ummm.. L,O,L

 

i have been up to 120 and thats it... too damn fast for me.... its like flying by people as they are standing still...

crazy feeling... i cant imagine what 150 or even 140 feels like.... shyt

 

look guys I have no reason to make this up. The only reason I posted this was cause I could not believe it myself. My speedo read 160mph from the drivers seat. I dont know anything about the Merc other than if they were willing to go 140mph why wouldnt they go 160? I guess next time i'll take a picture of the speedo to prove it. I did not expect the backlash that this thread caused...be that as it may I stand by my record. thanks,
liQiCE & MattG
The things is that the SL and I were playn tag at well over 100mph for 20min then we finally got passed all the traffic and took off. we both were at least going 110-120 for 5 or 6 miles so i don't think the driver was affraid...It was no fly by either once my speedo read 160 I slowed down to 115-120mph and the SL caught up and passed me. So maybe I did not actually do 160mph on radar....but my needle toped out @ 160.

 

are you on stock tires?

 

your speedo is innaccurate then.

The CLS won't go 160 on flat ground.

 

Forget the limiter... I doubt the CL-S has a drag coefficient low enough and enough horsepower to get it up to 160 MPH.

 

maybe not... .but how come fourth can go to top speed 148 w/o redlining? if 5th wasnt restricted maybe it could push up that high ?

 

not possible, unless you have a decent amount of mods. i think 160 is possible with my setup, because before the blower i hit the limiter quite easily (slightly downhill)
but with the limiter, the only thing we can do is hit 147!

 

what is the rpm @ 148 mph, anyone know?

 

I think it's mid to high 5's.

 

I'm on Kumho ecsta supra 712 225/45-ZR 17. Let me make this clear. I am not saying that in a flat out race the SL 500 would not pull away with ease.(it was not the AMG) What I am saying is my top speed must be higher. Just like a EVO 8 would blow my f*#kn doors off..but given the chance on a open road I could pass the EVO cause it is limited to 133mph

 

Close to the redline in 4th. You don't even need 5th to hit top speed with the auto.

 

that would make your speedo read higher than on stock tires.


how does the ecu sense vehicle speed, is it dependant on rpm in a certain gear? anybody know?

 

You'd probably go slower in 5th than in 4th because 5th is such an undedriven gear.

 

No its not. The Evo will do near 150 easy.

 

wheel speed sensor

 

EVO has much shorter gearing and will not top out as fast as the CL-S

 

Not to mag race but I remember seeing in Car & Driver that the Evo had a top speed near 150.

 

He'd still be going 157 with that set up though... 157, 160... what's the difference?

 

Price: $28,987
Miles Per Gallon: 18/26 mpg
Curb Weight: 3263 lbs
Layout: Front-Engine/AWD
Transmission: 5-Speed Manual
Engine
Type: Turbocharged Inline-4
Displacement: 1997 cc
Horsepower: 271 bhp @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 273 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Redline: 7000 rpm
Performance
0-60 mph: 4.7 sec
0-100 mph: 12.45 sec
Quarter Mile: 13.08 sec @ 105 mph
Skidpad: .98g
Top Speed: 157 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 106 ft
Slalom Speed: 71.4 mph

 

i don't know whether hes BS'ing or not, but I like his avatar

 

Black... I must have been thinking STi... that is most definetely a lower top speed. They are in 5th gear at the end of the 1/4 mile.

 

Someone here a while back did some calculations on the maximum speed that could be attained by the CL Type S based on the drag coefficient and horsepower (I think it was EricL, but may be wrong). The top speed that our car can obtain was pretty close to the speed governed 147 MPH. Unless you have a significant horsepower boost, or are driving in a medium less dense then air, 160 MPH of real speed cannot be obtained in this car.

Here's a link to a top speed calculator: http://davewin.com/tech/horsepower_calc.shtml
The coefficient of drag for the CL has been estimated at 0.32 (as far as I know, it's never been published). I'm not sure on the frontal area though. This calculator takes vehicle weight into effect, but I thought that weight mattered little for top speed calculations

 

Yeah... the STI has a top speed in the 130s.

 

A rough estimate of frontal area can be obtained by this formual:

((width*height)/144)*0.8

^ Inches

This gives the CL a frontal area of about 21.583 square feet.

 

According to that calculator, with the following variables:

Cd = 0.32
Frontal Area = 21.583
Weight 3525+175 (driver) = 3800
Speed = 160

Gives you 213 horsepower. Seems like 160 might be possible considering those figures.

 

OK, from the original Acura CL brochure:

width=70.6"
height=55.5"

(70.6*55.5/144)*0.8=21.77 ft^2


Hmm. Put into the calculator that I linked that puts 160 MPH for 211 HP at the wheels. Doable.

Somehow I remember someone calculating the top speed closer to 150 MPH.

Maybe you have to use the gearing calculator too?

Where's EricL when you need him?

 

Weight has little to do with top speed, I don't know why that is included in this calculator.

 

Gearing most definitely has something to do with it

 

Yes, that's what I thought too.

 

The EVO comparison was just that. I read its top speed was 133mph. I could compare the CL to any car that has a top speed limiter. I'm just say'n that my CL read 160mph on the speedo thats all I'm try'n to say. Tire size, downhill, wind aided whatever it doesnt matter I did it. I don't think many of the members can say that.

 

If a 110hp/90whp 2.0 8V VW can fly down the autobanh at 160mph (granted, it took ahile to get up there), I'm sure a 260hp CL can do the same, granted the governor is removed.

 

Because many members don't have the flag raised in their posts

 

I used an iterative process that was used to calculate gearing. The process was specificially designed for a motorcycle -- or other vehicle -- that would allow for easy changing of final drive ratios. In the case of "some" bikes, a change in sprocket would do nicely. The process/formula used the top speed from a change in gearing (with known torque) and/or the top speed produced by two different gears (this assumes that the gears were not rev limited and that the top speed in each gear was a result of power == total drag).

The quoted CD has been quoted as being close to 0.32. I'm not too sure that you're going to get an exact figure based on cross section, CD, and HP.

The stock car has the wrong gearing and the figures pushed around are predicated on the car having the gearing optimized. Sorry to say, but the gearing is NOT optimized.


I am still looking for that original posting, but I quoted part of it in a later posting (here are the results):

The page and posting -- that are now MIA -- related the speed on the car in 4th and 5th gear to arrive at a guesstimate of what the car's top speed is.

I had gotten a few people to post their max speed in 4th and 5th to arrive at some "rough" figures. Some folks were thinking they could do 160, 170, whatever, and the aero drag is increasing at the velocity squared.

This basically gets you the frontal drag, but there are also other drag sources: the tires, vortices, surface issues, etc, etc. IMO, the largest source of drag, at top speed, is the aerodynamic drag (coeff * CD * A * V^2)


The procedure I found and used with user data is NO longer on this website. I can find references to it in some of the earliest postings, but my earliest postings are gone. I used the top speed of 4th and 5th gears with their top speeds (and relative torque) to compute the actual "drag" of the CL Type-S. (You have two different torque values in each gear and combined with the different relative top speeds, you can get the “actual” drag.)

I had asked a number of people for their best high speed results for 4th and 5th gears and used that along with the now "lost" formula to compute the "actual" drag. If you know the actual drag and presume that the bulk of the drag is coming from the aero forces, you can predict the car's top speed with certain amounts of wheel HP.


If I can find the formula, iterative procedure – it’s been three years – I’ll post it again.

 

Thanks for the input EricL -- I remembered the nice calculation and explanation that you gave years ago. Hopefully if you find it again it'll be put in the FAQ/Useful Topic Section for posterity.

 

Damn, I thought maybe he was on some 13 inch rims. If that was the case you could probably get the speedo up to 160 with ease.

 

He's got I/H/E, so that statement from EricL means that his statement was completely possible. I don't know why people have to raise the BS flag so quickly around here. I got my 3.0 up to 135 when it was still stock once. Was fucking crazy and I think I would have a heart attack at 160, but still, it's possible for that shit to happen.

What are you people going to say now about this post?

 

Remember: I am not commenting on the action of the:

1. Speed limiter
2. Tire size (would still limit the indicated velocity due to the top-speed limiter as opposed to the "actual"/”true” velocity).
3. Speedo error
4. Tail wind and/or head wind.

I'm only commenting on what's possible with no limiter, with stock tire diamter (actual loaded radius), stock gearing, dead air, and temperatures close to 70-degrees F (or less).

To just toss some ideas into the mix: If you had a 40-MPH-tail wind, you could easily do 160 in the CLS if it didn't have a top-speed limiter.

 

that there is still a speed limiter

 

How do you guys get the 3.0 higher than 130mph? It takes so long just to get there (I've only tried toping it out once, all the other times I chickened out).

I've hit 155mph in my VR-4, and it was damn scary (on the toll roads), knowing that one mistake would end your life.