E55 is a fast sedan, and thats it. It is not faster than a turbo.

 

I'm new and don't own either car, but JK996TT and ColorChange are correct. I have raced both cars (both bone stock) and the '03 E55 AMG is faster from a roll than the 996TT. My brother's boss has both cars and I've beaten him in the 996TT from a 50 roll in the E55 and he beat me from a 65 roll when I was driving the 996TT.

You guys remind me of many of the guys on Supraforums, where I'm also a member, and the Hayabusa forums. Every time a Supra loses to a "lesser" car, something MUST be wrong with the car or the driver or both. The same with the 'busa guys. There's a LONG thread on Supraforums about the VirtualWorks Supra (8.89@155 mph in the quarter) beating a TURBO 'busa from a 50-60 roll on a vid that was posted. First, the 'busa guys called bs, many of them before they had even viewed the video, and then a ton of them decended on the site saying how impossible it was for a Supra to beat any 'busa, let alone one that was turbocharged. You know the drill....bad rider, bike in poor condition and on an on.

My friend's E55 dynoed in bone stock form at 424 whp. This should tell you that the 469 crankshaft horsepower number is underrated, especially running through the MB 5-speed automatic. I don't recall what the SAE torque number was, but I do know that the motor makes 469 lb-ft at 1500 rpm on its way to its 516 lb-ft peak, so this car will NOT be caught flat-footed. Also, in one of my magazines, I forget which (likely R & T or C/D), the 996TT cab was tested against an SL 55 AMG. The cab was biting the *** of the Mercedes in the turns but all of the writers said the 55 pulled the cab on the straights.

As someone has already written, there is much less potential for error in the AMG than in a 6-speed 996TT from a roll. Its already been noted that both cars trap at about the same speed and trap speed more than ETs is indicative of horsepower. Curb weight is much less of a factor when the vehicle is already moving and with that .27 Cd (of which I was unaware), the E55 will gather speed at alarming rate for guys who drive stock 996TTs and just about stock anything else.

No offense intended, but you guys who think an '03 55 is incapable of beating a 996TT from a roll sound like charter members of the flat earth society. I have an 801 whp Supra, with all of that power available to me as I run 100 and 104 unleaded exclusively, so I know what it feels like to feel invincible. I've raced enough fast vehicles of all types and stripes to know that anything is possible, including an E55 AMG walking a 996TT.

 

Based on WHAT???? Some of you on here are HARD HEADED. The E55 will lose in a 0-XXX because it has no launch capability. It has no traction from a dead stop. That's not the issue.

Everyone on here that has ACTUALLY RACED a stock E55 vs. a stock 996TT has won in the E55 from a roll...usually 40+ MPH and up. That is where the E55 IS quicker. I guess KenHenderson is full of it too??? He drove both cars and at speed (over 40MPH in both cases) the E55 pulled the 996TT both times.

His comments ring true and I would think we're all grown up enough to accept someone's actual experience even if it doesn't make us "happy". I had a problem shaking a modded S2000 from 70+ in my first 996TT on the highway. It sucked, but I'm not going to deny that it happened.

 

My experience (limited) and the numbers say the E55 is faster once rolling.

If the tt goes 0-60 in 3.8 and the E55 in 4.3, but they reach about the same quarter time and the same speed, this means that the E55 is much faster in the top end. Isn't this obvious? The E55 has to make up for a 1/2 second off the line disadvantage, and it does.

 

From a 40 mph roll to approx. 120mph, how far ahead would the E55 be? Can't disgrace the Turbo, can it?

 

The best 0-60 time I've seen for a Turbo is 3.9 sec.

The Nov 2000 R&T tested the Turbo and recorded a 0-60 time of 4.0 sec and a 0-100 time of 9.2 sec. In that 0-100 run the Turbo took 5.2 sec. to accelerate from 60-100.

The Sep 2003 MT tested the E55 AMG and recorded a 0-60 time of 4.2 sec, and a 0-100 time of 9.7 sec. The E55 did 60-100 in 5.5 sec.

The only 0-150 mph tests I could find showed the Turbo running it in 21.6 sec, and the AMG in 22.8 sec.

Obviously these are tests that were run on different days and at different tracks, but they do support the power, gearing, and weight numbers that indicate the Turbo's advantage.

 

Yeah... EVERYONE! Except me and Shank and Stephen and....... Please. Two of my friends have them, you don't think we've raced in every situation imaginable. My record 1,000,000 - 0, Also, Color change just got his car, how many miles are on it? The Turbo engine once broken in properly really opens up.

 

What a debate.....

Bench racing is fine, or should we call it "key board racing"..... everybodies "seat-o-the-pants" meter is calibrated differently. the ONLY person who I would trust with a "seat-o-the-pants" meter analysis would be Michael Schumacher or one of his cronies... and then it would be after he had ample seat time in the subject car!

So far, I would have to agree with Dock (Atlanta), due to the fact that he is using physics to support his position. But we also have other variables... such as tire grip. This plays a HUGE part in launch when analyzing an acceleration number.

All-wheel drive puts alot more rubber on the road during the launch.

I drove a Z06 and was impressed with the low end torque, since the suspension was so stiff, every little blip of the throttle was felt in my back as well as the "seat-o-the-pants" meter... this car had less horsepower than mine....... yet it "felt" faster.

 

The problem with Dock's physics is that the E55 is supposed to have 469 HP yet these cars dyno at over 420HP at the rear wheels idicating higher than stated HP. Colorchange put is best with the nearly 1/2 second made up from 60 to 1/4 mile times...anyone car to explain that. The E55 has a higher trap speed yet hits 60 nearly 1/2 second slower....

 

Below are numbers that would seem to benefit your argument that rolling or at speed the E55 is faster or at least as fast as the Turbo. That just hasn't been my experience at all. I am interested to know if color change's car is broken in? Tim, car broken in?

Porsche 911 Turbo
0-60 0-100 1/4mile

C/D 3.9 12.3

R/T 4.0 9.2 12.4@115.6

M/T 3.9 12.0@116

Evo Mag 4.1 10.0



MB E55 AMG
C/D 4.3 12.5

R/T 4.2 9.4 12.4@116.4

M/T 4.2 12.4@116.2

Evo Mag 4.8 10.2

 

LSM - I agree...once broken in the 996TT gets faster...no question about it. My '02 was definitely faster at 10k miles than it was at 3k miles. Your numbers above confirm the only point I was attempting to make...the E55 makes up the gap it lost from 0-60. The only logical conclusion can be that it accelerates faster at speed than the p car. This is my last post on this topic. I have to concentrate on modding the TT for now - I will not lose to a sedan. Tim coudn't possibly have enough miles on his car at this point, but he certainly has something to look forward to.

 

Actually My Chipped RS6 easily pulled away from a Stock E55 from 40mph roll on all the way to 140 (till traffic)

Also, a stock turbo walks my RS6 from a 40 - 50mph roll on to about 150 as well.

use the IF THEN logic. E55 is not faster than a turbo in any roll on. Neither is the RS6.

Purely talking from repeated experience.

Hey Lou, perhaps we should film Jennings' E55 vs. My Red Turbo.

 

JK, painfully true. About 650 miles and counting Lou.

My E55 was well broken in (and tracked) and that is what I took against what looked like an '02tt. Again, I didn't know the driver but my car did pull. The fact that you guys tested two E55's and beat them with the tt is odd and makes me wonder. Most of the number say the E55 should win when you clear 40+mph.

By the time my tt is finally broken in it won't be very stock I'm happy to say so I can't use it for a test.

 

Shank,

The above was exactly what I was thinking. I mean I was there for all the fun you speak of, so I know its true. I cannot beleive that to some people the E55 is faster. If Tim is up for it, he should bring his E55 and he can see for himself that it won't keep up with the Turbo. Tim you up for it??

Lou

 

Was the turbo you raced Tiptronic?? That can be the only logical explanation. Besides, the numbers I posted show the turbo winning 0-60, 0-100, and 1/4 mile for all but one of the magazines. The MB is hampered by weight and slush. When I drive the E55, it downshifts, waits a second and then goes. I dunno, I walked my friends E55 at every speed.