Hey alex, keep in mind, your camaro revs up to, what, 5k? I rev up to 8200... My gears are alot longer than a camaro and even teh MB I think.

He did beat me, but maybe I caught him in a bad part of the powerband or something...I don't know...

so 467rwhp @ 4200lbs is a power to weight of .111 or ~.11
Not sure what the drive-train loss is on an NSX, although I hear its significantly less than most cars because of hte MR layout...lets say 10% for my sake

Thats 260hp in a 2700lb car .096 or ~.10

.01 is a significant amount believe it or not, but I do believe I have the aerodynamic and gearing advantage on the MB...But that .01 still allowed him to pull on me.

By the way, on NSXPrime, there is a guy who dyno'd his 91 C30A NSX and pulled 249RWHP...with the recommended drive train conversion of 1.26 x RWHP, thats 313hp...stock.

 

Anything above 6000rpm and I'd float the valves. Oh and ya, my Camaro has a 4-speed.


As for the E55 being "in a bad part of the powerband," well that's impossible. As long as you have the throttle pegged, and as long as the tranny kicks down to the right gear, you will have more power than you can shake a stick at.

BTW, the E55 theoretically makes 550 crank hp. That would be a power/weight ratio of roughly 7.64 lb/hp. On your NSX, at 270 crank hp and 2700lbs, that's 10 lb/hp. To put that into perspective, to equal the power/weight ratio of the E55 AMG, you need at least 350 crank hp. The E55 still has a definite advantage.

As for gearing and aerodynamics... The NSX is pretty aerodynamic, but not much more (if any) than the E55. Also, the E55 couldn't have more perfect gearing with it's 5-speed automatic. At full throttle, I hit the 155mph governor in 4th gear. And 5th gear is not an overdrive - it's for those lucky Germans that can have their cars delimited to 187mph, or fully delimited, which would be good for over 200mph.

If you're only running bolt-ons, the E55 AMG should've slaughtered you. If he didn't, then the floormat must've been bunched up under the gas pedal.

 

I need an E55 for a daily.....

 

which is faster....SL55 or E55...or same

 

In actuality, the E55 is probably a touch faster due to it's lighter weight. They both make the same horsepower, though MB advertises the SL55 as having more power...

 

i just dont know where some of you guys are getting these figures from. Im looking at this article in motortrend and NOWHERE is there any number close to 550hp. 469 is the only number i see in this magazine and on any website. and none of them say REAR WHEEL horsepower. The highest torque numbers i see are 516@2650rpm. Id like to see some proof.

 

ok i found some more numbers. better than 'magazine' stock, but not quite as good as you say. A guy i know with an e55 says evosport dynoed one at about 420rwhp which is close to 510 at crank. Either way the car's a beast. 550 just sounded pretty steep to me.

 

420rwhp is 525 crank hp with 20% drivetrain loss. We got 20 more wheel hp. Yay.

The cars were underrated from the factory. Get over it. The E55 is faster than the outgoing M5, and should be faster than the E60 M5. But it's OK; your M5 will come with bigger wheels and a manual.

It's like you want so much for the E55 to be slower, that you lie and lie to yourself, so much that you actually start to believe yourself.

 

Dyno's differ...no two dyno's are the same really and once in ur big HP like that, you can have a big margin of error I believe.

Alex-

The E55 vs. the NSX should be no contest on paper, but this is how it played out in the real world. Who knows, maybe the schmuck used 87 octane, or maybe he had a TON of stuff in the car...i don't know. Do they have trip-tronic? if so, maybe he was in a lower gear than he should have been...

As for aerodynamics...i highly highly doubt the E55 has a lower CD than the NSX...I thought the NSX was like .28 or something...I don't know. Keep in mind, my NSX is slammed, so the CD is lower than a stock one.

Also, the way in which that 2700lbs and 4200lbs is distributed could be a big deal too...The NSX has most its weight right on the rear tires for traction. I have really light rims and have taken as much rotational mass off as I can...

And alex, he did beat me...and if we would have kept going, he would have continued to beat me up until that governor kicked in and I got to keep going That really sucks to govern a 200mph + family sedan to 155!

 

SoFla, I'm not disputing the fact that you kept up with him, I'm just spitting out numbers to better realize the performance difference between the two cars.

It's very possible that he was in "Manual" mode, and was one gear higher than he should've been. He could've also had 400lbs of concrete in the trunk, or a few passengers. He could've also not been full throttle. You never know. All I know is, it should have beat you. And it did, so what's the big deal?

Simply lowering the car does not lower drag coefficient. It's specifically a formulation of frontal area, speed, etc. Unless you have a body kit, simply slamming the car will do nothing except (most likely) reduce lift and/or drag.

Also, at a 65mph roll, in a straight line, the weight distribution means hardly anything. I could have a Civic where 80% of its 2000lb weight was over the rear wheels, but at 65mph, I'm gonna put the power down just as easily as if the weight were evenly distributed, or even biased towards the front. Weight distribution only really comes into play when talking about handling dynamics, balance, and acceleration from a standstill.

By installing lighter wheels, you lower the unsprung weight, but that also has little to do with straight-line acceleration at start speeds as high as those.

True, you can go faster than an E55, but most likely, by the time he hits the 155mph governor, you're so far back that the race should already be over.