Just saw a friend of mine who bought a new Mercedes Benz s500 4-matic. Showed me a couple of things about the car. Walking up to it automatically unlocks the doors, and no key needed to start, just push the button on top of the gear shift!!:wow:

 

For the money that baby costs It sould have an auto BJ machine! Doesn't have blue tooth DVD and is a ton slower than the TL. The S series is the epitome of diminishing returns. The S series is meant as a phat car for the owner to sit in the back!

 

http://www.autosite.com/new/grabbag/perform/3384.asp

2003 S500 4Matic Sdn C&D May-03 5.0 V-8/5A 0-60, s. 6.10
70-0 Braking, ft. 172.00
1/4 Mile, s. 14.60
Skidpad, g. 0.77
Top Speed, mph 132.00

14.6. Not bad for a nearly 4400 lb AWD car. Of course, 339 lb-ft of torque at only 2700 rpm from that 5.0L V8 probably helps just a tad. That's 101 lb-ft more than the TL makes at its peak of 5000rpm with possibly somewhat less of that at 2700rpm for a strong push off the line. And Mercedes is well known to under-rate a lot of their engines also, so who knows what it's really cranking out.

Peace.

 

What about S55. It is only 30K (1 TL) more that S500, has 493bhp engine, gets to 60mph in 4.5 sec. I believe it is much better value than TL. I'd rather have 1 S55 than 4 TLs.

 

S55's produce more than 500 hp


the new E55's are rated at 460 or so and they're dynoed at 500+ crankshaft...

 

A quick note on the E55. One of my collegues from work bought one as soon as they came out The car spends as much time in the dealer as it spends with him. The lemon lawsuit was in court after 3mths. Mercedes is the most overrated car company in the world. Chrystler is the best evidence of that, Crossfire anyone???

 

The infamous "Treynor" dynoed his S600 stock at like 470 rwhp when the crank rating was 497 bhp. In reality that's more like 600 bhp. Not surprising considering the car weighs a ton and runs mid-12's @ 117 or something sick like that.

I've also seen a dyno for a stock C32 AMG. Dynoed at like 310 rwhp when it's rated at 349 bhp. That's really more like 400 bhp. Also not surprising considering it'll run right with or beat a 333hp E46 M3 while also being larger, heavier, and having an automatic.

According to SAE technical documentation, automatics will generally show up with a "loss" of about 22-23% on Dynojet dynos, so that's what the above "estimates" of crank power are based on.

Anyhow, Benzos will really haul, even if the specs for them don't really seem all that special.

 

lol, a lot of people out there feel the same way about Hondas. Can't say that I necessarily share that view, but merely that I understand how they can feel that way. Whenever there's lots of hype surrounding cars (Hondas, Acuras, Benz, BMW, etc), the hype can often get in the way of true honesty about the cars and their capabilities. Leads to people thinking that the cars are much better than they really are and hence, overrated.

 

speeking of Treynor:



nice smokey burnout in his RENNtech modified TT V12 S600.

 

What? 400hp? excuse me? 310 at the wheels is just 10hp short than what all my friends with 350hp Vette Coupes are pulling bonestock. So, does that mean that my Z06 that put 385 at the wheels is pulling ~480 at the crank? gimme a break!

G.

 

A Z06 man

I have a ZR-1

 

Lots of people underrate Benzo's. Not all of them are quick but a select few truely are (the 500's and the ///AMGs). My last car was a '01 CLK55 and it was quicker from zero to 100MPH than the same year Corvette (non-Z-06). 342HP (rated), 376ft/lbs torque. Zero to sixty in 4.9 bone stock. 109 quarter miles

 

Whats up Zfactor. A ZR-1, thats is quite nice man! Which one, the 400hp one? Any pics?
Have you seen the new horrendous C6?, or should I say the '05 Azvette.


ndabunka...
The C5 coupe is rated at 350 hp.
The stock coupe runs 0-60mph in 4.7 seconds.
CLK is rated at 4.9 you say? Upps. Guess it cannot beat the coupe.
The '01 CLK55 is rated 12.8 from 0-100mph, that's fast, but not that fast.
The '01 Vette Coupe is rated 11.1 from 0-100mph. Guess it will get its doors blown by that '****ty' Vette.

On top of that, the '01 CLK55 weights 3575 lbs, the Vette coupe weights 3214 lbs. Sorry, the vette will take the CLK55 any day. Just work the math, power to weight ratio. 8 hp less power and 300 lbs more weight...

CLK -> 10.45 lbs per hp
Vette -> 9.18 lbs per hp.

BTW, I like my TL a lot.

G.

 

You do realize that automatics aren't as efficient as manuals, right?

 

Not totally true.
They aren't as fuel efficient as manuals because they have different gear ratios and usually 1 or 2 gears less than manuals, thats why they are less fuel efficient (thats why new autos tend to be closer to the manuals now)

Now, a gear is a gear, the power loss between enganged gears is the same regardless of the engagement method, either manually or by an actuator.
Auto Vettes were pulling around 308-317 hp also.

G.

 

^in response to above^



what he means by that is they have more driveline power loss. it is true.

 

a manual transfers power directly via cogs. while some driveline loss occurs its not as much as an automatic which uses hydraulic fluid. and with a manual a good driver can shift much quicker than your average automatic.

 

Not true either. A normal human shifting takes between 0.5-0.6 seconds, a decent performance auto shifter changes in 0.2-03.

G.

 

lilirish has got a S500 or some new mercedes, ask him if u got questions

 

this is apples to oranges, considering most factory autos are tuned for nice slooooooooow lux shifts. Do some valvebody or shift kit mods and that story changes, though. But for stock auto vs stock manual on most cars, you'll be able to shift much quicker when rowing your own gears.

 

Thanks for the info.
If the Vette is faster than the MBs or the TLs, who cares!. I drive those cars because I just happen to like them a lot. Thats all. As long as you're happy with what you drive, then thats it.

In any case, I am very happy with my TL. MBs are just way overpriced for my taste. Its very cool to have doors that automatically close if you fail to close them properly, or a 24 way power seat with a 28 zone climate control. However, I think the TL is awesome with the things it has.
After all, what the Europeans and Americans happen to invent, the Japanese will make it smaller, cheaper and more efficient.
What other car can you get today for 35k with an 8 inch navigation touch screen, voice activated commands and all the TL gadgets?

G.

 

stop making crap up what i said is true. ok. thanks.

 

besides, with same model cars the manuals always post better times than the autos. this is true for vettes, 330's, 540's, G35's, the list goes on. why do you suppose that is?... because of lower driveline loss and quicker shifts.

 

Dude, I am not making crap up. The new series 55 ///AMGs auto shifter shifts in just 0.15 seconds. There is no human that can shift that fast. So, take it easy, allright.

The ///AMG 55 series gets such an awesome times because, aside from the 493 hp motor, they have an average of 0.4 secs advantage over any human shifting gears. If you screw/miss/hit the limiter on a single shift when racing vs. a new 55 ///AMG, chances are you're going to get beat on the straight. period.

To pull the 0-60mph in 3.9 that the Z06 is supposed to do, GM had to use a technique called clutchless shifting. Mr. John Heinricy was the guy who managed to pull the 0-60mph in just 3.9 seconds in a Z06. When they decided to use clutchless shifting is for a reason, why? because its a bit faster!

G.

PS. The reason why most automatics post worse times than the manual is mainly due to the gearing, not the motor or the shifter. 4 gears vs. 6 gears is a lot of difference. You need to spacce out 4 gears over the same speed range a 6 speed gearbox has. Therefore, something has to give.

 

5-10% less power at the wheels and a 60 lb average weight penalty probably is a good chunk of that too.

But I agree with you. On very hi-po cars, there's just too much power for "most" manual drivers to be able to fully control - so the auto versions in that case can post just as good if not better times, along with being a lot more consistent. That's why most hardcore drag racers pretty much all use automatics.

 

what are you getting at? where is this going?

can we not agree that manuals are more drivline efficient than autos. because they are. go to any shop with a dyno. ask them what %'s they use when calculating driveline loss for autos and manuals. i thnk on average auto has 5-8% more loss. might even be more. simply put, manuals transmit more power to the ground, if only a little. that was SteVTEC's original point.

and where are you getting these numbers you keep posting? list your references if youre going to claim these #'s as fact.

why is this even becoming an arguement. sure automatics have reduced the gap quite a bit in rescent years. and sure they are going to be more consistent performers. thats not what we are arguing.

but this all started when you decided to dispute the difference in efficiency (per driveline loss), which does exist. dont know why it was even brought into this discussion really.

 

good point.

 

Weight can potentially be true, but when you take 60 lbs more or less on a 4200 lbs car then it becomes pocket change. In a 1200 lbs car that might have some effect tho.

I just don't understand where those extra 5-10 percent is lost on an auto shifter. I might give it a 1 or 2 more percent for running the internals on the shifter, but 5-10 percent?

Formula 1 uses basically an automatic shifter that the driver has control over. F1 shifters shift automatically up, but you need to shift it down manually. Does this mean that the F1 guys need to start using 7speed manual shifters?

G.

 

A manual tranny uses direct mechanical coupling which is very efficient - lossless - unless your clutch is slipping . An auto tranny uses fluid coupling via the torque converter which is less efficient by maybe 2-3%. And because an auto tranny is bigger, it also has more inertial losses on acceleration than a manual which can be another maybe 1-2%. Usually the difference is about 5% between auto and manual, but a very good manual vs a cruddy auto can show a higher difference. There are lots of variables, though.

Those are really manual trannys much like the BMW SMG and SMGII - fully computer controlled manual gearboxes. They don't use torque converters.

 

are you clueless? an F1 transmission is an electronicaly actuated clutch that controls a manual transmission. do you not know the mechanical difference between an auto and a manual? they are not the same. in a manual you are connecting gear cog to gear cog (hence the more direct power delivery). with a traditional auto (not the F1 or SMG's optional on BMW's and ferrari's) power is transmitted through hydraulic fluid, therefore the higher loss and greater weight.

 

SteVTEC beat me to it. and explained it better.

so do you get it now?

 

you would think the alleged Z06 owner would be more educated on this subject.

 

I used an accelerometer to measure my shifting speed with the last 5 cars I've owned. All manuals. My best time is about 0.42 seconds, thats with a short throw shifter on a '96 Probe GT. I compared those times to some web sites that contain shifting speeds and I think those are good for a normal guy. That is my personal time referece.

Now, here are some references.

http://passengercars.mercedes-benz.c..._Article10.asp

This has very interesting comments about shifting speeds.

Here is a good place to read about shifting gears. 0.3-0.8 seconds.

http://www.car-videos.com/contact/faq.asp

Not bad, but the M3 SMG is just 0.02 seconds shift, I think that is a bit faster. When compared to the 6-speed that the guy took 0.87 seconds total time for all the shifts is not a bad thing. If you make those 0.87 shifting seconds go away, all the sudden you have a car that is a second faster!

http://www.europeancarweb.com/tech/0212ec_bmwtech/

Anyways. If you think you're right, well, there is nothing I can do to help it so, good luck.

Roger..out.

G.

 

The new AMG gearboxes use a locking torque converter, that makes them way more efficient and reduces the shifting times by a considerable amount. So, AMG gearboxes are not your typical Geo Metro autoshifter that indeed takes 2 hours to shift.

SMG is very fast, yes, it is a manual tranny, yes, but see, it was turned into a sequential automatic. Basically like what you said, an F1 gearbox.

BTW, I haven't insulted any of you, so I would appreciate if you go call clueless somebody else. I can have a discussion in a civilized manner, but not that way.

G.

 

What is the problem memyslefandi? huh? "alleged Z06 owner"? What is that supposed to mean? Need any proof I have a Z06? Does the fact of having a Z06 make me a know-it-all, like you think you're?. I don't think so.

I am done with this conversation.

G.

 

SMG = "sequential manual"

Pretty much all automatic transmissions use locking torque converters. I can't think of any these days that don't. They "usually" don't lock at full throttle though. Usually just during cruise to increase efficiency and reduce that slippage. I wouldn't be surprised if AMG had a few tricks of their sleeves though.

 

you are clueless if you dont know the mechanical difference between an auto and a manual. and then try to argue the difference in performance when you dont have an understanding as to why there is one.

that alone causes me to doubt you are a Z06 owner. and if you are you are a poser. not an enthusiast.

im not going to ask you to provide proof of your Z06. why do you care if i believe that or not anyway? im just some chump on a forum.

just dont argue subjects in which you obviously lack the knowledge of the very basics.

 

um ........ we are.

 

look, im not gonna argure which is superior, SMG, Man. or Auto. they all have thier pros/cons. the original point, which you tried to argue, is that manuals do transmit more power to the ground. even if the difference is reletively small, it is there. that cannot be disputed. so lets all move on.