Been a long while since I posted. But wanted to let everyone know I just got back from my first trip to the Drag Strip. I ran 13.254 @ 106.66.

The car next to me was completly stock and ran 11.9 @117. Any guesses what it was?

 

porsche 911 turbo s... maybe a gt2?

btw whats you setup.

 

ok wats yur setup

and i guess a Z06, yes, ive seen it done

 

Sweet time for the first try.

My guess?...Hmm...an R1. Oh wait you said car...

 

Nah, the 2001 Porsche Turbo that was with us could could not beat this car. The closest competitor was a Dodge SRT-4 running slicks, roll cage, wheelie bars and 30 psi. Oh, did I mention this car ran the 11.9 on street tires, the same tires that came on the car when delivered to the dealer? A stock Z06 is not going to run 11.9. He was the fastest car on the strip that day, including several single turbo Supra's.

For now I will just say I am running a positive displacement SC w/ intercooler. My 60' was ~2.0. My fastest trap speed of the day was 107.12.

Any other guesses?

 

117 traps got to be the VIPER

 

Details would be nice, what is this guess my car and guess what the other car thing.

 

ok..i give up

 

The ford gt (gt 40 clone) perhaps?

 

I still say its an R1

 

well i busted out the new Road & Track to see what cars can run a sub 12.5 second 1/4 miles in stock form. here is what i have found:


Ameritech McLaren F1:________11.6 @ 125 mph
Dodge Viper SRT 10:_________12.2 @ 119.6 mph
Ferrari Enzo:________________11.1 @ 133 mph
Ford GT:____________________12.2 @ 121.6 mph
Lamborghini Gollardo_________12.3 @ 117.4 mph
Lamborghini Murcielago________12.0 @ 121 mph
Mecedes E55 AMG____________12.4 @ 116.4 mph
Panoz LMP-1 Roadster S_______9.3 @ 148 mph
Porsche Carrera GT___________11.3 @ 131.6 mph
Porsche 911 GT1_____________10.9 @ 139.5 mph
Porsche 911 GT2_____________11.9 @ 120.6 mph
Porsche 911 GT3_____________12.4 @ 113.8 mph
Porsche 911 Turbo____________12.4 @ 115.6 mph
RUF Rturbo__________________11.9 @ 122.7 mph
Saleen S7___________________11.8 @ 119.9 mph

hopefully that narrows it down, IF you are certain that it was actually stock...

 

This post is ******* gay. You want us to guess what car you ran and you won't even tell us the car you drive and your setup? I don't give a **** what you raced and I also don't really care what you ran at the track considering you refuse to provide your setup. BTW my guess is lambo based on above chart

 

Nice attitude Mag00n. **** like that is why a bunch of good people left the board.

Just trying to have a little fun. But since someone wants to be a cry baby... The other car was a Mercedes SL65. For those that don't know it is a V12 Twin Turbo Monster. First & Second are limited to only 550 lb/ft of torque. When you hit third you get all 738 lb/feet. Stock hp = 604.

 

chill man, notice the and the

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by VTECPWR &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
The other car was a Mercedes SL65. For those that don't know it is a V12 Twin Turbo Monster. First & Second are limited to only 550 lb/ft of torque. When you hit third you get all 738 lb/feet. Stock hp = 604.</TD></TR></TABLE>

man i had a feeling it was this car! it wasnt in R & T's magazine listing yet. my friend drove one of these a couple weeks ago (it was his aunt's) and he said he almost **** himself!

 

Awsome. . . .I would kill for one of those
SL65amg=

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bryson &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I still say its an R1 </TD></TR></TABLE>

R1 are a lot faster than a slowass 11.9@117.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

R1 are a lot faster than a slowass 11.9@117.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Oh Ok. But maybe not at 5800ft

 

5800? Doh! Missed that bit... wonder what one would run at those elevations.

 

ok that was gay, and also, ive seen stock Z06s run damn close to that...one with a carbon fiber intake ran a 11.7. poo mercedes

 

lol funny funny!

 

Bet cha after that one run the car went back to the dealership for repairs.

Those damn cars never stay out of the shop. Friends got an C32 AMG and that thing works one day then all of a suddenly it's being towed to the dealership.

Mercedes are the kind of car that you Rent or Lease never buy.

Honda for life man.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX T-Si &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Bet cha after that one run the car went back to the dealership for repairs.

Those damn cars never stay out of the shop. Friends got an C32 AMG and that thing works one day then all of a suddenly it's being towed to the dealership.

Mercedes are the kind of car that you Rent or Lease never buy.

Honda for life man. </TD></TR></TABLE>

sippin that haterade huh man?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Brand &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

sippin that haterade huh man?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Or not.
Here are some Mercedes Benz ratings, from this year's Consumer Reports April 2004 Edition. They get their numbers and 's and 's from actual owners of the car, and based on trips to dealerships for repairs.

<U>Most Satisfying Cars, Pg 7</U>

Hondas Lineup:
Civic Hybrid
Accord
S2000
Odyssey
Element
Pilot
MDX

Mercedes Lineup:
N/A

<U>Least Satisfying Cars, pg 7</U>

Honda:
N/A

Mercedes:
ML500

<U>Problems per 100 vehicles, 2001 models, pg 17</U>:

Honda's 2001 vehicles: 35 problems per 100
Mercedes 2001 vehicles: 79 problems per 100

In the Customer Profiles section, pages 33-76, actual owners of these vehicles rated them based on their experience so far.

Every single Honda vehicle offered recieved better than average ownership satisfaction.
Every single Mercedes vehicle offered recieved lower than average ownership satisfaction.

Every single Honda vehicle offered also had "Very Good" or better ratings in the reliablity category.
Every single Mercedes vehicle offered scored below average or "Poor" in the reliablity category.

On pages 77 and 78, 2004 year model cars were rated on how reliable they will most likely be, based on past data.

Every vehicle in the Honda lineup scored above the average % percentile in reliability.
Every vehicle in the Mercedes lineup scored far below the average % percentile in reliability, with C class vehicles bottoming out at -70%...

*** The Mercedes Benz M Class made it onto the embarrassing "Repeat Offenders" list of horrible vehicles to consider for use. Other vehicles on this same list included such hooptie classics as:
1. Chevrolet Astro
2. Dodge Neon
3. Oldsmobile Cutlass

<U>No Hondas were on this "Repeat Offenders" list.</U>

On page 81, there is a section stating clearly "Used Cars To Avoid."

Hondas:
Passport 1998-1999 (it's actually a GM/Isuzu)

Mercedes:
C Class 2001-2001
CLK 2002
E Class 2003
E Class AWD 2000-2001
M Class 1998-2002
S Class 2000, 2002
SLK 2002

Also Consumer Reports (page 80) showed 6 Hondas that were great for "multiple years." Of course not a single Mercedes Benz made it onto the list.

So hopefully this clears things up. There is no way that i would ever spend 70 thousand dollars on a Mercedes and then deal with its MANY problems before it is even 1 year old.
CRX T-Si was not hating. He was stating a auto industry fact, that these things malfunction and fail more than almost any other car manufacturers.

 

CRX_1.8T thank you for your so detailed reply.

If the truth is hate then they have problems.