Mercedes A-Class Forum banner
921 - 940 of 967 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
But 25 days ago you said 122mph is good for an incremental 55 flywheel hp gain. Are you finally accepting that 500hp is a legit output?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
Am I missing something here?
420 + 55HP = ??

Also, 500 HP may well be possible, what I am saying is that it is neither good for the Engine or Turbo.

Judging by the particular vehicle being discussed here at 115 MPH, the power being produced is somewhere around 470 HP, depending obviously upon the actual vehicle mass.

On the subject of which, do we have any real idea as to the as run mass of the vehicle which went 122 MPH?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
350 Posts
I had shown you a member's tuned CLA45s that trapped a little over 122mph and you said the car should have gained 55 flywheel hp. Now you're saying it should be trapping 120 to be 490. Which one is it?

And I also think you got it wrong; 116mph is stock trap, I dunno where 470 came from.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
152 Posts
I had shown you a member's tuned CLA45s that trapped a little over 122mph and you said the car should have gained 55 flywheel hp. Now you're saying it should be trapping 120 to be 490. Which one is it?

And I also think you got it wrong; 116mph is stock trap, I dunno where 470 came from.
I was working on the trap speed shown, I thought the car trapped at 115.47 MPH.
You are absolutely correct, if that is wrong, so are my numbers.
I have tried to find trap speeds as tested by the various magazines of the stock vehicle.
I have found anywhere from 111 to 114 MPH.

Equally, without knowing an accurate weight, with driver, we are all guessing.
As quoted by MB .their kerb weights vary from 3.500 lbs to 3,700 lbs.
(The latter figure meaning the specific test vehicle could weigh as much as 3,900 lbs with driver and fuel)

Which was precisely my point regarding weighbridges.
So, just to (hopefully) address this once and for all,
Working on a 3,700 lb vehicle with driver and fuel. (IE a low options vehicle)
114 MPH 425 HP ( let's call this standard)
116 MPH 450 HP
118 MPH 475 HP
120 MPH 500 HP
122 MPH 525 HP

Of course if the vehicle is even 100 lbs lighter, which it could easily be, all the above numbers are irrelevant.
However, obviously I realise what the above means. with respect to the 122 MPH vehicle.
The point being, without its accurate test weight, any real discussion is not possible.
I think it is fair to say though, the Tuner of that 122 MPH vehicle is seriously leaning on it!!! :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,711 Posts
Just an article not a video I'm afraid.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,711 Posts
Did any of you see the latest carwow golf R video? It only managed a 12.7 vs the previous press car of 12.3. Interesting that it seems that the press car was tuned.
Yes and it was completely dry as well
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,711 Posts
Again the Golf R is nowhere as fast as a previous version shown in their earlier videos as well as by AH.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Yes. It was a cheap shot, I agree.

Couldn’t resist nevertheless. :)


However
Let’s put more meat on this “Golf R isn’t as quick as previous versions” ….

1/4 mile:
Post #719 Carwow - 12.3s
Post #772 Carwow - 12.4s
Post #929 Carwow - 12.7s
Carwow vs SQ7 - 12.7s

All within the tolerances of different day, different car, different weather, different tyres, and err, different weight (regardless of it being a cheap shot)!

Heck. You could launch the very same car on the very same track on the very same day within the same hour, and get a larger variance than that.
 

·
Registered
2021 AMG A45 S Plus, Sun Yellow, DTUK 470 PS, Akrapovic Evolution in Ti
Joined
·
167 Posts
Yes. It was a cheap shot, I agree.

Couldn’t resist nevertheless. :)


However
Let’s put more meat on this “Golf R isn’t as quick as previous versions” ….

1/4 mile:
Post #719 Carwow - 12.3s
Post #772 Carwow - 12.4s
Post #929 Carwow - 12.7s
Carwow vs SQ7 - 12.7s

All within the tolerances of different day, different car, different weather, different tyres, and err, different weight (regardless of it being a cheap shot)!
Your cheap shot was at @Turbo Ed mate, please don't distract the audience. Pretty disgraceful for a "Super Moderator" to a member who's contributed lots so far.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Actually, it was both for TurboEd and Forrester, who claimed that the Golf R was nowhere as fast as previous versions.

None of us are perfect, moderators or not :)
 

·
Registered
2021 AMG A45 S Plus, Sun Yellow, DTUK 470 PS, Akrapovic Evolution in Ti
Joined
·
167 Posts
Actually, it was both for TurboEd and Forrester, who claimed that the Golf R was nowhere as fast as previous versions.

None of us are perfect, moderators or not :)
Give us all a break, your cheap shot post was nothing to do with Golf R, just a dig at @ Turbo Ed. Apologise or quit.
 

·
Registered
2021 AMG A45 S Plus, Sun Yellow, DTUK 470 PS, Akrapovic Evolution in Ti
Joined
·
167 Posts
Actually, it was both as I said, but please don’t escalate this further than needs be.
Moderators should respect all members and with you being a "Super Moderator" that makes your posts unacceptable. As I said, apologise or quit. Arrogance in moderators is fatal.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
4,244 Posts
Moderators should respect all members and with you being a "Super Moderator" that makes your posts unacceptable. As I said, apologise or quit. Arrogance in moderators is fatal.
You’re assuming a lot here, primarily my original intent, how much humour was meant, and to whom it was directed.

Arrogance is not limited to just moderators, I see :)

Please don’t keep trying to escalate this. If @Turbo Ed or @Forrester feel slighted by my cheap shot, I will of course apologise to them personally.
 
921 - 940 of 967 Posts
Top