Close

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 73 of 73
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA and AZ
    Posts
    237
    Rep Points
    148.7
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Steve has made so many different passes over the past 2 years, so I'm not sure exactly when the quote was made and which runs he or you are exactly referring to. His previous run was 10.40x and before that it was 10.6x.... I believe the trap speeds went from 133 mph to 135 mph to 137 mph. Oh and part of that improvement was DA as well.
    Now this makes sense. It was not a 7 mph jump from his previous renntech tune to his current one. But slow but steady increase in trap and et...Great Info!

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Mike@MHP Click here to enlarge
    Now this makes sense. It was not a 7 mph jump from his previous renntech tune to his current one. But slow but steady increase in trap and et...Great Info!
    Thanks... Click here to enlarge yeah he has been improving his times very steadily. Some of the latest improvements were due to better wheel/tire combo, lighter-weight parts, better DA, etc...
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Rep Points
    2,262.8
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Alan (bassn_07) went from trapping 122 mph to 135 mph after adding: 82mm TB, RT Air Box, long-tube headers, and a new tune. He gained 13 mph in his trap speeds.
    Correct me if Im wrong but,werent his times recorded at that track(famosa,sac,or something,im not sure which one) with the $#@!ed up timing equipment? Equipment that has been very well documented as being off significantly?
    Click here to enlarge

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    1,186
    Rep Points
    934.8
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    10


    Yes Reputation No
    can someone find me 9mph please lol....

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,644
    Rep Points
    2,262.8
    Mentioned
    31 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    23


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by MSIZZLE Click here to enlarge
    can someone find me 9mph please lol....
    Here Hagi,I found you 9mph and then some Click here to enlarge
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Click here to enlarge

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    But still does not prove it - not even close.
    I understand, but it bolsters it and adds fuel to the fire so to speak. If weakens the no nitrous claim.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    People checked his car when it was running 10.6x @ 132 mph as they accused him of nitrous as well.
    I see, but on the runs that picked up considerable MPH, nobody checked...

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Before I answer this, let me give a brief (and similar) situation.....

    From 2003 to early 2010, the quickest/fastest non-nitrous E55s trapped an average of 124 mph. RENNtech released a new 82 mm TB, a new version of their airbox, and a new tune. All of a sudden, after 7+ years of trying, E55s that added those mods (or similar) started trapping 130+ mph. Alan (bassn_07) went from trapping 122 mph to 135 mph after adding: 82mm TB, RT Air Box, long-tube headers, and a new tune. He gained 13 mph in his trap speeds. Yes, there has been major advancements in the tune and a few better version of the mods: bigger pulley, better cooling, etc...

    Similarly, in the V12 situation, RENNtech has been making advancements in their ECU tune, TCU tune, air box mods, cooling mods, transmission mods, etc... Consequently, I don't doubt that Steve is making a bit more power than he did earlier.
    You of all people know how Sacramento is and how DA affects results. These new runs are in positive DA in Florida, not negative which would at least strengthen SGC's case. Too much aligns against him.

    I do understand how tuning evolves over time. Perhaps we could get some details that would explain the jump as so far we do not have them?

    Clearly Alan gained a lot of power with his new mods.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Well.... you can ask him and Andy from MHP. They are both straight-forward shooters, they won't lie to you. Dodger and Mthis both have race tunes and full MHP long-tubes headers. Dodgers, however, has CF hood, CF trunk, passenger seat removal, ultra light-weight driver's racing seat, light-weight battery, light-weight rotors, light-weight wheels, etc.... you can examine his car as well if you like
    I'm familiar with his car, his times make sense to me especially on the track and conditions they run in. No secret they like the "fast" tracks Click here to enlarge

  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Matt@Camber-Toe Click here to enlarge
    I think we are getting a little out of hand with the accusations? I can see where both sides of the story have their points, but I dont think he is running nitrous..
    It's not out of hand at all, it is a very nice discussion.

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Nope... V12Godspeed had the same mods but from different companies, so we're talking about different tunes, different parts, etc....
    This is true but the turbos will still have physical limitations no matter who is tuning them. The heads can only flow so much, etc.

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I understand, but it bolsters it and adds fuel to the fire so to speak. If weakens the no nitrous claim.
    As long as it doesn't prove anything on either side, it remains an inconclusive speculation.... it will only add to the fire in the hearts of those who can't believe his times especially without knowing the platform good enough or knowing him for that matter.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I see, but on the runs that picked up considerable MPH, nobody checked...
    SGC has no one specific run that picked up 7 mph.... it was rather a slow gradual gain from run to run. I don't know who started that rumor either Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    You of all people know how Sacramento is and how DA affects results. These new runs are in positive DA in Florida, not negative which would at least strengthen SGC's case. Too much aligns against him.
    You have to remember that having negative DA does not automatically give you better times. MikesAMG (Alan's friend) ran quicker/faster at Famoso with higher DA and worse 60' time. SGC's time in positive DA makes his runs even more amazing Click here to enlarge

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    I do understand how tuning evolves over time. Perhaps we could get some details that would explain the jump as so far we do not have them?
    I'm not sure any company will go on a public forum and say here is how we made our tune better and here is our secrets in unleashing more of the beast.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Clearly Alan gained a lot of power with his new mods. I'm familiar with his car, his times make sense to me especially on the track and conditions they run in. No secret they like the "fast" tracks Click here to enlarge
    Even if you take away 3 mph from his Sacramento's time, he still would've gained 10 mph in trap speeds. If you think Alan's gained that much power mainly from long-tube headers and 82 mm TB, then SGC gaining a couple of mph from his previous runs is surely possible. Also, you keep forgetting how the C63 guys gain 6 mph from weight reduction alone, so a V12 twin turbo with more torque should (most definitely) be able to do the same.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    This is true but the turbos will still have physical limitations no matter who is tuning them. The heads can only flow so much, etc.
    All turbos, superchargers, and engines in general have physical limitations. Are you saying SGC reached the V12 limitation and then passed it or are you saying the limitation is not reached yet. The V12 twin turbo will continue to improve as long as companies like RENNtech and others continue to pour money into its research and development.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    As long as it doesn't prove anything on either side, it remains an inconclusive speculation.... it will only add to the fire in the hearts of those who can't believe his times especially without knowing him.
    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    There is no one run that picked up 7 mph.... it was rather a slow gradual gain from run to run. I don't know who started that rumor either
    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    You have to remember that having negative DA does not automatically give you better times. MikesAMG (Alan's friend) ran quicker/faster at Famoso with higher DA and worse 60' time. SGC's time in positive DA makes his runs more amazing
    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.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    I'm not sure any company will go on a public forum and say here is how we made our tune better and here is our secrets in unleashing more of the beast.
    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?

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    Even if you take away 3 mph from his Sacramento's time, he still would've gained 10 mph in trap speeds. If you think Alan's gained that much power mainly from long-tube headers and 82 mm TB, then SGC gaining a couple of mph from his previous runs is surely possible. Also, you keep forgetting how the C63 guys gain 6 mph from weight reduction alone, so a V12 twin turbo with more torque should (most definitely) be able to do the same.
    6 mph from weight loss alone is 600 pounds.

    MPH is HARD to pick up.

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Exeenom Click here to enlarge
    All turbos, superchargers, and engines in general have physical limitations. Are you saying SGC reached the V12 limitation and then passed it or are you saying the limitation is not reached yet. The V12 twin turbo will continue to improve as long as companies like RENNtech and others continue to pour money into its research and development.
    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.

    The V12 has a HUGE ceiling, just it has reached what it can on the stock turbos.

    I think Renntech could take this motor to 150+ with after-market turbos and who knows what else.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by oldgixxer Click here to enlarge
    Correct me if Im wrong but,werent his times recorded at that track(famosa,sac,or something,im not sure which one) with the $#@!ed up timing equipment? Equipment that has been very well documented as being off significantly?
    Yes, Sacramento had a big accident which forced the track to reinstall their timing equipment. When they reinstalled the equipment, they accidentally set the trap beams closer together than they should have been, which caused trap speeds to read higher by 0.5 mph to 3 mph depending on what speed range the cars were trapping. At 90 mph trap speeds, it was probably off by 0.8 mph and at 135 mph, it was off by 2.6 mph, etc...

    Again, even if you subtract the extra 3 mph off his times, he still would've gained 10 mph. Also he has trapped 130 mph on racelogic a few times and I believe at Infineon Raceway as well. So even if you toss out his Sacramento run, his car still gained 10 mph out of no where..... but if you look deeper, you start to see that there's been major advancements in tune, power mods, and cooling mods, which eventually led to a significant increase in power.... power which was unavailable in the past.... power that people thought was impossible for over 7 years.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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).
    Last edited by Exeenom; 06-04-2011 at 08:00 PM.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    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.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    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.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA and AZ
    Posts
    237
    Rep Points
    148.7
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    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?
    Last edited by Exeenom; 06-04-2011 at 11:00 PM.

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    638
    Rep Points
    567.0
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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.
    2007 E63 P30
    Click here to enlarge

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    CA and AZ
    Posts
    237
    Rep Points
    148.7
    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    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.

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    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.

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    386
    Rep Points
    580.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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.
    2004 E500 - Eurocharged ECU, VRP headers and E55 exhaust. #1 record holder on dragtimes (13.49@102.5)
    2005 SL600 - OE Tuning ECU/ Speedriven TCU - #1 record holder on dragtimes (11.02@126)

    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqKECRhvlf4

    Powered by:Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    119,483
    Rep Points
    32,156.3
    Mentioned
    2111 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    322



    Yes Reputation No
    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.

  23. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    386
    Rep Points
    580.0
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    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.
    2004 E500 - Eurocharged ECU, VRP headers and E55 exhaust. #1 record holder on dragtimes (13.49@102.5)
    2005 SL600 - OE Tuning ECU/ Speedriven TCU - #1 record holder on dragtimes (11.02@126)

    Click here to enlargeClick here to enlarge
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqKECRhvlf4

    Powered by:Click here to enlarge

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •