Speed Figures. Surprised if true answer is known

[maddog]

Also the figures for the Omega are miles out. I reckon around 7 - 7.5 secs for the Omega in sport mode.

I dont think 210hp is going to produce a 0-60 in that range in a big heavy car

 

[flango]

I dont think 210hp is going to produce a 0-60 in that range in a big heavy car

I think our test 0-60 mph of 8.85 secs is as good as it gets as you rightly point out it is a heavy car to get rolling and has a tall 1st gear, saloon is a different matter though with high 7's easily achieveable

 

[flango]

IIRC the omega is a 4 speed and has a tall first gear, it's not fast off the line (I remember you couldn't get the rear wheels to spin on the 2.6 on dry tarmac)

As for the police - they're more interested in being able to keep up in a motorway chase, standing starts are not a priority. And remember who pays for their fuel. In fact having owned a turbo Volvo I think you'll find fuel economy at 150mph is kind of an irrelevance...

Agree with the first point although the 2.6 is totally different to the 3.0 and the 3.2 they put in the Vectra is in a different league all together.

As for the second point most Police pursuits these days are carried out in urban country areas where point to point speed is critical therefore the cars they use must be capable of very quick 0-60 times and hence the reason most forces now have Evo's or Subaru's on their fleet, in an urban chase you are likely to have an Evo, Subaru or Vectra behind you, if it's a motorway pursuit you will probably be looking at a Volvo V70 or Merc E Class or BMW 5 in your rear view mirror. As for 150mph not very often they travel at these speeds in fact very rare, a T5 would be topping out at that speed (I know as we had a Police spec one as a training vehicle)

 

[Howard]

My old w208 320 cab weighed pretty much the same as the Omega at 1695 kg unladen weight , and has a similar power figure at 218 bhp and 310 Nm of torque ...

Book time for this is 0-60 in 8.3 seconds , which in my experience was about right , i'd be surprised if a car that weighed similar , but with less power could shave a whole second and a half off that ...

8.5 seconds for the Omega sounds about right ....

 

[flango]

My old w208 320 cab weighed pretty much the same as the Omega at 1695 kg unladen weight , and has a similar power figure at 218 bhp and 310 Nm of torque ...

Book time for this is 0-60 in 8.3 seconds , which in my experience was about right , i'd be surprised if a car that weighed similar , but with less power could shave a whole second and a half off that ...

8.5 seconds for the Omega sounds about right ....

Omega 3.0 saloon is miles qucker than a W208 320 Cab or Coupe. I have a 230K coupe with Brabus K1 kit with about 220bhp (manual) and my brother in law has a standard 320 coupe (auto). The Omega can bury both these cars with room to spare 0-60 mph of mid to late 7's is a full second quicker than the W208 auto. My W208 manual is quicker of the mark than the Omega but once you get mid range the the Omega just burries the pair of them.

But if you want some real fun try a 3.2 Vectra see below

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=7ndfC_w4wa4

 

[Howard]

Well , book for a 320 coupe is 7.4 seconds ... the cabrio is a full second slower to 60 at 8.3 seconds ... because , as i'm sure you know , it weighs nearly 200kg more.

So about the same as the Omega really. I'm quoting figures from the CLK Owners handbook which is in front of me , as we all know , MB are conservative with their figures.

I'd happily take on a 3.0 Omega in a 320 CLK ...

 

[maddog]

My slightly modified E320 cdi takes the new models (224hp) with ease its quite a bit quicker to 60 and keeps on going and i've seen 0-60's of 7.3 seconds quoted for them

 

[ringway]

My slightly modified E320 cdi takes the new models (224hp) with ease its quite a bit quicker to 60 and keeps on going and i've seen 0-60's of 7.3 seconds quoted for them

What mod have you on your 320cdi and what car (224hp) are you refering to that in beats?

 

[stumpy1]

I had an Omega auto like the one described in this thread and it was not that fast off the line mainly due to gearing. The 320 would be faster. I thought that the feds used manual gearboxes in their big Vauxhalls anyway.

 

[flango]

Well , book for a 320 coupe is 7.4 seconds ... the cabrio is a full second slower to 60 at 8.3 seconds ... because , as i'm sure you know , it weighs nearly 200kg more.

So about the same as the Omega really. I'm quoting figures from the CLK Owners handbook which is in front of me , as we all know , MB are conservative with their figures.

I'd happily take on a 3.0 Omega in a 320 CLK ...

Not been funny but the only way a W208 320 Clk could manage 0-60 mph in 7.4 secs is if you drove it off the end of a cliff, I'm also not sure about MB being conservative with there figures I can think of a few MB cars where you have not got a cat in hells chance of reaching the book 0-60 figure. I have tested both these cars driving both cars and the Omega is miles in front. Also I know my 230k has the benefit of the Brabus tuning kit but it is quicker to 100mph than the standard 320 clk even though according to the book it should be slower.

The results below show why.

The W208 CLK 320 has a 1/4 mile time of 16.2 secs at a terminal speed of 88 mph.

The W208 CLK 230k has a time of 15.1 at terminal speed of 91mph

The W208 CLK 430 has a time of 15.4 at a terminal speed of 89 mph

So over the 1/4 mile the MB car with the highest 0-60 mph figure and the smallest engine is the fastest! so becareful of 0-60 times they don't really mean anything it is speed through the gears that count.

For Comparison Omega 3.0 MV6 1/4 mile time 14.2 secs at a terminal speed of 108 mph so will bury any of the above.

Any sub 15 second run on 1/4 mile is bloody quick

Give me the Omega 3.0 MV6 and I will gladly take on all comers up to a and including the 430, The Omega handles better, stops quicker and is far more flexible than the CLK. I love my CLK but have to give credit where it is due, Vauxhalls get bad press but in reality are fantastic bang for your buck.

 

[flango]

I had an Omega auto like the one described in this thread and it was not that fast off the line mainly due to gearing. The 320 would be faster. I thought that the feds used manual gearboxes in their big Vauxhalls anyway.

Cop spec is either auto or manual depending on the duty of the car, most forces used to run both.

 

[Dieselman]

Which version of the Omega 3.0 are we talking about. They became slower as the power increased, probably due to a restricted torque band in the V engine.

It also seems odd that a heavier car with less power and torque will out drag a lighter one with more power and torque.
I've shown the auto gearbox figures for both as the auto really kills the Vx and the Clk is only available in auto.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=17684

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=13562

 

[ringway]

Not been funny but the only way a W208 320 Clk could manage 0-60 mph in 7.4 secs is if you drove it off the end of a cliff, I'm also not sure about MB being conservative with there figures I can think of a few MB cars where you have not got a cat in hells chance of reaching the book 0-60 figure. I have tested both these cars driving both cars and the Omega is miles in front. Also I know my 230k has the benefit of the Brabus tuning kit but it is quicker to 100mph than the standard 320 clk even though according to the book it should be slower.

The results below show why.

The W208 CLK 320 has a 1/4 mile time of 16.2 secs at a terminal speed of 88 mph.

The W208 CLK 230k has a time of 15.1 at terminal speed of 91mph

The W208 CLK 430 has a time of 15.4 at a terminal speed of 89 mph

So over the 1/4 mile the MB car with the highest 0-60 mph figure and the smallest engine is the fastest! so becareful of 0-60 times they don't really mean anything it is speed through the gears that count.

For Comparison Omega 3.0 MV6 1/4 mile time 12.8 secs at a terminal speed of 108 mph so will bury any of the above.

Give me the Omega 3.0 MV6 and I will gladly take on all comers up to a and including a 430, The Omega handles better, stops quicker and is far more flexible than CLK. I love my CLK but have to give credit where it is due, Vauxhalls get bad press but in reality are fantastic bang for your buck.

I love my 320cdi but my Omega is quicker and a very good car to distance travel in. All the toys you need too.
I remember one of the car magazines quoting that "if it had a BMW badge on the bonnet everybody would want one".

Once it gets to 15-20mph it really does hurtle along.

Thanks for the comparisons above.

 

[BTB 500]

It also seems odd that a heavier car with less power and torque will out drag a lighter one with more power and torque.

Gearing?

 

[Dieselman]

Weired..

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--CLK320-Drag-Racing.html

http://www.dragtimes.com/Opel--Omega-Drag-Racing.html

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=20767

 

[flango]

Which version of the Omega 3.0 are we talking about. They became slower as the power increased, probably due to a restricted torque band in the V engine.

It also seems odd that a heavier car with less power and torque will out drag a lighter one with more power and torque.
I've shown the auto gearbox figures for both as the auto really kills the Vx and the Clk is only available in auto.
http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=17684

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=13562

Think we are talking Multi Omega's started off on a 3.0 1999 T Plate estate compared to a 2002 E320 cdi estate, then we got onto Omega Vs CLK which brought us into saloon territory and comparing petrol engines.

1/4 mile times I stated are for a CLK 230K Manual and a Vauxhall Omega MV6 Manual saloon, as you quite rightly point out all W208 320 & 430 were Auto.

A feel for the Omega's speed can be gained from the clip below but remember the car is 4 up

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/o...g-mit-4-personen/2956442064/?icid=VIDURVAUT12

 

[stumpy1]

Think we are talking Multi Omega's started off on a 3.0 1999 T Plate estate compared to a 2002 E320 cdi estate, then we got onto Omega Vs CLK which brought us into saloon territory and comparing petrol engines.

1/4 mile times I stated are for a CLK 230K Manual and a Vauxhall Omega MV6 Manual saloon, as you quite rightly point out all W208 320 & 430 were Auto.

A feel for the Omega's speed can be gained from the clip below but remember the car is 4 up

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/o...g-mit-4-personen/2956442064/?icid=VIDURVAUT12

Yeah, that's how I remember mine - not that quick really. After 18 secs the driver gets bored going for the ton so gives up.....

 

[Dieselman]

At least something is consistant...

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--E320-Drag-Racing.html

 

[flango]

Weired..

http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Benz--CLK320-Drag-Racing.html

http://www.dragtimes.com/Opel--Omega-Drag-Racing.html

http://www.parkers.co.uk/cars/specs/Detail.aspx?deriv=20767

The links to the Omega are for the 3.2 auto, my times were for 3 litre manual, again I guess drag times for a particular car vary my data came from the database here
http://www.york-raceway.co.uk/

and to prove they vary take a look at these 2 identical 320's on the strip
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GyyE6aA1xFA

The driver makes all the difference

 

[flango]

Yeah, that's how I remember mine - not that quick really. After 18 secs the driver gets bored going for the ton so gives up.....

be fair you are nearly 7 secs into the clip before he straightens up and goes for it, 60 comes up pretty rapid then I guess due to being 4 up starts to fade quickley as it loses legs, DM is correct auto boxes kill these cars