Close

    • Renntech CL65 AMG overall Mercedes 1/4 mile record actually set with nitrous despite claims otherwise?

      You all may recall that RennTech set the overall MB 1/4 mile record of 10.27@137 a couple months back. We were given a mod list by the owner SGC and Renntech of drag radials, higher stall torque converter, limited slip diff, custom exhaust, modified intercooler, carbon ceramic brakes, and race gas only tune. We couldn't understand how this car on stock turbos was trapping so much higher than other M275 V12 twin turbo cars. It would seem the answer is nitrous as a video has popped up showing the lines in the engine bay, check it out yourself.




      This article was originally published in forum thread: Renntech CL65 AMG overall Mercedes 1/4 mile record actually set with nitrous despite claims otherwise? started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 72 Comments
      1. Exeenom's Avatar
        Exeenom -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        True, but it is phsyical evidence. If there was no video with lines in the engine bay at the drag strip, this thread would not exist.
        Again, those lines existed for over 2 years and have been seen by people for over 2 years. It is not physical evidence of him using nitrous on this run. It is only a suggestion of the possibility of him using nitrous on a run.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        130's to 136? It was 120's, then low 130's, now mid to upper 130's? I don't know if I would call that gradual but there is a sharp increase.
        Actually, he never jumped all at once from 130 to 136 mph.... he went from 128 mph to 132 mph to 134 to 137 mph

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I understand that, as Famoso is often better prepped which leads to a better ET. Trap records are pretty much always set in negative DA and obviously we won't argue what is better, positive or negative as it is obvious.
        Not arguing which is better... I'm simply saying that lower DA is not always better, as there are many other factors involved especially in the way each engine is managed. Look at Sal's car, he also got his best trap at Famoso.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        We aren't asking for the file itself but just basic and broad details? I totally agree they can't just give away a competitive advantage but why provide a mod list at all then?
        The mod list was provided by Steve as people were curious what he did. RENNtech has already provided a "basic and broad detail" list.... they said they improved the ECU tune, TCU tune, transmission itself, light-weight mods, etc...

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        6 mph from weight loss alone is 600 pounds.
        I'm not sure exactly how much they saved, but traps speak for themselves. Many people saw Dodger's car run and have looked it over many times. It trapped 6 mph higher in positive DA than Hagi's car did in negative DA. So I'm suspecting the weight-reduction mods caused even more than 6 mph gain. And if the naturally aspirated C63s were able to do it, then the super heavy CL65 is definitely capable.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm saying I think all tuners will basically get those stock turbos to their limit as they are. Everyone knows the K24's quite well. There is a physical limiting factor which in my opinion everyone has reached.
        Many people kept saying the E55 has reached its limits as well and for years no one made any improvements, but now we continue to see them going faster. I am sure the full limits have not been reached yet for the V12 AMG platform or RENNtech would not continue to develop products for it. Hopefully we'll see Steve run 9s before any limit is reached Click here to enlarge

        One more point I would like to make.... if it was so easy to run 10.2 @ 137 mph with just hooking up NOS, you would've seen many companies do it. NOS is easy and cheap. But every single V12 that has tried it was not any where close to those times. I would LOVE to see a company spray the V12 and reach those times (even in negative DA).
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Again, those lines existed for over 2 years and have been seen by people for over 2 years. It is not physical evidence of him using nitrous on this run. It is only a suggestion of the possibility of him using nitrous on a run.
        This is exactly correct and what I am saying. The possibility is there and the nitrous would fit the result with this evidence.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Actually, he never jumped all at once from 130 to 136 mph.... he went from 128 mph to 132 mph to 134 to 137 mph
        I hate to say this but... upping a shot of nitrous continually would explain those trap speed gains.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Not arguing which is better... I'm simply saying that lower DA is not always better, as there are many other factors involved especially in the way each engine is managed. Look at Sal's car, he also got his best trap at Famoso.
        I'm not saying which is better either I'm saying Famoso is prepped better. Lower DA is always better, always, just not that one will always get a better time in lower DA due to many other factors, prep, fuel, tires, weight, etc.

        I had my best times at Famoso as well.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        The mod list was provided by Steve as people were curious what he did. RENNtech has already provided a "basic and broad detail" list.... they said they improved the ECU tune, TCU tune, transmission itself, light-weight mods, etc...
        This is the question mark, as what is there doesn't differ all that much from other 65's. Just feels like something is missing to explain the gap between this car and the others.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        I'm not sure exactly how much they saved, but traps speak for themselves. Many people saw Dodger's car run and have looked it over many times. It trapped 6 mph higher in positive DA than Hagi's car did in negative DA. So I'm suspecting the weight-reduction mods caused even more than 6 mph gain. And if the naturally aspirated C63s were able to do it, then the super heavy CL65 is definitely capable.
        The traps definitely do say the car is flat out hauling, this can not be disputed. To gain 6 mph through weight, I mean, MASSIVE weight needs to be stripped of out a big boat.

        I think to argue that 6 mph is all due to weight reduction is not accurate. As these were runs on different days with different setups in different conditions. It just isn't possible to gain 6 mph with maybe a couple hundred pounds pulled at the very best.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Many people kept saying the E55 has reached its limits as well and for years no one made any improvements, but now we continue to see them going faster. I am sure the full limits have not been reached yet for the V12 AMG platform or RENNtech would not continue to develop products for it. Hopefully we'll see Steve run 9s before any limit is reached

        One more point I would like to make.... if it was so easy to run 10.2 @ 137 mph with just hooking up NOS, you would've seen many companies do it. NOS is easy and cheap. But every single V12 that has tried it was not any where close to those times. I would LOVE to see a company spray the V12 and reach those times (even in negative DA).
        The E55 is getting gains in areas like the heads and cams. The supercharger has a physical limit as well just like the M275 turbos. Now if the heads or cam in the M275 were changed, that would explain a lot.

        It isn't easy to run 10's period, I'm not claiming it is and I doubt anyone else is. Nitrous or no nitrous, it's tough.
      1. Exeenom's Avatar
        Exeenom -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This is exactly correct and what I am saying. The possibility is there and the nitrous would fit the result with this evidence.
        Again, the possibility is there but not the proof. "nitrous could fit the result" but if there is no proof it happened than those who claim it happened only have claims - until of course someone takes the offer and verifies. I'll be glad to hold the money with my standard 5% handling fee of course Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I hate to say this but... upping a shot of nitrous continually would explain those trap speed gains.
        Upping the shot on the C63 resulted in worse times/traps.... so again, upping the nitrous on engines with these complex electronics doesn't always yield higher traps. And if a higher shot of NOS was indeed responsible for the increase in gains, then why do it on multiple stages spanning a year and a half? Why not spray all at once or gradually go up within a couple of weeks. Also notice that the was no such increase of 9 mph from one run to the other. The increase was gradual. It just depends on how each person defines gradual. I personally define gradual as 3 mph at a time.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I'm not saying which is better either I'm saying Famoso is prepped better. Lower DA is always better, always, just not that one will always get a better time in lower DA due to many other factors, prep, fuel, tires, weight, etc.
        Actually we've seen many times over and over again that days with lower DA and high humidity levels were worse than higher DA and low humidity levels. So optimum racing conditions require low DA and an array of optimum weather conditions. Alan raced in low DA but higher humidity.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        This is the question mark, as what is there doesn't differ all that much from other 65's. Just feels like something is missing to explain the gap between this car and the others.
        I guess the same question exists between Alan's car and all other E55s.... even the ones that run in -1500 ft DA Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The traps definitely do say the car is flat out hauling, this can not be disputed. To gain 6 mph through weight, I mean, MASSIVE weight needs to be stripped of out a big boat.
        I think to argue that 6 mph is all due to weight reduction is not accurate. As these were runs on different days with different setups in different conditions. It just isn't possible to gain 6 mph with maybe a couple hundred pounds pulled at the very best.
        Actually I was being conservative comparing both cars. If you factor in the conditions, your argument weakens dramatically.... Dodger's car trapped 131 mph in over 700 ft of DA and higher temps.... while Hagi's 125 mph traps were in negative 1200 ft of DA (or better) and much lower temps. The power mods on both cars were basically the same.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        The E55 is getting gains in areas like the heads and cams. The supercharger has a physical limit as well just like the M275 turbos. Now if the heads or cam in the M275 were changed, that would explain a lot.
        Actually, that is incorrect also. Many people tried heads and cams in the past 7 years and NEVER hit 10s or the power levels we see now. In fact, Alan hit 10.7 (and a plethora of 10.8s) without heads and cams.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        It isn't easy to run 10's period, I'm not claiming it is and I doubt anyone else is. Nitrous or no nitrous, it's tough.
        That we agree on. Running 10s is very difficult and running 9s is even more difficult. Whether with NOS or without, Steve's times are very respectable Click here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Again, the possibility is there but not the proof. "nitrous could fit the result" but if there is no proof it happened than those who claims it happened only have claims - until of course, someone takes the offer and verifies. I'll be glad to hold the money with my standard 5% handling fee of course
        I agree, but stronger evidence of it being there than it not being there. The circumstances fit the claim, that is all. No 100% proof so doubt is definitely warranted.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Upping the shot on the C63 resulted in worse times/traps.... so again, upping the nitrous on engines with these complex electronics doesn't always yield higher traps. And if a higher shot of NOS was indeed responsible for the increase in gains, then why do it on multiple stages spanning a year and a half? Why not spray all at once or gradually go up within a couple of weeks. Also notice that the was no such increase of 9 mph from one run to the other. The increase was gradual. It just depends on how each person defines gradual. I personally define gradual as 3 mph at a time.
        Very true but the majority of the time upping a shot correlates in a trap increase. So, that is a plausible explanation for what took place.

        Why do it on multiple stages spanning a year and a half? Maybe tuning for those torque limiter issues? MHP has been doing the same for over a year and half with nitrous, correct?

        3 MPH is no small feat, and repeating it.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Actually we've seen many times over and over again that days with lower DA and high humidity levels were worse than higher DA and low humidity levels. So optimum racing conditions require low DA and an array of optimum weather conditions. Alan raced in low DA but higher humidity.
        What about low DA and low humidity? Humidity would be the variable there, but definitely negative DA and high humidity beats positive DA and high humidity.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        I guess the same question exists between Alan's car and all other E55s.... even the ones that run in -1500 ft DA :eek:
        True, definitely.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Actually I was being conservative comparing both cars. If you factor in the conditions, your argument weakens dramatically.... Dodger's car trapped 131 mph in over 700 ft of DA and higher temps.... while Hagi's 125 mph traps were in negative 1200 ft of DA (or better) and much lower temps. The power mods on both cars were basically the same.
        If we were to truly analyze this we would need all the data from what is being referenced. Honestly, it isn't even necessary as it is obvious to most that you won't gain 6 mph by stripping out less than 200 pounds of weight because the physics of it just don't agree. The rule of thumb is 100 pounds = 1 mph which is very general but to exceed this by multiples isn't realistic.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Actually, that is incorrect also. Many people tried heads and cams in the past 7 years and NEVER hit 10s or the power levels we see now. In fact, Alan hit 10.7 (and a plethora of 10.8s) without heads and cams.
        No, they are both correct but separate things. I stated the E55 is getting gains in to other areas and it is as Eurocharged just showed strong results with these changes. These are recent developments that have yet to be widely adopted or tested at the strip but show an evolution of the platform. It is true Alan hit 10.7 without heads or cams so if he was to make these changes he could go further. However, what he can gain from the blower (without changing it) is a physical limitation of that piece of hardware just as the M275 turbos have a physical limit.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        That we agree on. Running 10s is very difficult and running 9s is even more difficult. Whether with NOS or without, Steve's times are very respectable
        No question about it, definitely.
      1. Exeenom's Avatar
        Exeenom -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        I agree, but stronger evidence of it being there than it not being there. The circumstances fit the claim, that is all. No 100% proof so doubt is definitely warranted.
        Actually, even not being there, he could still be using nitrous. Some people can hide it real well if they want to. Unless there is a 100% proof, then it remains a speculation. Even 99.99% is not good enough because then there will always be that small doubt. That's why I changed the name of the thread from "actually set on nitrous" to "possibly set on nitrous"..... it should be a possibility at best - not a definite statement, which reminds, please edit the home page title as well Click here to enlarge

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Very true but the majority of the time upping a shot correlates in a trap increase. So, that is a plausible explanation for what took place.
        With today's advanced electronics especially in Mercedes vehicles, that is "not" the majority of the case any more. I've shown at least one case of this with MHP but I know of at least 2 more with the V12 platform.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Why do it on multiple stages spanning a year and a half? Maybe tuning for those torque limiter issues? MHP has been doing the same for over a year and half with nitrous, correct?
        But if they've been succeeding every time without apparently hitting any torque limiting issues to lower trap speeds as you increase the shot, then they would've done it faster. Also, the V12 has been around for 8+ years so the year and a half amounts for much less than than MHP's time with a fairly new motor.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        3 MPH is no small feat, and repeating it.
        But it is no 9 mph increase and it is definitely not as big of a jump as 11 mph as have been seen on the E55 platform (even without counting Sacramento traps in the equation).

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        What about low DA and low humidity? Humidity would be the variable there, but definitely negative DA and high humidity beats positive DA and high humidity.
        That's why I'm saying that looking at low DA is only one of many factors. One has to consider multiple factors to gain optimum weather conditions. And after those are reached, there are other non-weather related conditions that need to be optimized.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        If we were to truly analyze this we would need all the data from what is being referenced. Honestly, it isn't even necessary as it is obvious to most that you won't gain 6 mph by stripping out less than 200 pounds of weight because the physics of it just don't agree. The rule of thumb is 100 pounds = 1 mph which is very general but to exceed this by multiples isn't realistic.
        Well.... whether you believe it or not, it happened.... and many respectable forum members were there. I don't know how much weight he shaved off his car, but he did run 6 mph faster in 2000 ft higher DA. So he may have the potential of trapping 1 or 2 more mph higher if he would run in similar DA to what Mthis's run. Also, Dodger is a very straight forward shooter and he always provides his mod list openly. Even if the weight-savings increased traps by 4 mph, then the CL65 can definitely do the same.

        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        No, they are both correct but separate things. I stated the E55 is getting gains in to other areas and it is as Eurocharged just showed strong results with these changes. These are recent developments that have yet to be widely adopted or tested at the strip but show an evolution of the platform. It is true Alan hit 10.7 without heads or cams so if he was to make these changes he could go further. However, what he can gain from the blower (without changing it) is a physical limitation of that piece of hardware just as the M275 turbos have a physical limit.
        Again, your argument does not apply correctly to Mercedes (especially modern ones). Your argument would work if there were no other factors to interfere with the results. There is a reason why Alan removed his cams. In addition, messing with cams and heads is not new at all for the E55 guys.... there are a couple of people on mbworld who tried it on their E55s and although some showed power on the dyno, they lost it on the track. Others (on the C32/SLK32 platform) have shown loss on both dyno sheets and track results. Basically, you can NOT call it a success or a break through until it is track-proven by at least one independent customer. Otherwise, it is not a a major gain or break through yet.
      1. Mike's Avatar
        Mike -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        I'm not sure exactly how much they saved, but traps speak for themselves. Many people saw Dodger's car run and have looked it over many times. It trapped 6 mph higher in positive DA than Hagi's car did in negative DA. So I'm suspecting the weight-reduction mods caused even more than 6 mph gain. And if the naturally aspirated C63s were able to do it, then the super heavy CL65 is definitely capable.
        Dodger's car has a lot more mods than Hagi's. To put it simply he is making more power and running less weight since he has more mods than Hagi.


        This discussion has gone a lot farther than I believed it would. Farther than it really needs to go imo. I really just have two questions.
        Is there the full listed runs showing Steve's improvements over the last year(last three personal best runs)?
        Would Renntech be able to duplicate this result on another cl65 with the same mods they currently list?
      1. Exeenom's Avatar
        Exeenom -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Mike@MHP Click here to enlarge
        This discussion has gone a lot farther than I believed it would. Farther than it really needs to go imo. I really just have two questions.
        Is there the full listed runs showing Steve's improvements over the last year(last three personal best runs)?
        Would Renntech be able to duplicate this result on another cl65 with the same mods they currently list?
        1) The last three best runs (as far as I know - and I could be mistaken) are 10.6x then 10.4x and 10.2x The slips for the 10.6x and 10.4x have been posted already but not yet the 10.2x. Also, the video for all three runs have been clearly available for some time. I'm not sure if we have an updated full mod list yet but I've seen Steve list the incremental change in mods from run to run.

        2) Yes I'm sure RENNtech can duplicate the results of Steve's car on another 65 if a customer is willing to undergo the same exact transformation and pay for it just as I'm sure MHP can duplicate the results of Keith's car and Dodger's car given the willingness of the customer. Please remember that Steve's car is not RENNtech's car. RENNtech's 65 was sold long time ago.
      1. Mike's Avatar
        Mike -
        Great! This question about mods should really be done with. As far as I can see there are no inconsistent reports or unrealistic performance numbers given his improvements v modifications.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
        Actually, even not being there, he could still be using nitrous. Some people can hide it real well if they want to. Unless there is a 100% proof, then it remains a speculation. Even 99.99% is not good enough because then there will always be that small doubt. That's why I changed the name of the thread from "actually set on nitrous" to "possibly set on nitrous"..... it should be a possibility at best - not a definite statement, which reminds, please edit the home page title as well Click here to enlarge



        With today's advanced electronics especially in Mercedes vehicles, that is "not" the majority of the case any more. I've shown at least one case of this with MHP but I know of at least 2 more with the V12 platform.



        But if they've been succeeding every time without apparently hitting any torque limiting issues to lower trap speeds as you increase the shot, then they would've done it faster. Also, the V12 has been around for 8+ years so the year and a half amounts for much less than than MHP's time with a fairly new motor.



        But it is no 9 mph increase and it is definitely not as big of a jump as 11 mph as have been seen on the E55 platform (even without counting Sacramento traps in the equation).



        That's why I'm saying that looking at low DA is only one of many factors. One has to consider multiple factors to gain optimum weather conditions. And after those are reached, there are other non-weather related conditions that need to be optimized.



        Well.... whether you believe it or not, it happened.... and many respectable forum members were there. I don't know how much weight he shaved off his car, but he did run 6 mph faster in 2000 ft higher DA. So he may have the potential of trapping 1 or 2 more mph higher if he would run in similar DA to what Mthis's run. Also, Dodger is a very straight forward shooter and he always provides his mod list openly. Even if the weight-savings increased traps by 4 mph, then the CL65 can definitely do the same.



        Again, your argument does not apply correctly to Mercedes (especially modern ones). Your argument would work if there were no other factors to interfere with the results. There is a reason why Alan removed his cams. In addition, messing with cams and heads is not new at all for the E55 guys.... there are a couple of people on mbworld who tried it on their E55s and although some showed power on the dyno, they lost it on the track. Others (on the C32/SLK32 platform) have shown loss on both dyno sheets and track results. Basically, you can NOT call it a success or a break through until it is track-proven by at least one independent customer. Otherwise, it is not a a major gain or break through yet.
        Man, I spent forever writing a great response to this post and lost it when I clicked submit Click here to enlarge

        I'll just sum it up like this, 6 mph can not be gained with weight loss on these cars because there is not 600 pounds of weight to pull. They can strip out 100-200 at best. You know yourself how weight can affect a time. Just run your car with a 200 pound passenger and then without. It will pretty much correlate to 2 mph. I think you know how driver weight even can impact a time.

        How much lighter is this CL65 really? 100 pounds? Maybe 200 at best with some extreme measure like pulling all the seats and a lightweight battery? 6 MPH is not coming from weight loss, period.
      1. Benz-O-Rama's Avatar
        Benz-O-Rama -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Man, I spent forever writing a great response to this post and lost it when I clicked submit Click here to enlarge

        I'll just sum it up like this, 6 mph can not be gained with weight loss on these cars because there is not 600 pounds of weight to pull. They can strip out 100-200 at best. You know yourself how weight can affect a time. Just run your car with a 200 pound passenger and then without. It will pretty much correlate to 2 mph. I think you know how driver weight even can impact a time.

        How much lighter is this CL65 really? 100 pounds? Maybe 200 at best with some extreme measure like pulling all the seats and a lightweight battery? 6 MPH is not coming from weight loss, period.

        Devil's advocate...

        The front seats are about 100lbs a piece, as they heat/cool/massage. The rear seat I'm not sure about. The rear battery in these cars weighs 78lbs. The replacement braiile lightweight racing battery that many of us run, weighs 15. You can lose a lot of weight by pulling the spare, and all the other junk that's in there too. I'm assuming that's already done because I believe he has a rear mounted ice reservoir. Don't know if it has any carbon fiber pieces like hood and deck lid, but there is plenty of weight to shave on these cars.

        600lbs? Nope, but you can definitely put them on a diet.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Benz-O-Rama Click here to enlarge
        600lbs? Nope, but you can definitely put them on a diet.
        Agreed.

        You guys are running the 15 pound braille? It doesn't last long in the E92, I had to go with a Mini battery and I assume the Mercedes electronics are a bit of a drain as well.
      1. Benz-O-Rama's Avatar
        Benz-O-Rama -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Agreed.

        You guys are running the 15 pound braille? It doesn't last long in the E92, I had to go with a Mini battery and I assume the Mercedes electronics are a bit of a drain as well.
        I'm not running it in my SL600, I still have the boat anchor OEM battery, but many are in their E55s, CLS et al

        As long as it's a daily driver, the parasitic drain isn't a problem. If the car sits, then a battery tender is the fix.