D
Deleted member 37751
Guest
You’re certainly exceptional my friend!Lee, you do need an exception to prove the rule
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You’re certainly exceptional my friend!Lee, you do need an exception to prove the rule
My 2L Subaru GTB had two turbos.....plenty brisk enough
I used to think that 2 was ample, but have discovered that more is better. My Sierra 2.0GL was trumped by the 2.9l XR4x4, and my 2.1 C220 was trumped by the 3.0 CLS350.
That's a very good point. A car feels more exciting to drive when it's closer to it's limits, and it's difficult to get anywhere near the limits of some cars on the road without driving dangerously. I suspect you were driving your SLK at eight tenths, but your M3 was barely past five tenths at the same speed.I had a different experience in the '90's when my 3.2 litre 321bhp M3 Evolution convertible was replaced by an SLK230. I enjoyed driving the SLK far more - it really "came alive" on sweeping A road bends, roads where the M3 felt dead and simply "on rails". No doubt the M3 is a better car in the hands of a Stig on a closed road, but in real world motoring at sensible speeds, the SLK was a far more involving car to drive.
Currently my X1 is being repaired (after being hit while it was parked) and I have been lent a Mercedes GLA with a 2 litre diesel. Allegedly an "equivalent". Because the auto box is nowhere nearly as keen to down-change, the car feels woolly and underpowered by comparison.
I had a different experience in the '90's when my 3.2 litre 321bhp M3 Evolution convertible was replaced by an SLK230. I enjoyed driving the SLK far more - it really "came alive" on sweeping A road bends, roads where the M3 felt dead and simply "on rails". No doubt the M3 is a better car in the hands of a Stig on a closed road, but in real world motoring at sensible speeds, the SLK was a far more involving car to drive.
Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance. It it were then a C63 should be more than twice as fast as a C43 but it isn't. There are a lot of factors that make one car perform better than another, engine cubic inches and even power aren't the be all and end all anymore.
Engine cc is no longer an indication of engine performance. It it were then a C63 should be more than twice as fast as a C43 but it isn't. There are a lot of factors that make one car perform better than another, engine cubic inches and even power aren't the be all and end all anymore.
Agreed but the FI C63 wont be twice as fast as a C43 despite potentially having twice the power.You didn't specify which engines you're comparing but if it's a N/A C63 and a FI C43, then add FI to the M156 and they will end up being 2:1 on power.
Agreed but the FI C63 wont be twice as fast as a C43 despite potentially having twice the power.
That was the point I was making. Power is not an indication of performance.The 'power to speed' argument is meaningless. Especially as you need nearly twice as much power to go from 190 to 200 than you do from 0 to 190mph.
That was the point I was making. Power is not an indication of performance.
Especially as you need nearly twice as much power to go from 190 to 200 than you do from 0 to 190mph.
Do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that if a car requires 500 hp at 190, then it will require 1000 hp at 200 mph?
About that, yes. On a 1.5 miles runway though, not on an indefinitely long stretch.
A 500bhp Mercedes will never get to 190mph on the same runway, btw.
One of the cars I had a play with some years ago was a Ford Mustang 5.0 V8 GT (about 2008 I think). I likened it to a Black Labrador Puppy. Full of boundless energy, loads of fun, but not easy to keep calm and under control. It would spin the rear end up in the wet in pretty much any gear and if pressing on, would be trying to take you to the scene of the accident at any given time. It also had rubbish brakes. That said, it was good to see that the US muscle car idea was still alive.I know what you mean. When I had the CLK500 I test drove a SLK350 and found it handled loads better than its bigger sister. The CLK was the traditional Mercedes ride, whereas the SLK was set up for the more sportier ride.
Then again, look at all those American muscle cars, and the Vauxhall Vectra VXR. Brilliant on the straight yet try to corner those beasts and you have a fight on your hands.
Also got to drive an SLK350 around the track at Brooklands at the same time that we had an SLK200 Kompressor (R171) of our own. The 350 was great. The 200 was also very good, but 6-cylinder 3.5 V6 with just over 300 hp and decent brakes was better.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.