E500.org

[stats007]

0-60 or 0-100mph doesn't matter....a car that has more torque, shorter diff and less weight will sprint quicker to the 60 or 100 mark.

Not necessarily.

Why?

A huge number of factors - suspension design, engine mounting - anything that contributes to lateral load transfer. Rolling resistance based again on geometry and tyres used and most importantly the frontal area and Cd which has a huge effect on acceleration performance over ~50mph. Pull the body off of a W124 and stick a G-Wagen shell on and then tell me the same thing .

Did you read the 1/4 mile figures? Some even indicate the R129 is faster - though it all depends on the conditions they were tested.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing to be honest? My point was that the 500E really isn't anything special performance wise.

 

[jaymanek]

Mercedes & Porsche have been working together since the early 1900's.. Mercedes wanted to create this monster and Porsche had the apporpriate production line to do it on.. thats why it was built there..

Mercedes specced all the suspension, brakes etc, it was just that porsche had finished building the 959 and the factory was collecting dust..

 

[talbir]

Not necessarily.

Why?

A huge number of factors - suspension design, engine mounting - anything that contributes to lateral load transfer. Rolling resistance based again on geometry and tyres used and most importantly the frontal area and Cd which has a huge effect on acceleration performance over ~50mph. Pull the body off of a W124 and stick a G-Wagen shell on and then tell me the same thing .

Did you read the 1/4 mile figures? Some even indicate the R129 is faster - though it all depends on the conditions they were tested.

I'm not sure what point you're arguing to be honest? My point was that the 500E really isn't anything special performance wise.

Your arguments on suspension design and engine mounting don't stack up in this case...reason being the 500e and r129 have the EXACT same suspension....the 500e was given the r129 front and rear suspension. The 500e has the same design and track.

I have yet to see 1/4 mile times which show the sl500 as faster....it's just not theoretically possible given that the sl has less torque, taller diff and more weight !!! If you had ever experienced the difference the diff alone makes, you'd understand the point.

As for 500e not having special performance, it was the fastest normally aspirated non-AMG production MB between 91 and 95. Both w.r.t. top speed and 0-60 times.

And the line that Porsche's Weissach lines were collecting dust is a common journalist myth - Porsche had two, not one, but TWO Audi RS's in production as well !

talbir

 

[talbir]

and Cd which has a huge effect on acceleration performance over ~50mph.

This is also incorrect,. Aerodynamics come into play at a speed of 70mph - so cd below that is meaningless.

Also the SL is wide than the e500.....not sure how that helps.


talbir

 

[stats007]

I model vehicle dynamics for a living, please don't tell me what is and isn't correct .

 

[talbir]

I model vehicle dynamics for a living, please don't tell me what is and isn't correct .

Your 50mph threshold is incorrect.

If you google it, you'll find many links which clearly state that aerodynamics come into play at speeds over 70mph. Every die-hard Formula One will also know that fact.

Here's one :

http://www.raceweb.co.za/Aero.htm


talbir

 

[stats007]

I think you're confused between downforce and aerodynamic drag.

Drag is present from the moment the car is moving, yet only equals the rolling resistance from around 50mph. This is obviously dependent on a number of factors.

Again, please don't question something you really don't understand.

 

[talbir]

I made it clear with the word aerodynamics - how clearer could i be ?

Of course aerodynamic drag exists from speed above zero but where it really comes into play is speeds above 70mph.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_coefficient

As for your comments about not questioing something you don't understand, i could say the same about you and 500e's....re your comments about suspension...you clearly don't know much about the vehicle pedigree or history or facts. You have yet to invlaide any of the facts i have given about torque, weight, suspension and differential. Need to back things up with technical fact.


Read the bit about cD in automibles in the link above and then re-read your earlier posts about SL being faster due to less frontal area.....now measure the bonnet of an SL and a 500E.....makes the 500e faster on that theoretical argument as well !





talbir

 

[stats007]

I give in. You really don't understand the fundamentals of physics do you .

 

[talbir]

Simple physics :

two objects A (500e) and B (r129 500sl)

A and B same suspension
A and B same tyres (both r129 sl and w124 500e had 8J x 16 stock e34 fitments)
A has greater torque than B
A weighs less than B
A has shorter gearing than B

By the basic laws of physics, A is faster than B !

talbir

 

[stats007]

A has a larger frontal cross-sectional area than B. This is the bit you don't seem to understand.

Torque is also peak torque - it is not representative of the whole rev range. Different gearing means gear changes can fall in different parts of the rev band and so acceleration is different - impossible to tell without torque curves.

The R129 suspension is largely carried over from the W124, but no it isn't identical. Spring pads, rate and damping is different, as are geometry settings.

These points are in reply to your sweeping statement that power, weight and gearing are the only factors in acceleration performance for a car.

Sure the 500E is quicker off the line and by a small margin (0.75s) to 62mph, but looking at the standing quarter times the increased drag of the W124 means its advantages are evened out and become a disadvantage over 100mph.

Personally this whole discussion should be deleted from this thread - if you want it explaining mathematically then PM me.

 

[jaymanek]

WAY OT but interesting nonetheless!

 

[SL300-24]

Over my head thats for sure.........but chaps...how much faster is the 500E in comparason to a W211 320CDI? is there much in it?

 

[500E]

Probably not very much, the E320CDI is a VERY quick car!

But, i'll leave that to the experts and thier calculations...

 

[jaymanek]

Over my head thats for sure.........but chaps...how much faster is the 500E in comparason to a W211 320CDI? is there much in it?

dont, we'll have 6 pages on the effect of the air being sucked into the turbo and the turbulence in the engine bay causing lift which in turn causes greater aerodynamic drag...

im an expert you see..

 

[talbir]

Over my head thats for sure.........but chaps...how much faster is the 500E in comparason to a W211 320CDI? is there much in it?

The 320 CDI will be faster in the mid range - it has 374 lb ft torque.

Torque is king when it comes to power.

Standing start to 62, 500e wins no probs.


talbir

 

[talbir]

A has a larger frontal cross-sectional area than B. This is the bit you don't seem to understand.

Torque is also peak torque - it is not representative of the whole rev range. Different gearing means gear changes can fall in different parts of the rev band and so acceleration is different - impossible to tell without torque curves.

The R129 suspension is largely carried over from the W124, but no it isn't identical. Spring pads, rate and damping is different, as are geometry settings.

These points are in reply to your sweeping statement that power, weight and gearing are the only factors in acceleration performance for a car.

Sure the 500E is quicker off the line and by a small margin (0.75s) to 62mph, but looking at the standing quarter times the increased drag of the W124 means its advantages are evened out and become a disadvantage over 100mph.

Personally this whole discussion should be deleted from this thread - if you want it explaining mathematically then PM me.

Good points you raise....but again they all side in favour of the 500e.

The 500e torque band is higher across the range.

The 500e has a modified valve body to match the diff gearing - both gearboxes are essentially otherwise identical, so there is no question the 2.82 will give more acceleration, but of course less top speed. 500e wins on this front.

Yes, spring pads are one and two nib on the 500e, so it sits lower....means less aerodynamical lift and hence greater stability at high speed. 500e wins on this front.

500e has stiffer suspension as well....again this detail favours the 500e.

Mathematical proof would be lovely - especially the cross sectional are of 500e versus 129 500sl.

Your sweeping statement that 0-60 times are meaningless renders all car manufacturers stats useless....the performance benchmark for all manufacturers / road tests for decades has been the 0-100kmh sprint and top speed.

Finally, trying to suggest that a Q-car that MB and Porsche spent 18 days building has the same performance as a wide n' heavy 129 roadster that was a run of the mill production car is going to fall flat on it's face. Formula One drivers and motorsport celebrities opted for the 500e....only hollywood babes and Princess Diana went for the 129 SL.


BTW, love this discussion - technical and discursive without resorting to personal attack.

talbir

 

[stats007]

Actually F1 drivers went for the SL60 AMG .

0-60 times are marketing devices, as was the introduction of quoting Cd. Both are meaningless in the real-world.

 

[talbir]

Actually F1 drivers went for the SL60 AMG .

0-60 times are marketing devices, as was the introduction of quoting Cd. Both are meaningless in the real-world.

i dunno...0-60 is quite important at the traffic light runs !

i've got a list as long as my arm of cars owned by the 500e....people who think it's another big fat Merc but end up getting walloped by it !

The look on their faces is price less.....especially the sound...i have a Brabus system on the silver 500e and a Remus on the black 'drug-dealer' 500e...at WOT, the soundtrack is sensational !

talbir

 

[SL300-24]

The 320 CDI will be faster in the mid range - it has 374 lb ft torque.

Torque is king when it comes to power.

Standing start to 62, 500e wins no probs.


talbir

Thanks Talbir..........nice collection, I would love to have a look in your garage!

Cheers