Curb Zone | German Car Zone | Japanese Car Zone |
| |
| |||||||
| Notices |
| E-Class W211 Currently in production (2002 - W210 Produced during (1996 - 2002) |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #1 (permalink) |
| Me for President ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sweden I drive: Rear Wheel Drive
Posts: 17,362
Thanks: 1,289
Thanked 5,175 Times in 2,121 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? I dont understand the people there, just because E63 has less torque than E55 then they wont change to a E63. Its obvious some people still think torque is the most important thing. They havent even tried the new E63 but already they diss the car Ridicolous !! - ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER |
| | |
| | #2 (permalink) |
| GCZ's High Court ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 I drive: BMW E60 535d, Carbon Black, M Package
Posts: 15,332
Thanks: 5,549
Thanked 5,569 Times in 2,899 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? GTA is a member there as well, is he ridiculous too? ![]() |
| | |
| | #3 (permalink) | |
| Me for President ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sweden I drive: Rear Wheel Drive
Posts: 17,362
Thanks: 1,289
Thanked 5,175 Times in 2,121 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #4 (permalink) |
| Global Moderator ![]() Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Montreal, Canada I drive: BMW 325i (E46)
Posts: 5,583
Thanks: 2,567
Thanked 2,594 Times in 1,191 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? Well torque is obviously important... and if you swap the engine by reducing torque and increasing HP while keeping the same weight on the car, then performance will drop a bit in certain areas. That's probably why they are b!tching. |
| | |
| | #5 (permalink) | |
| Aficionado ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: England
Posts: 4,584
Thanks: 440
Thanked 538 Times in 310 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? Quote:
I wonder what would happen if I registered there with my username, and a sig saying 'Mercedes suck'! ![]() | |
| | |
| | #6 (permalink) |
| Devotee ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Sydney
Posts: 3,386
Thanks: 1,325
Thanked 1,666 Times in 862 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? i am sure the E63 will be just as quick or even quicker than the E55 during rolling acceleration because the new V8 is lighter, and the 7-G gearbox has closer ratios with quicker shifting speed. AMG is no stupid enough to release a new car that is SLOWER than the model it replaces |
| | |
| | #7 (permalink) | |
| Contributor ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Aurora IL USA I drive: 2003 Mercedes-Benz CLK430 Cabriolet
Posts: 10,281
Thanks: 2,986
Thanked 4,909 Times in 2,106 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? Quote:
M | |
| | |
| | #9 (permalink) | |
| Fanatic ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 1,201
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? Quote:
--- As for everyone else, neither torque nor power are the whole story. Maybe the MB fans are just worried that their foundations are shifting under them - that now they've lost the mountainous torque, and will somehow have to make do with simply 'a lot'. Maybe they don't think the power was worth it. IMO, what's more important than either figure is the time over which torque and power are produced - power and torque by themselves are merely two methods of measuring what is more or less the same thing. What you want is lots of torque throughout a large rev range, and the peak power will come somewhere in that rev range. If you can get a peak torque (or 90% of peak torque, or whatever) at a relatively low point in the rev band, and peak power at a relatively high point in the rev band, then all the space in between is useful rev range for you to drive in. Importantly, this must all be seen in light of the transmission. Never forget the transmission - it's not just something that sits in between the engine and the wheels, it's a force multiplier. That way, if you can get a well coordinated set of gears with a wide useable rev range, then you'll get the best real life performance. Well, all that is actually just armchair theorising. But IMHO, there is no possible way the new E63 won't comfortably beat the E55. | |
| | |
| | #10 (permalink) |
| Expert ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Sweden Gothenburg
Posts: 14,446
Thanks: 322
Thanked 1,843 Times in 962 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | Re: mbworld.org: why give up over 50 ft. lbs of torque for a messely 40 hp? wow some ppl need to step out of the box and think.. will MB make a new replacement of a performance sedan..wich doesent perform as well as the old one?? come on.. |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| HP or Torque | Matt | Tech Talk Forum | 34 | 08-13-2006 11:42 PM |