Activity Stream

Sort By Time Show
Recent Recent Popular Popular Anytime Anytime Last 24 Hours Last 24 Hours Last 7 Days Last 7 Days Last 30 Days Last 30 Days All All Photos Photos Forum Forums Articles Articles
Filter by: Popular Articles Clear All
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-28-2015, 03:33 PM
    The N54 3.0 liter turbocharged inline-6 is a strong BMW motor that takes boost (and abuse) well. That does not mean it is indestructible as nothing is. BimmerBoost member @Xearom3 unfortunately put a hole in his block but he shared what, how, and when it happened. Most people tend to sweep these things under the rug as if it is some sort of embarrassment or it reflects badly on them. Usually it is tuners as often something they did is responsible for the failure. This one appears to be old fashioned detonation and bad luck with the ECU not being able to spare the motor in time. So, he put a hole in the block but is taking it in stride sharing the details and he has a spare motor to build which will be able to take much more abuse. Hey, shit happens when pushing motors and running them hard at power/torque levels they were not designed for. Respect from BimmerBoost to @Xearom3 for sharing these photos and details: So I figured I would share my experience with the community. Was out making a couple of pulls @ 25/26psi on my PTE 6466 twin scroll setup when cylinder 1 decided to give up on me. Not surprised a stock engine let go at mid to upper 600's, but I am impressed how long it hung in there. Put up a hell of a fight! Pics at the very bottom of my spare engine that apparently is now gonna get built. Log is from earlier in the evening: Also happened to have my GoPro watching the cluster:
    199 replies | 2138 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-13-2015, 12:13 PM
    What a difference a different dynamometer can make. For forum bragging, there is no better dyno than the Dynojet. It is consistent and tends to produce the highest numbers which owners of course love to dyno race with. The Mustang being a load bearing and not an inertia based dyno functions differently and also provides different numbers. People get caught up in the numbers and attempting to explain that different machines can produce wildly different results even on the same car is often a lost cause. The average person will see figure X, see it is higher than figure Y, and leave it at that without delving any further into it. What you are about to see is just how much the numbers can vary and why dyno racing should be not be taken seriously. This 6-speed manual F10 M5 features the following modifications and was run on 93 octane pump fuel: - Undercover Performance 3 inch catless downpipes - Undercover Performance catless exhaust - BMS JB4 tuning Dynojet figures 620 lb-ft of torque and 659 whp: Mustang figures 553 lb-ft of torque and 544 whp: That is a spread of 115 horsepower at the wheels and 67 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on the exact same car with the only difference being different dyno machines. The output never changes. The way it is displayed to you is the only change. Does the Mustang deserve its reputation as being a conservative dyno in comparison to the Dynojet? It sure does. But do not get too caught up in its figures either. It can easily be messed with to display whatever the operator wants it to display. When used properly dynos are great tools. It's the tools running around with inflated graphs for frum bragging rights that one has to worry about.
    41 replies | 2086 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-22-2015, 02:09 PM
    A twin turbo S85 V10? That is what the boosted BMW world has been missing. Well, at least in a street car. This is a bit of a premature post as there is a long way to go but our friend @Dr.Tamirlan from Russia shared some pictures and details on his build. You get a couple shots of the turbos mounted and the manifolds which are nice to see. BimmerBoost can say for the record they saw these manifolds almost two years ago in person so that gives you an idea of how long this process is. Additionally, BimmerBoost can say from experience that @Dr.Tamirlan better have a lot of patience and a lot of money. To do what he asks is going to take some serious work to the block. The power will be there with some big turbos and the V10, do not worry about that. Worry about keeping the motor together. BimmerBoost also from speaking with Gintani knows they have tricks up their sleeves for strengthening these blocks but the S85 is a better candidate than the S65 V8 for big power anyway due to its larger size, better oiling system, and offering slightly more material. The DCT swap is not as big of a wildcard here as people might think. Dodson is willing to work with Gintani regarding the transmission so they will be able to keep it together. The challenge once again is the block due to its soft and lightweight aluminum-silicon material. We wish our Russian friend luck with his project. The result certainly would be something to behold and it would challenge for the top street BMW spot in the world.
    37 replies | 1517 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-08-2015, 08:02 AM
    Mid 10 second stock internal supercharged E92 M3's are becoming more common as more owners take them to the strip. The record currently is 10.46 @ 135.13 but that is from a heavily stripped out car running in negative density altitude with some question marks regarding the fuel and boost used. Regardless, mid 10 second performance is about what one can expect on a well prepped strip from a supercharged DCT M3 pushing 8+ psi on drag rubber. This car ran 10.5 - 10.6 all day but in the process broke its driveshaft. Things break on the strip, that is how it is. The better prepped it is the better the chance is of something breaking as the torque has to go somewhere if the tires are hooking and not spinning. The 60 foots for the most part are in the 1.7X range which makes it somewhat surprising that the driveshaft gave as nobody else who has launched in this range has broken one. It could be a bad shaft or it could just be time for an upgrade to a DSS carbon unit. Based on the 60 foot it does not look like launch control (capable of 6200 rpm launches) was used. With a supercharger 1.5X-1.6X 60 foots should be possible as bolt on cars have done 1.7X's. The car was not pushed as hard as it could and should be out of hole. The car is running Dodson upgraded clutches and Dodson is the only company to have a real working solution for the BMW M3 DCT. The proof is in the 1/4 mile results. The claim is the car ran on 93 octane but when people claim pump it is best to assume race gas or some kind of octane boost (possibly from meth injection). If trying to set records why run pump gas unless you want to act like there is soooo much more in it? Undercover Performance prepped the car and plans to retune it. There will probably be more boost and some more octane with a more aggressive file if some of these things did not already take place. Regardless, mid 10's are essentially the norm now. There is room to hit low 10's. It's a shame more supercharged cars do not hit the strip but most M3 owners tend to be the kinds of people who are afraid of breaking things instead of pushing things. The runs were done at ATCO (one of the fastest East Coast strips) in negative density altitude up to -470 on.
    28 replies | 1740 view(s)
  • Terry@BMS's Avatar
    04-27-2015, 05:54 PM
    Had a chance to meet up with Payam today to tune his new PTE 6466 G2 twin scroll turbocharger. He's running our port injection and a full fuel-it kit (regulator & return line). 100% E85. Per usual I have a limited amount of time so I'll just share the highlights. 1) The 6466 G2 in a twin scroll works really well. Great boost potential and very good HP per PSI. 2) We found Payam's car wanted a lot less timing than I'm used to giving E85 cars. Around 7.5 degrees up top. 3) I tried a few VANOS curves and found the basic Cobb curves worked better than what we have in our ST back end flash files. Better spool and more power. Sigh. I think I'll just change those all back. 4) He ran in to timing drops around 30psi that we couldn't fix by lowering advance further so decided to call it a day for now. Hopefully it runs well at NFZ this weekend!
    32 replies | 1006 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-15-2015, 04:52 AM
    This is not a new story but the only way to combat ignorance is with knowledge and data. Fortunately, there are members in the BimmerBoost community who provide quality data such as what you are about to see below and thanks to them we can differentiate between marketing and reality. The marketing is that the F82 M3 as well as the F80 M3 weigh 3306 pounds. What BMW left out was this weight comes from a European spec F82/F80 (they have different crash test standard affecting whether seats with side impact airbags are used) that is a 6-speed manual without any fluids whatsoever. In other words, it's a bunch of BS. Almost exactly one year to the day BimmerBoost posted an indepently weighed figure for an F80 6-speed manual M3 and it came in at 3562 pounds: This year thanks to member @DD GT3 RD (who also weighed his 991 GTS while he has was it) we have an independent weight figure for an F82 M4 DCT and it is 3661 pounds: Does the DCT add weight? Yes. It is not almost 100 pounds though but the difference between the lighter 6-speed F80 M3 and the DCT F82 M4 can be attributed to the transmission as well as fuel. The rule of thumb for fuel is about 6 pounds per gallon of gas. So how do the F80 M3 and F82 M4 compare to a DCT E92 M3? The previous generation car comes in as lighter than either of them at 3549 pounds. Yes, turbochargers, intercoolers, and plumbing add weight so BMW's hype was nothing more than hype. The aluminum-silicon S65 V8 block in the E92 M3 is very light and compact and this also leads to the previous generation car having better weight distribution. Do not believe everything you read. Especially if it's marketing from BMW.
    23 replies | 2029 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-17-2015, 05:12 AM
    It is becoming increasingly apparent that the MKVII Volkswagen Golf R is an 11 second car with bolt ons. APR recently managed 12.011 @ 113.44 in the 1/4 mile out of the car with their Stage 1 tune on 93 octane and an intake. In other words, a hair from the 11's. Race gas alone would probably do it. With a 1.734 60 foot the all wheel drive system is showing its benefits off the line. It is just a matter of time before we see a US spec MKVII Golf R in the 11's and this just further reinforces the results from a US spec tuned Golf R we saw earlier this month. This is a new record though and 113.44 is the new fastest trap speed for US spec Golf R's once again. ROW cars are already in the 11's. With race gas these cars should be doing 11's and 115+ traps all day.
    38 replies | 517 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-26-2015, 05:56 PM
    Car and Driver is the first one to publish test figures for the 2016 ATS-V coupe. They tested the 6-speed manual version and 8-speed automatic test figures will come later. Is the new ATS-V a BMW F82 M4 killer? Not exactly, but it is a decent first attempt. Let's get the acceleration figures for the 464 horsepower and 445 lb-ft of torque 3.6 liter twin turbo V6 out of the way. 0-60 comes in 4.2 seconds, 0-100 in 9.9 seconds, and the 1/4 mile in 12.6 seconds at 115 miles per hour. Not exactly the world beating acceleration performance that the Caddy boss was bragging about. It is roughly even with a manual M3/M4. It is considerably behind Car and Driver's own figures for a DCT 2015 F80 M3 though. Will the 8-speed 8L90 automatic version close the gap? Maybe. It certainly is not 'whipping' the Germans the way Johan de Nysschen claimed and it does not have a horsepower or torque advantage anywhere other than on paper versus BMW. The Mercedes-AMG C63 S outmuscles the ATS-V by the way. Ok, so he was wrong about that. What about his statements on how it would handle, brake, and just drive better than its German rivals? Well, he is wrong there too as Car and Driver's M4 test figures show .99g on the skidpad and the ATS-V hits .97g. Where is the major advantage for the Cadillac? It does not brake any better either. It is also heavier than the BMW M4 at 3760 pounds. As far as the styling inside and out you do not get the same quality the Germans offer and you should for the $74,450 price as tested. Audi, Mercedes, and BMW simply have better looking cars and better looking interiors. Look at this garbage instrument cluster on the ATS-V: The ATS-V just is not as good as the BMW M3/M4. The Mercedes-AMG C63 remains to be seen but but those of us who have seen the the C63 and ATS-V in person (like this writer) can say it also blows the ATS-V away. The C63 has better styling inside and out, the M177 V8 is more powerful, and you are looking at roughly the same money if not less with options. Johan de Nysschen should not have opened his mouth when the ATS-V can not back his words up. The CTS-V likely will and does outmuscle its German competition with comparable quality inside and out. It likely will come in cheaper too. For the same money as its German rivals the ATS-V does not offer enough performance to overcome its deficiencies. Back to the drawing board Cadillac, you got too cocky and couldn't back it up. Specifications VEHICLE TYPE:front-engine, rear-wheel-drive, 4-passenger, 2-door coupe PRICE AS TESTED:$74,450 (base price: $63,660) ENGINE TYPE:twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve V-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection DISPLACEMENT:217 cu in, 3564 cc Power: 464 hp @ 5850 rpm Torque: 445 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm TRANSMISSION:6-speed manual DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase: 109.3 in Length: 184.7 in Width: 72.5 in Height:54.5 in SAE interior volume: F:50 cu ft R: 34 cu ft Trunk volume: 10 cu ftCurb weight: 3760 lb C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 4.2 sec Zero to 100 mph: 9.9 sec Zero to 120 mph: 13.7 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 5.3 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 9.6 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 6.9 sec Standing ¼-mile: 12.6 sec @ 115 mph Top speed (drag ltd, mfr's claim): 185 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 154 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.97 g FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway driving: 16/24* mpg C/D observed: 20 mpg *C/D estimated.
    31 replies | 769 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-29-2015, 02:55 PM
    CAR decided to drag race the Audi RS7 and the BMW F13 M6. Now, the M6 is the lighter car. However, the advantage is in the RS7's court. It has an automatic transmission and all wheel drive so launching it as simple as putting your foot on the brake pedal, other foot on the gas, and then letting go of the brakes. Anyone can do it. The M6 takes a bit more skill and CAR does not seem to have it. Obviously a drag race is all about the launch. The torque these two twin turbo V8's put out is tremendous and the M6 will have traction issues. To get a good launch and actually make this a race the M6 needs drag rubber or at the very least the tire pressure lowered a bit and its tires warmed up to help. Obviously that is not always possible on the street and this result is what most people will see from a stoplight. The RS7 pulling away with no drama as the M6 fights for traction. Unfortunately, CAR provides no data on the trap speed or elapsed times for either car. Jump to to the 1:30 mark in the video to watch the obvious outcome.
    22 replies | 1092 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-22-2015, 01:10 PM
    Here is yet another absurdly quick and fast 1/4 mile time from the Middle East. Recently, on the BenzBoost forums we witnessed that the something was 'wrong' with a slip and the Yas Marina track was said to be miscalibrated. We wonder just how many tracks in the Middle East are miscalibrated. If we sound skeptical that is because we are. These times are absurdly fast compared to anything else out there. Are they possible with a Porsche 991 Turbo S? Sure, with these mods they are possible: AAP Custon Ecu tune ( remap stock ecu) Custom upgraded Turbos Custom Exhaust system Rear Tyres Toyo R888 We just have to wonder why nobody in the US is matching them or even close. Assuming the is calibrated correctly and the mod list is accurate, this performance is stunning and Al Anabi Racing deserves all the credit in the world. We hope to hear more about these turbos, AAP's tuning, and how the PDK is holding up to what is apparently 800+ all wheel horsepower. What about the fueling? A lot of question marks here but the car clearly hustles.
    28 replies | 444 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-13-2015, 11:42 AM
    This is a very odd result. It does not even make much sense really. Yes, the Porsche 991 generation Porsche 911 Turbo is slightly more powerful at 530 horsepower and 483 lb-ft of torque from its 3.8 liter twin turbo flat-6 than the AMG GT S with its 510 horsepower and 479 lb-ft of torque 4.0 liter twin turbo V8 M178 powerplant. Recently, we witnessed the AMG GT S just easily pull away from a Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS as it should considering the 911 GTS is just overmatched. Based on the specifications alone the 911 Turbo and AMG GT S should be a pretty close fight considering the the power is very close between the two and the AMG GT S is sending its power to the rear wheels and not all four. It is also a brand new chassis and also features a dual clutch transmission. 0-60 figures of course will favor the all wheel drive 911 Turbo and they do at 2.9 seconds to the AMG GT S 3.7 second sprint. What is truly is puzzling is the 911 Turbo is just over a full second faster to 124 miles per hour than the GT S. It is almost a full second faster to 100 miles per hour as well (.9) so its advantage is actually increasing with speed. What else is odd here? The 911 Turbo is lighter. Autobild weighs it at 3567 pounds and the AMG GT S at 3679 pounds. Why the AMG GT S is that heavy when it is rear wheel drive and fairly compact is a mystery to us. Ok, fine, but what about performance around the track? The AMG GT S is absolutely destroyed on the Nurburgring Nordschleife turning a 8:10.10 minute laptime compared to the 991 Turbo 7:59.20. Keep in mind these are not hired guns from the manufacturer extracting laptimes but a difference of over 10 seconds between the cars? Really? It's not just the Nurburgring either, the Sachsenring time for the 911 Turbo is seconds ahead as well: This test just does not feel right. We're not saying Autobild is misleading anyone or anything of that sort but we definitely want to see more comparisons from other sources. Vehicle data Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Motor V8 Biturbo Six-cylinder, turbo Mounting position forward along backward along Valves / camshaft 4 per cylinder / 4 4 per cylinder / 4 Camshaft drive Chain Chain Capacity 3982 cc 3800 cc kW (hp) at 1 / min 375 (510) / 6500 383 (520) / 6500 Nm at 1 / min 650/1750 660/1950 Vmax 310 km / h 315 km / h Transmission Seven-speed dual clutch Seven-speed dual clutch Drive Rear-wheel drive Four-wheel drive Brakes, front / rear Discs / wheels Discs / wheels Test car tires v 265/35 R 19 Y -. h 295/30 ZR 20. v 245/35 R 20 Y -. h 305/30 R 20 Y. Tire Type Michelin Pilot Super Sport Pirelli PZero Wheel Size v. 9 x 19 "- h 11 x 20". v. 8.5 x 20 "- h 11 x 20". Exhaust CO2 219 g / km 227 g / km Consumption * 12.2 / 7.8 / 9.4 l 13.2 / 7.7 / 9.7 l Fuel capacity 65 l / Super Plus 68 l / Super Plus Refrigerant R134a R134a Pass-by noise 74 dB (A) 73 dB (A) Trailer weight braked. / Unused. no no Boot volume 285-350 l 115-375 l Length Width Height 4563 / 1939-2075 ** / 1288 mm 4506 / 1880-1978 ** / 1296 mm * City / highway / total 100 km; ** Width with door mirrors Readings Mercedes-AMG GT S Porsche 911 Turbo Acceleration 0-50 km / h 1.8 s 1.1 s 0-100 km / h 3.7 s 2.9 s 0-130 km / h 5.4 s 4.5 s 0-160 km / h 7.5 s 6.6 s 0-200 km / h 11.4 s 10.3 s Intermediate sprint 60-100 km / h 1.9 s 1.5 s 80-120 km / h 2.0 s 1.8 s Empty weight / payload 1669/221 kg 1618/372 kg Weight distribution v. / H. 48/52% 39/61% Tropic left / right 11.7 / 11.8 m 10.4 / 10.3 m Braking distance from 100 km / h cold 35.8 m 33.3 m from 100 km / h hot 34.5 m 32.5 m Interior noise at 50 km / h 66 dB (A) 64 dB (A) at 100 km / h 70 dB (A) 72 dB (A) at 130 km / h 75 dB (A) 76 dB (A) Test consumption - CO2 14.5 liters - 344 g / km 12.6 liters - 300 g / km Reach 440 km 530 km
    19 replies | 949 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-22-2015, 07:15 PM
    Introducing the new RS1M series of Monoblok wheels from HRE. The basic styles you see may be familiar as they are HRE classics and the RS1M series is the latest iteration and evolution. The RS100M, RS101M, RS102M, RS103M, RS105M, and RS108M are all a solid single piece wheel and as you gathered the design takes cues from 3-piece HRE's. The Monoblok setup makes the design look elegant and essentially at home on anything. The wheels are available in sizes from 19 to 22 inches and with widths from 8 to 13 inches. You can also get this series in center locking fitment. Try to say the the RS100M does not look at home on this 991 Turbo S. Just try. Without drooling. RS100M: RS101M: RS102M: RS103M: RS105M: RS108M: THE NEW ELEGANT: HRE SERIES RS1M The all-new Series RS1M takes styling cues from three-piece sibling to create the perfect grouping of Monoblok wheels San Diego, Calif. (April 2015) – HRE has continually refined its Monoblok wheels since pioneering the 1-piece forged wheel trend with the launch of the original P40 in 2006. The latest Series RS1M is the perfect evolution of the sophisticated engineering and elegant styling that has made HRE’s Monoblok wheels famous. The result is a wheel series that is right at home on everything from a Porsche 911 to a Mercedes-Benz S-Class. The Series RS1M debuts with six new styles, including the 9-spoke mesh RS100M, the 7-spoke split RS101M, the 5-spoke twist RS102M, the 13-spoke multi RS103M, the solid 5-spoke RS105M, and the 7-spoke RS108M. The Series RS1M is available in diameters ranging from 19 to 22 inches and widths range from 8 to 13 inches. "The RS1M is a perfect example of how in design, usually less is more,” said HRE President Alan Peltier. “In an era when everyone, including HRE, is moving to more and more aggressive designs, sometimes the more difficult and rewarding challenge is simply finding out how to improve on an icon.” All HRE wheels are engineered to minimize unsprung mass and rotational inertia for optimal acceleration, handling and braking performance. Each wheel is built-to-order and there are nearly infinite fitment, color and finish options available for the ultimate custom-tailored wheel buying experience. Center-lock fitments are also available. About HRE Performance Wheels: HRE designs, engineers and manufactures 3-piece and 1-piece forged aluminum alloy wheels for Racing, Performance & Luxury cars and SUVs in their San Diego, California-based, TÜV-approved facility. HRE’s built-to-order wheel sets offer a customized choice of offsets, widths and finishes, resulting in a uniquely personal style and performance solution for each customer’s application. HRE wheels are sold through select high-end car dealerships, specialty retailers and performance companies worldwide. For more information, visit or call an HRE wheel expert at (760) 598-1960.
    8 replies | 2121 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-20-2015, 08:14 PM
    The video below was published in early April but the results were published by MotorTrend back in early March. As we already know what happened there is little point in rehashing the comparison although it is enjoyable to see the cars with a video accompanying the text of course. The reason we are posting this follow up is to do our part in making sure Porsche receives praise for the 918 Spyder and how they are going about testing. Porsche is just giving the keys to the magazines and telling them to go nuts. They aren't sending engineering teams to accompany testing. They aren't saying they will pull advertising. They are not making any threats. They are not trying to control the terms. They are simply letting the car do the talking. Isn't that how it is supposed to be? Last year Porsche had no problem having EVO compare the 918 Spyder and McLaren P1. Ferrari was nowhere to be found deciding to hide in Maranello and act like they are (they were) better than everyone else instead. McLaren unlike Porsche requested a retest on different tires and this changed the results EVO achieved. They pulled something similar with MotorTrend. Porsche just smiled and accepted the original results. They did not bother to change the conditions of the test. Changing the conditions of the test is what Ferrari does best. The latest MotorTrend LaFerrari test illustrates that brilliantly. MotorTrend was allowed to test the LaFerrari under Ferrari's watchful eye on Ferrari's test circuit under Ferrari's terms. Ferrari pulled strings to prevent an independent LaFerrari MotorTrend had lined up from being tested in this particular comparison though. Do you respect that? This network doesn't. Yes, the LaFerrari, along with the 918 and P1 are tremendous achievements. They should all be celebrated. Ferrari has managed to suck the fun and automotive enthusiasm out of this latest generation of supercars. The LaFerrari may actually be the best car of the trio but Ferrari's attitude has dampened what should be a cheerful chapter in automotive history. The point ultimately is, if your car can't speak for you at this level why are you even bothering to play? There is some pride involved, isn't there? But there should also be respect of the competition. Should poor sportsmanship be rewarded? Ferrari shows no respect to the 918 Spyder or the McLaren P1 or anyone but themselves. Therefore they do not deserve any respect from anyone else.
    20 replies | 641 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-24-2015, 01:58 PM
    This network likes EVO. Why? Well, after you watch this video you will understand. British reviews from Autocar or CAR happen to be crap for the most part in comparison. The latter often test in the wet and provides little to no meaningful data. EVO does the best job of blending quality data with subjective points at least as far as British reviews are concerned. The video starts with acceleration figures. The chaps at EVO were smart enough to figure out that maybe they should test the car in the dry and that is what they did. They use launch control, take off, and hit 60 in 2.6 seconds and 100 in 6.2 seconds. The car is blazing fast. Eventually they move to the track. A personal pet peeve is when a magazine will take a car out on the track and not get laptimes. What's the freaking point? Pretty pictures of some drifts? Some subjective points about the steering and chassis? Well, we get all of the above plus a laptime and other laptimes on the same circuit for context. It beats the 458 Speciale but we wonder how much of that is the all wheel drive traction helping on what is a fairly short course. Regardless, it is a highly impressive laptime and just over a second off the 918 Spyder. EVO also points out that Porsche did not send a team. Porsche did not make anyone go to their home office to test the car. They did not monitor the test. They simply threw EVO the keys. It takes two to tango and that is what makes this review so good. Porsche's willingness to allow their car to be tested independently and EVO's work of course. Simply well done and this is why we mentioned Porsche deserves respect and Ferrari deserves none.
    23 replies | 371 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-25-2015, 01:33 PM
    Some awesome smack talk here from Cadillac. Specifically from Cadillac president (and GM Executive Vice President) Johan de Nysschen formerly of Audi. You may remember that Cadillac tried to troll the Germans last month but it came off somewhat forced. This is much better. Much, much better: Strong words from the Cadillac president but it is the type of thing as an enthusiast you like to see. He pulls no punches informing the Germans this is not about horsepower, torque, or acceleration as they are already beaten there. He is right, the LT4 supercharged V8 going in the CTS-V is no joke. He does not just point to the CTS-V but also the new ATS-V models. Cadillac is attacking across the spectrum but it is important to note the cars are being built to be well rounded. That is why de Nysschen brings up handling, braking, steering, and cornering performance. Is Cadillac-V the new Sheriff in town? Let's get the cars on the road first but one has to love the confidence here. This is much better than photoshopping pictures of an ATS-V next to an AMG or M car. The Germans needs a wake up call and if anyone is going to give them one it is going to be the Americans and in the luxury segment specifically Cadillac. Go get 'em boys, show them how overrated the Germans truly are (and have been for some time).
    12 replies | 1563 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-08-2015, 01:21 AM
    It is going to be interesting to see how the AMG GT and Porsche 911 are matched up. The GT S with its 510 horsepower 479 lb-ft of torque M178 powerplant has more power and torque than any Porsche 911 in the lineup other than the 911 Turbo and 911 Turbo S. The 530 horsepower and 483 lb-ft of torque Porsche 911 Turbo starts at $151,100 though. The AMG GT S on the other hand starts at $129,900. That puts it much closer to the $121,895 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 GTS based on pricing but the 3.8 liter flat-6 naturally aspirated mill has 'onlyl 430 horsepower and 324 lb-ft of torque. A mismatch? You bet it is if you are going by raw grunt. The only advantage the 911 GTS has in this comparison is its all wheel drive which will help with traction off the line and the testers at MotorSport magazine in France state the 911 is 176 pounds lighter than the GT S which is hard to believe. The race goes as one would expect with the Porsche taking the lead and the AMG GT S quickly reeling it in and passing it. The 0-400 meter numbers given show the AMG GT S completing the sprint in 11.8 seconds to the 911 Carrera 4 GTS 12.3 seconds. The French being the piss poor drag racers they are do not show any trap speeds, 60 foot or 0-60 figures to indicate the launch quality, or 0-100 numbers. Essentially all we get is elapsed time which is just one part of a much larger puzzle. At least we get something useful out of this but what is clear is that the AMG GTS S is quicker and faster than the Porsche Carrera 4 GTS. With the even more affordable AMG GT model coming it is safe to say the 911 is finally feeling some serious pressure.
    15 replies | 1293 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-08-2015, 09:11 AM
    Well, the cat is finally out of the bag on this one. It was in that bag for a quite a while. Now, you obviously know that Weistec is already doing M133 turbo upgrades for the 45 AMG models and this is something that they announced themselves. The M177/M178 upgrades were supposed to remain under wraps. Just how long have they remained under wraps? How about since June of 2014. Don't believe me? I managed to find these picture on a Polish website way back on June 26, 2014: Ok, this is really weird. This should not be possible and due to that I discount this but I'm having trouble putting my finger on what motor this is. It clearly is a V8 with top mount turbochargers, that much is certain. That means likely the Audi 4.0 TFSI or the BMW N63. I was browsing some Polish website and came across this engine labeled as an M177 and for sale. Sounds just like a scam but what motor is this? Every diagram I'm looking at it doesn't quite match up. Edit: Unedited photos removed by request I posted that thread and it got very little attention. Hell, the cars were not even on the road so who knew what this was? Well, Weistec knew. How did they know? This was their development motor they procured in shipment. Yes, they managed to get an M177/M178 before the cars were even for sale. Why is this a big deal? It shows just how far Weistec's reach has gotten and how far they plan in advance. Also, not to toot BenzBoost's own horn, but it shows just how good this website is as finding things few others do. Weistec did not want others knowing they were already developing turbocharger upgrades and the thread was removed as a professional courtesy. When this network says there are things that can not be shared when it would love to be able to share them, it means it. If you guys only knew some of the things out there that can not be posted due to the high stakes involved. Well, with a recent thread on BenzBoost regarding Weistec M177/M178 upgrades we can finally come clean without any repercussions. Below you will find pictures of Weistec working on the motor except that the the turbocharger portion is blocked out. You can probably surmise why. Weistec does not want anyone to know what they are doing, what turbos they are using, how they are mounted, what impellers, etc. Basically, no info given as this is a highly competitive sphere. Enjoy this interesting look behind the scenes though.
    14 replies | 1262 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-10-2015, 09:41 PM
    Slowly but surely the BMW N55 motor is coming into its own. We saw very impressive results last month of a Pure Turbos Stage 2 upgraded N55 put up an incredible fight against a 695 wheel horsepower single turbo N54. It is becoming increasingly apparent that Pure Turbos N55 work is the top of the game right now. The modifications to the car are below. 523 wheel horsepower and 498 lb-ft of torque at the wheels makes this F30 mean business: Mods: JB4 PURE stage 2 turbo EvolutionRacewerks CP, DP, IC BMS intake Meth
    11 replies | 1543 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-09-2015, 02:27 AM
    Is anyone else sick of hearing about how 'fast' the Tesla P85D is? Because, it really isn't. Sure, it has a ton of torque off the line and for about 30-60 miles per hour it is pretty impressive. Oh, wow, instant torque and all wheel drive gives it a jump off the line. What a surprise! The P85D shows 864 lb-t of torque at the wheels so going from a stop is its best bet. What happens when it races cars that actually have some serious top end acceleration? It gets annihilated. It gets flat out destroyed. Just take a look at a 458 Italia spanking it and a Lamborghini Aventador having its way with the overrated electric sedan. Not too long ago people who had no idea what they were talking about made a huge deal about how the Tesla P85D beat down the new 707 horsepower Challenger Hellcat on the dragstrip. This gave Tesla owners a giant erection and they thought their car was something spectacular in a straight line. Up until about 30 miles per hour, it certainly is something special thanks to its traction and instant torque. This network stated back then what holds true now: 'It gets off the line quickly, we all get that part. It is not going to beat Hellcats though. It is not going to be a lot of todays performance cars for that matter. That is unless their tires go up and smoke and they abandon the run.' No, it is not going to be Hellcats unless they sit there spinning their tires. As this rematch shows, the Tesla Model S P85D is no match for any serious performance car out there today. It's a great achievement and has a lot of merit but if the Hellcat hooks up the P85D has no chance. The Hellcat is almost a full second faster with a trap speed 13 miles per hour higher. In other words, go home Tesla owner and plug your car in while watching some Netflix. That torque went to your head.
    20 replies | 466 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-09-2015, 09:03 AM
    Interesting run here between two very different cars. The Mustang Cobra you see here is the 1999-2001 model that came with a naturally aspirated 4.6 liter V8 offering 320 horsepower. This preceded the bad boy Terminator with a supercharged 4.6 liter that escalated the pony car wars to new heights (and the war is still raging). The Nissan GTR everyone knows and loves but this is a fairly modest example. It has the stock turbos, a Pro EFI ECU, Undercover tuning, and is running E85. It is of course also on the stock motor. So, stock motor tuned all wheel drive GTR on E85 versus a built motor 6-speed manual rear wheel drive Cobra with a 2.3 liter Whipple twin screw. What happens? The Cobra gets destroyed. Running a GTR from a stop on the street in a rear wheel drive supercharged manual 99-01 Cobra is suicide. No matter how good the driver is he will not hook like the GTR and he will not out shift the GTR dual clutch transmission. The mildly modified GTR makes easy work of the built motor Cobra. It's not even a race.
    18 replies | 458 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-07-2015, 10:18 PM
    The 991 Turbo and Turbo S continue to show numbers all over the place in tests. Why is this? Conditions? Fuel quality? The computer pulling timing? Who knows, but the numbers are everywhere from 123 miles per hour in the 1/4 mile from MotorTrend to over 130 by Car and Driver recently. The 911 Turbo S convertible obviously weighs a bit more than the coupe at 3741 pounds. Car and Driver weighed the coupe version at 3590 pounds so the difference is 151 pounds. That is not nearly enough of a weight difference for a trap speed spread of 6 miles per hour. Making this more perplexing is Car and Driver themselves earlier got a 10.8 @ 126 out of the Turbo S coupe which certainly is about the difference one would expect 151 pounds to make versus the heavier convertible going 11.1 @ 124. That also was the fastest time out of any major US magazine up until recently when the Turbo went against the GTR and Z06. To further muddy the waters Road and Track tested the Turbo S coupe at 10.9 @ 124.4 with a curb weight of 3600 pounds. So how in the hell does Car and Driver suddenly get a massive acceleration spike when the Turbo S is being compared to the Nissan GTR and Corvette Z06? You figure it out. Because we certainly can't. SpecificationsVEHICLE TYPE:rear-engine, 4-wheel-drive, 2+2-passenger, 2-door convertible PRICE AS TESTED:$210,620 (base price: $195,895) ENGINE TYPE:twin-turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 24-valve flat-6, aluminum block and heads, direct fuel injection DISPLACEMENT:232 cu in, 3806 cc Power: 560 hp @ 6750 rpm Torque: 553 lb-ft @ 2200 rpm TRANSMISSION:7-speed dual-clutch automatic with manual shifting mode DIMENSIONS: Wheelbase: 96.5 in Length: 177.4 in Width: 74.0 in Height:50.9 in Passenger/cargo volume: 70/13 cu ft Curb weight: 3741 lb C/D TEST RESULTS: Zero to 60 mph: 2.8 sec Zero to 100 mph: 7.0 sec Zero to 150 mph: 17.8 sec Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 3.6 sec Top gear, 30-50 mph: 2.2 sec Top gear, 50-70 mph: 2.3 sec Standing ¼-mile: 11.1 sec @ 124 mph Top speed (drag limited, mfr's est): 197 mph Braking, 70-0 mph: 151 ft Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 1.00 g FUEL ECONOMY: EPA city/highway: 17/24 mpg C/D observed: 15 mpg
    19 replies | 518 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-24-2015, 02:41 PM
    Incredible gains here and a very well detailed and photographed build from Weistec Engineering. This R231 SL63 AMG receives the full gamut of Weistec M157 performance products which includes their M157 turbocharger upgrade as well as their M157 downpipes. Of course Weistec tuning makes the hardware all work seamlessly and the result is an additional 199 horsepower at the wheels as well as an eye opening 352 more lb-ft of torque at the wheels. That is on 91 octane pump gas, not race fuel. This is what a high quality and well detailed build looks like folks: Weistec installed its in house designed and manufactured Turbocharger Upgrades, True Downpipe and Exhaust Upgrades, ECU Calibration, and Weistec Designed Spark Plugs and gave this gorgeous drop top 199 more horsepower to the wheels, and a whopping 352 more foot pounds of torque to the wheels. This combination creates one of the most exhilarating rides on the planet, while pairing off with the most euphoric V8 sounds ever to bellow out of a set of quad AMG exhaust tips. - Turbo Impeller Upgrade - Downpipe and Exhaust System - Spark Plugs - High Flow Air Filters - ECU Calibration - TCU Calibration Needless to say, the results were staggering.
    16 replies | 418 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-10-2015, 03:32 AM
    Color us skeptical here as there are very little details substantiating this dyno run other than claims from the owner and a dynograph. There are no pictures of the turbos on this car, no video of it on the dyno, and basically the typical ESS posts a graph and not much else. The output is 680 horsepower to the rear wheels and 656 lb-ft of torque to the rear wheels. The owner claims he hit the speed limiter but if this car is using an ESS flash tune why in the world wasn't the speed limiter disabled? Other flash tuners do not have an issue disabling the limiter why does ESS? Will upgraded turbos make this power? Of course. Modified OEM turbo housings should easily be capable of this power. However, we have seen some funny business going on with dyno graphs lately as Evotech showed over 800 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on the stock turbos. As tuners continue to dyno race on forums as evidence of supremacy it is becoming difficult to know who to trust. It would be a lot easier to trust a timeslip, wouldn't it? Mods: ESS Upgraded Turbos ESS Flash Tune (pre-release version) AMS catted DP's RPI Exhaust MSR Intake Conditions: 93-Octane 5th gear dyno
    10 replies | 1295 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-28-2015, 05:40 PM
    The Porsche 991 Turbo S is a fast car. A recent test has the stock 991 Turbo S going 10.6 @ 130 in the 1/4 mile and we consistently see low 10's from bolt on tuned examples. That is not bad at all. The 918 Spyder though is simply on a whole different level of fast. The 918 Spyder is not turbocharged but its electric drivetrain provides a major torque boost. 431 lb-ft to be exact just from the electric motors. Combined with the naturally aspirated 4.6 liter V8 it makes 829 lb-ft of torque. Power is at 887 horsepower with the gas and electric motors combined. The 918 Spyder is considerably more powerful than the 560 horsepower 911 Turbo S. It is also roughly 250 pounds heavier but this difference is negligible at speed. It shows with how the 918 Spyder instantly pulls away. This is what a 145+ trap car with instant torque looks like going against a ~129 mile per hour car (PS guys, don't show your faces and the speedometer on public US roads as it can come back to bite you):
    14 replies | 499 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    Yesterday, 08:11 PM
    Rebellion Automotive is based out of the UK and The Turbo Engineers home is in Germany. It makes sense for these two to link up to provide a big turbo upgrade for the M133 motor. Rebellion Automotive already offers their Stage II turbo upgrade which utilizes a modified OEM housing. What does this upgrade entail? We don't really know as only this teaser photo stating TTE460-R is provided. We do know that Rebellion is now moving to flash tuning. Their previous turbo upgrade used their piggyback box but now with greater ECU control it looks like some more serious turbo upgrades are possible. The Turbo Engineers does some great work so we know the hardware side will be solid. Just take a look at their Audi 2.5 TFSI turbo upgrade work. If the 460 in the TTE upgrade is anything to go by it looks like 460 wheel horsepower should be the target here considering the Stage II Rebellion upgrade that we assume TTE did offers 401 wheel horsepower. Either way bigger turbos are coming to the M133 platform from multiple sources. The more competition, the better for AMG enthusiasts.
    19 replies | 299 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-20-2015, 12:20 PM
    These four German SUV's are not the biggest or strongest their respective brands create. Porsche for example has the Cayenne Turbo S which is a twin turbo V8 powered monster. However, although the Macan Turbo may not have the Cayenne Turbo S raw grunt it is lighter and far more tossable. These SUV's are actually about spirited driving, Yes, the SUV platform has evolved to be more of a do everything type of car than an off-road vehicle. Speaking from experience you can have a lot of fun driving a sport SUV. Of course it will not replace a sports car but for someone who perhaps has to compromise (wife, kids, all that stuff) these cars can often roll everything into one. Ok, soliloquy over. Which of these is the best? The answer is, that depends. The vehicles here take differing approaches. Let's look at the curb weights ordered from lightest to heaviest: Mercedes GLA45 AMG 3646 BMW X4 xDrive35i 4240 Audi SQ5 4373 Porsche Macan Turbo 4544 That is a pretty big spread there of almost 900 pounds from lightest to heaviest. The X4, SQ5, and Macan are more in the same class and something like the Mercedes GLC would be a better fit against these. That said, the light weight of the GLA45 AMG in this company makes it very fun to drive despite having the smallest engine with a 2.0 liter four-cylinder. The GLA45 AMG also happens to be the quickest and fastest of the bunch with a 1/4 mile sprint of 12.8 @ 107.9. The power to weight advantage really shows. The GLA45 AMG is the quickest, fastest, lightest, and best handling. If one wants the sportiest SUV of this bunch that is the choice and MotorTrend got it right. They also got it right with the X4 bringing up the rear. BMW, what are you doing? Ouch, what a beatdown. If you want to tow however and actually get some utility out of your SUV the SQ5 is likely the best choice. The torque from the supercharged motor and the automatic transmission would be best for actual work. Not a perfect but certainly interesting comparison nonetheless. 1st Place: Mercedes-Benz GLA45 AMG Certainly not the most “mature” crossover here, the GLA45 AMG’s playful demeanor and serious performance cred earn it the gold. 2nd Place: Porsche Macan Turbo The tremendously capable (and tremendously expensive) Macan Turbo misses out on first place by a nose—and about 20 grand. 3rd Place: Audi SQ5 That Porsche is nice, but if value were a larger part of the equation, the SQ5 might have shaken things up a bit more than it did. 4th Place: BMW X4 xDrive35i The BMW X4 is neither a convincing coupe nor a true performance SUV. 2015 Mercedes-Benz GLA45 AMG 2015 Porsche Macan Turbo POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, AWD ENGINE TYPE Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head Twin-turbo 90-deg V-6, alum block/heads VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 121.5 cu in/1,991cc 220.0 cu in/3,605cc COMPRESSION RATIO 8.6:1 10.5:1 POWER (SAE NET) 355 hp @ 6,000 rpm 400 hp @ 6,000 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 332 lb-ft @ 2,250 rpm 406 lb-ft @ 1,350 rpm REDLINE 6,250 rpm 6,800 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 10.3 lb/hp 11.4 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 7-speed twin-clutch automatic 7-speed twin-clutch automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 4.13:1/1.98:1 4.13:1/2.15:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar Multi-link, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multi-link, air springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 15.2:1 14.3:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.5 2.6 BRAKES, F;R 13.8-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS 14.2-in vented disc; 14.0-in vented disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 8.0 x 20 in, cast aluminum 9.0 x 21 in; 10.0 x 21 in, forged aluminum TIRES, F;R 235/40R20 96Y Continental ContiSportContact 5P 265/40R21 101Y; 295/35R21 103Y Michelin Latitude Sport 3 DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 106.3 in 110.5 in TRACK, F/R 61.7/61.7 in 65.2/65.0 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 174.9 x 71.0 x 58.2 in 185.0 x 76.1 x 63.4-65.4 in GROUND CLEARANCE 4.8 in 7.1-9.1 in APPRoaCH/DEPART ANGLE 11.9/18.3 deg 19.7-26.6/18.5-25.3 deg TURNING CIRCLE 38.8 ft 39.2 ft CURB WEIGHT 3,646 lb 4,544 lb WEIGHT DIST, F/R 60/40% 55/45% TOWING CAPACITY Not recommended 4,400 lb SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 36.9/36.7 in 38.1/37.7 in (est) LEGROOM, F/R 41.9/33.9 in 41.0/37.4 in (est) SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 54.8/53.1 in 57.7/56.4 in (est) CARGO VOL BEH F/R 42.0/11.8 cu ft 53.0/17.7 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.5 sec 1.4 sec 0-40 2.2 2.2 0-50 3.1 3.1 0-60 4.3 4.2 0-70 5.5 5.6 0-80 7.0 7.1 0-90 8.8 9.0 0-100 10.9 11.3 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.2 2.3 QUARTER MILE 12.8 sec @ 107.9 mph 12.9 sec @ 106.2 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 103 ft 102 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.93 g (avg) 0.90 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 25.0 sec @ 0.78 g (avg) 25.0 sec @ 0.78 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,450 rpm 1,800 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $49,225 $73,295 PRICE AS TESTED $65,985 $84,850 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain, front knee BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE Unlimited 4 yrs/50,000 miles FUEL CAPACITY 16.9 gal 19.8 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 23/29/25 mpg 17/23/19 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 147/116 kW-hrs/100 miles 198/147 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 0.76 lb/mile 1.01 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 25.3/31.9/27.9 mpg 16.9/21.6/18.8 mpg 2015 Audi SQ5 2015 BMW X4 xDrive35i POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT Front-engine, AWD Front-engine, AWD ENGINE TYPE Supercharged 90-deg V-6, alum block/heads Turbocharged I-6, alum block/head VALVETRAIN DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DOHC, 4 valves/cyl DISPLACEMENT 182.8 cu in/2,995cc 181.7 cu in/2,979cc COMPRESSION RATIO 10.3:1 10.0:1 POWER (SAE NET) 354 hp @ 6,000 rpm 300 hp @ 5,800 rpm TORQUE (SAE NET) 347 lb-ft @ 4,000 rpm 300 lb-ft @ 1,200 rpm REDLINE 6,800 rpm 7,000 rpm WEIGHT TO POWER 12.4 lb/hp 14.1 lb/hp TRANSMISSION 8-speed automatic 8-speed automatic AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO 3.08:1/2.05:1 3.39:1/2.26:1 SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR Multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multi-link, coil springs, anti-roll bar STEERING RATIO 15.9:1 16.4:1 TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK 2.8 2.2 BRAKES, F;R 15.0-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS 12.9-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS WHEELS, F;R 8.5 x 20 in, cast aluminum 8.5 x 20 in; 10.0 x 20 in, cast aluminum TIRES, F;R 255/45R20 101V M+S Dunlop SP Winter Sport 3D 245/40R20 99Y; 275/35R20 102Y Pirelli P Zero DIMENSIONS WHEELBASE 110.5 in 110.6 in TRACK, F/R 64.2/64.0 in 62.8/63.4 in LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT 183.0 x 75.2 x 65.3 in 184.3 x 74.1 x 63.9 in GROUND CLEARANCE 7.9 in 8.0 in APPRoaCH/DEPART ANGLE 25.0/20.0 deg 26.0/23.0 deg TURNING CIRCLE 38.1 ft 39.0 ft CURB WEIGHT 4,373 lb 4,240 lb WEIGHT DIST, F/R 54/46% 51/49% TOWING CAPACITY 4,400 lb 3,500 lb SEATING CAPACITY 5 5 HEADROOM, F/R 38.1/37.7 in 40.0/37.4 in LEGROOM, F/R 41.0/37.4 in 40.4/34.8 in SHOULDER ROOM, F/R 57.7/56.4 in 57.2/56.0 in CARGO VOL BEH F/R 57.3/29.1 cu ft 49.4/17.7 cu ft TEST DATA ACCELERATION TO MPH 0-30 1.6 sec 1.8 sec 0-40 2.3 2.7 0-50 3.3 3.8 0-60 4.4 5.2 0-70 5.8 6.9 0-80 7.4 8.9 0-90 9.4 11.4 0-100 11.8 14.4 PASSING, 45-65 MPH 2.3 2.8 QUARTER MILE 13.1 sec @ 104.2 mph 13.9 sec @ 98.8 mph BRAKING, 60-0 MPH 123 ft 113 ft LATERAL ACCELERATION 0.82 g (avg) 0.85 g (avg) MT FIGURE EIGHT 26.5 sec @ 0.72 g (avg) 26.2 sec @ 0.71 g (avg) TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH 1,550 rpm 1,600 rpm CONSUMER INFO BASE PRICE $53,625 $48,950 PRICE AS TESTED $59,525 $64,525 STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL Yes/Yes Yes/Yes AIRBAGS Dual front, f/r side, f/r curtain Dual front, front side, f/r curtain BASIC WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles POWERTRAIN WARRANTY 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/50,000 miles ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE 4 yrs/50,000 miles 4 yrs/Unlimited FUEL CAPACITY 19.8 gal 17.7 gal EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON 17/24/19 mpg 19/27/22 mpg ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY 211/147 kW-hrs/100 miles 177/125 kW-hrs/100 miles CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB 1.05 lb/mile 0.88 lb/mile RECOMMENDED FUEL Unleaded premium Unleaded premium REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB 20.8/29.4/24.0 mpg 16.2/24.4/19.0 mpg
    10 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-15-2015, 05:10 AM
    Anyone else feel like there is a bit of a power race going on regarding AMG M177/M178 tuning? Renntech just took delivery of their new 2015 W205 generation C63 AMG and they are already tuning the car. Normal people would still be breaking it in but AMG tuning enthusiasts are not normal car people. Renntech is still working on their software so it is not officially released but BenzBoost is told they have it over 600 horsepower. Renntech will continue to test and refine their software and BenzBoost will have a dynograph posted ASAP. Enjoy the M177 engine sounds and know that development is moving rapidly:
    10 replies | 908 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-30-2015, 01:26 PM
    Fortunately nobody was hurt here and it was just an old Mustang anyway (kidding). This foxbody Mustang was torn apart due to a nitrous bottle exploding in the heat. This is not supposed to happen as bottles have pressure release valves but this valve failed. The result of that was an explosion that sent parts of the car into neighbor's yards. Just a reminder to take nitrous seriously. He's lucky that hundred shot of NOS didn't blow the welds on the intake.
    6 replies | 1264 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-26-2015, 09:11 PM
    Impressive numbers here out of BMW's N20 2.0 liter turbocharged and direct injected four-cylinder. The baseline number is strong as the N20 is severely underrated. 245 horsepower at the wheels and 268 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on a Dynojet dynamometer. So what is the result with basic bolt ons including an intake, downpipe, and ECU flash by Jailbreak tuning? How does 290 horsepower and 345 lb-ft of torque at the wheels on 91 octane pump gas grab you? That is a gain of 77 lb-ft of torque at the wheels with basic modifications. The N20 is really moving along now that the ECU can be flashed. Hopefully we see some flash tuned turbo upgraded setups. As far as how strong the motor is we do not know as nobody has really pushed it. That said, this is more power and torque than a stock E46 M3 to put things in perspective. This 228i is going to be a hell of a track car.
    10 replies | 984 view(s)
  • Sticky's Avatar
    04-08-2015, 03:41 AM
    This network has for some time now thought about writing an article reminding the world of just how big of a douchebag John Hennessey is. Sometimes he does little things that help remind the world all on his own though. For example, when Hennessey today 'introduced' their twin turbo HPE1000 2016 Cadillac CTS-V. Nevermind the fact the new CTS-V has yet to hit the roads. Nevermind the fact they do not have any turbos fabbed up for this car. Nevermind the fact they need a car to develop with first. Nevermind the fact this is just complete bullshit marketing at its finest. Now, any serious enthusiast knows this thing exists in fantasy land and in computer renderings. It does not exist in reality. This is what Hennessey does though. He will announce some giant power upgrade on a car he does not even have and then hope some sucker sends him a car to do the development on. You probably do not remember when he announced turbos on an E60 M5 to great fanfare from blind fanboys that resulted in... nothing. This is not only pathetic but it's stupid. How can you introduce a 1000 horsepower twin turbo 2016 CTS-V when you do not even have the damn car to begin with? And how the hell does a photoshop of a car prove anything regarding it? It's infuriating. Why doesn't Hennessey just go ahead and announce performance parts for nuclear submarines while he is at it? Why not claim to turbocharge the space shuttle? You know what the worst part of all of this is? People are already saying how awesome it is that he has a 1000 horsepower CTS-V and sites are promoting this as if it is news. What can you do other than laugh?
    14 replies | 576 view(s)
More Activity