off to use as an average!" lol





no actually all we need for the video is the start time 15 seconds and we know that the AWD stops pulling on the RWD at 22 seconds.. so ~ 7 seconds pass until AWD stops pulling on RWD... we know stock M157's trap 1/8th at ~7.5 sec /~95 mph and we know from video that at around 25 sec the RWD starts pulling in the AWD so 10 secs elapsed time and we know stock M157 run the 1/4 in around 12 sec (or if you want to cherry pick the one 11.65 stock run on dragtimes) @ 121 mph..... so wait for it... the speed that rwd starts to pull on a awd M157 stock is in between 95mph and 121mph... we can narrow that down a little since we know the rwd starts to pull on the awd at 10 seconds elapsed time, which is prettty much in between the 7.5 sec 1/8th mile 95mph mark and 11.65 sec 1/4 mile 121mph mark so in the middle is about 108 mph.... pretty much what everyone (except you) already knows... rwds start to pull on awd M157 just after 100 mph, its not rocket science, but you seem to think it is because your dense


whooaaaaa hold on a minute! average 1/4 mile times for these cars vary widely????? no way bro, i thought you said the run 11.7/11.8 all day long!!!! and there is no way that one could be outside those times way to contradict yourself smarty





umm dumbo, when did i or anyone say gearing doesnt matter? no one said that at all... i even said in an earlier post that drivetrain friction does mater and its increases with speed


lol you put me in my place ? by making yourself look like a moron troll... ok sure bro cool story


lol wait wait wait.... didnt you just say like a few sentences earlier that 1/4 mile times "The Average" 1/4 mile times for these cars VERY WIDELY .... check this out , you should tell the guy his timeslip is wrong and NO WAY HIS CAR RAN 11.997 ( can we round that to 12 your highness? ) BECAUSE THEY RUN 11.7 ALL DAY LONG!(do you get tired of contradicting yourself so much?

http://dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz-E...lip-26391.html

of course you wouldnt do that, because you're all talk troll

again, stop running your mouth and come prove it... bring your AWD M157 (since that's what we are talking about) and prove me wrong troll... if $1000 isnt enough (or too much) we can change the wager... stop running your mouth and run your car and prove me wrong, i will get the go pros ready for video

if not, then im done feeding the troll

TMC M5

Interesting point.... The E63 S has a top speed of 186 mph and a 21.1 gallon gas tank. Assuming it has enough room to maintain that speed, it could empty its gas tank in approximately 100 miles (assuming just under 5 mpg). That joy ride would be approximately 33 minutes. The Miata with a 129 mph top speed and an 11.9 gallon gas tank would only need to average just over 8 mpg and it would pass the E63 S in approximately 46 and a half minutes or 13 1/2 minutes after the E63 S ran out of gas.

gaspam

no way bro e63s awd at full speed gets 5.7856 mpg all day long! you are wayyyy off

and approx 33 minutes... no way.. you have to take into account if the wind is at the car's back or if its running into the wind and if the wind switches direction

bro im an electrician and cars use electricity and stuff

proxygeek

Oh boy, here we go again with your petty hair splitting.

Of course it's a common formula, but I never saw that website. It's on many other web sites to be certain. I never said I "Invented" it you retard, LOL. Man you take the cake.

You obviously didn't read what I posted on this. So I'm not going to rehash it again. You are too thick to understand what I'm saying.

Are you a sales guy? If I couldn't do math to save my life, I would still be smarter than you because I clearly see there are various factors that MUST be considered to make an accurate estimate as to when an RWD E63 S pulls away from an AWD E63 S. First you have to set a baseline and your stupid *** hasn't mentioned that once.

You would impress me if you took a more scientific point of view.

What if one car has race gas + tune and the other car doesn't? What if one car has Carbon Ceramic breaks and the other car doesn't? What if one car is in manual and the other is S+? OMG I could go on. Of course you can tell if a car is stock or not depending on the times it runs, but you still have the factors I mentioned to consider. You just do. That isn't disputable. Someone really trying to figure this out would understand that you must compare apples to apples and trying to determine this from a YouTube video (basically a completely unknown test bed as you do not know the configuration of the two cars), you CANNOT determine what you're trying to determine accurately.

You're bull****ting like nuts is what you're doing.

If you really want to solve this, take (2) BONE STOCK E63 S cars with the same configuration across the board, one RWD and one AWD, and run the cars side by side. Same gas type and amount, same driver weight, etc, etc. That is the only way to make an accurate determination. PERIOD.

So you can continue to try and crack smart *** remarks but what I'm saying is true. You must know what it is you want to test before you test it and control the test to eliminate errors. If I'm an idiot for that, then most other people are too.

Now you're putting on a show. Now you're using misdirection to hide the fact that I made you look like a moron.

Here you go again with your assumption's. You keep making wild assumptions that only prove the run in the video because we don't know the configuration of the cars as I stated above. This IS NOT an average and hardly a reliable method for determining when a RWD E63 S pulls away from an AWD E63 S. The mere fact that you think it is illustrates my whole point about you and your argument.

I rest my case, you're a fool. The M157 doesn't average 12.0@120, you're just ridiculous. Your brilliant empirical analysis that the RWD M157 pulls on the AWD M157 between 95 and 121 is absolutely ridiculous. SMH...

What you are trying to calculate will vary on the numerous conditions that I specified. Your brilliant analysis applies to the very run you observed, not to every run. OMG you're thick. Next you'll try and tell me that your observation above will apply to every run regardless of factors.

You are really trying hard to save face, I explained it very well in my previous post and you just keep making yourself look like a$$

They do. An RWD runs very different 1/4 mile times then an AWD runs. What's pretty predictable is that a decent driver can go 11s without much issue in an AWD E63 S. If you're running 12 flat, you either can't drive or you're facing altitude issues, heat soak, traction, something.

You have said it doesn't matter over the last couple of posts. I'll just wait for you to go in and change your post to hide your retardation.

You provided all the weight, LOL. The more you open your trap, the dumber you reveal yourself to be. Really, you put yourself in your place. That's the beauty of knuckleheads like you.

This is getting embarrassing for you. Now you're trying to find cars that ran as close to 12 or over 12 to illustrate your ridiculous point!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Man you are a dumb ****. Thanks for the entertainment!

Oh boy...

Yeah, I'm driving to Miami from CA to meet you for a race to help you prove your illogical point.

Next time you begin spouting off on a forum, please know that some people are actually reading your post's.


You are a BS artist and I simply called you on it.

proxygeek

I agree with you, it's not. Here's an extreme example, if you take a 2000 HP AWD car and race it against a 1000 HP RWD car, that AWD car will pull far enough away from that RWD car that the RWD car will not catch it given stock final drives for each car. That's a wild example. It doesn't have to be that extreme or someone will say it's the power difference. I'm simply saying there is a point where an AWD car, if given enough HP, will be able to pull on an RWD to a point where the RWD will never catch it. I have seen it with my 911 Turbo and it's a 100% true. If you want to keep on top of RWD cars, just keep adding HP (I say that tongue in cheek).

TMC M5

Are you also accounting for the use of drag radials on the RWD car and their ability to add HP as well?

gaspam

NO, YOU'RE AN IDIOT FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT AN APPROXIMATE IS NOT 100% ACCURATE LOL





AGAIN, WE DO KNOW, THEY ARE BOTH STOCK... THATS ENOUGH FOR AN APPROXIMATION as to what mph they will be at after approx 12 secs (~120mph)



so then show us the average M157 stock 1/4 time we want reference notes for every data point or you will not be using scientific method and your conclusion will be worthless




and yet you've illustrated no info for your 11.7 sec average stock claim (and the fact that you didnt understand my 12 sec number was a rounded approximation in the first place is still hillarious) ...btw when people say the ski is blue do you argue it and say no its actually not true blue




bro i will make it worth your while... if your soooo right then do it... i mean if your sooo right bet me 10K or hell a million since you know your gonna win right??? again STFU and quit running your mouth and prove you'rE right

all you do is talk and contradict yourself.... i think you are DavidKuo0330 trying to get back on the board after your previous ban for being such a toolbag lol

Geno51

proxygeek

Yup.

The ultimate point is that the AWD is at a disadvantage but there is a point where an RWD isn't catching it given the AWD has enough HP. My 911 Turbo had an official top speed of 189 (tested at 193) and that damn car would do every bit of that. I use to race M cars all the time and they couldn't catch me. That car made about 500 HP and it just kept pulling and pulling. Now, if I raced a 996 911 GT2 with about 480 HP (476 HP), it would walk me every time.

proxygeek

But you're not approximating anything - LOL LOL LOL That's the absurdity of it. Your username is perfect, you're full of GAS!


There are way too many variables, you just can't see my point. There is a definite way to get an answer to your question and I already mentioned what I would do. Watching that damn video isn't going to get you anywhere close to really knowing what you're trying to learn.

So you know how you do this? SAMPLE SIZE. You need to gather about 12 sample times and then average that out. I would gather high and low outliers, so the lowest 11 second run you can find for a stock E63 S and the highest 12 second run you can find for a stock E63 S, then I would use about 10 samples in between the outlier numbers and render an average.

Surely even you can agree with that method?

I NEVER CLAIMED AN AVERAGE OF 11.7, NEVER. From anecdote, I have seen several E63 S runs in the mid 11s from people who claim to have stock cars. I can also figure out the car does 11s by the formula I posted earlier and the 0-62 time. It's not hard to calculate that. You said the car runs about 12 second 1/4 mile times at 120 mph which is patently false. I totally get that you were rounding, but you don't just round 1/4 mile times like that. Dumb.

Collect a sample size, about 12 samples as I said above, and render an average, that will give you a pretty damn good idea of what the average 1/4 mile time is. I would ensure that all times are from stock AWD cars to the best of your knowledge.

I'm not the one running my mouth, you're the expert know-it-all with a logic problem that can't comprehend what I'm telling you.

Considering how much you have contradicted yourself and changed your stories', you are one of the biggest tools I have ever encountered in a forum. The mods can see I'm not the guy you're referencing.

gaspam

actually i was approximating at around what MPH the rwd started to pull on the AWD in the video in this thread... i've repeated that numerous times now ... you seem to not retain things well



i understand all the variables and you're point, you're just not smart enough to understand my point lol

and if you knew how to read, you would see in the video that they state when the RWD is faster on that race at 125 mph+ ... all the while you are coming up with dumb arguments lol


so do it bro and show us your findings, you're the one saying using 12@120 for stock M157 is wayyyyy off lol


oh ok wait , so you dont know what average 1/4 is, but you know 12@120 is way off??, lol ok and what you do know is only "from anecdote" from people that claim they are stock, but you didnt verify , ok sounds scientific, but me using estimate of 12 @ 120 is "patently false"




actually you are the one running your mouth about how RWD cant run an AWD car down if you give a big lead to AWD and how you've seen it over and over again

Quote:

Originally Posted by kimsd

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by proxygeek

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.

so again, STFU and stop running your mouth and come prove you're right bro... what you dont want to come make a bunch of easy money off me?


lol my story remains the same and has not changed... my story is that in the video, we can get an APPROXIMATE of what MPH the rwd starts to pull on the AWD.... you still cant comprehend that lol

nah, if one wants to hide their identity its pretty easy on the internet.... but im sure you know these things as an electrician, i mean electrical engineer

proxygeek

I'm done addressing you GASBAG.

kponti

Ignoring another of gaspam's long winded, arguments with yet another forum member....

I think the rwd 's tuned will be significantly faster than tuned AWD from any roll race that the rwd does not have to worry about traction. The video above shows not just traction advantage of the AWD, but also hp advantage. I dug around the Web looking for stock m157 dynos and it seems the rwd cars no matter the manufacturer rating, typically dyno less than the AWD ones (CLS being the exceptions, smaller sample size, all over the place numbers wise with their P89 package). I feel MB intentionally underrated the AWD versions more to eliminate the losses associated with the drive train.

efiftyfizzle

Here's something I was told by a reputable tuner when I asked him if my 2014 E63 could hang with my friends CLS63 (he didn't know his was a 2014 at the time of this email).

"you cannot compare the AWD 63’s to the RWD 63’s. The AWD’s will be missing about 100 TRQ…. No matter who tunes it."

Then when I asked why, the response was:

"There is a gearbox limiter in the TCU software that prevents us from making full requested TRQ."

So basically that was implying that the 2014 have a limiter in the TCU and the 2012-2013 do not. Not sure how accurate this information is, but if it is accurate, one could assume the addition of a front driveshaft in an AWD car would be the culprit of an added gearbox torque limiter.

kponti

Now that I do not agree with! Just look at the dynos posted everywhere around the web. ALL M157s typically dyno ~700rwtq (typical dynojet, plus or minus a magical number) regardless of RWD or AWD. So unless he can show AWDs dynoing at 600rwtq tuned OR RWDs dynoing at 800rwtq tuned, he is wrong on that

Georgee6086

I agree here as well, now saying that I have also been told the same thing about the TQ limitations. Could be a limiting factor in lower gears maybe? Prevent stress on front drive shaft??

jahquan3

Very interesting thread. Is the added weight of the AWD of any consequence or is that to small of a factor to make a real world difference?

PeterUbers

I recall reading that it only added about 150 pounds which essentially would be of no consequence. Now if you have a rear wheel drive car with no panoramic roof ....about 200 pounds or more of savings ....that could be a real world difference

vikingdiesel

weight of AWD and drive train loss

PeterUbers

So at 130mph when the rear drive car overtakes the awd... You'll see the "real world" difference ... Which I believe is jail time

Georgee6086

I don't think one video on the Internet justifies this comment. Plus how many times do you really line up a race at a red light and nail it for 1/4 mile at a traffic light in the city? Never I bet. But I'm sure there are way more times that your cruising on the hwy 60-70mph and a BMW or vette etc.. pull up next to you and you both nail it.