2009 c63 amg
#43
06-27-2009, 12:58 AM
Imagine how many awesome cars you could have for the price of the amg haha
Nice cars though guys =]
Nice cars though guys =]
#44
06-30-2009, 01:09 PM
there is a lot of drinking in this thread. (hence the tomando? lol clearly miamians)
the amg is nice...i actually prefer its looks to the new m3, so props to your car and for having one....
but in all honesty
i dunno whats worse....a fit guy not understanding the difference between whp and hp to the crank, or a amg driver jumping on a fit forum to 'represent' his car with his buddies.
lol at this whole thread.
but nice car regardless.
the amg is nice...i actually prefer its looks to the new m3, so props to your car and for having one....
but in all honesty
i dunno whats worse....a fit guy not understanding the difference between whp and hp to the crank, or a amg driver jumping on a fit forum to 'represent' his car with his buddies.
lol at this whole thread.
but nice car regardless.
#45
06-30-2009, 01:26 PM
[quote=MslilBlackNismo;681075]My man.......
A car of this caliber should be making at least 100 hp per liter.
Ummmmm...... I have never heard that before in my life...... So what your really trying to say in your little "theory" is..... IF the car has a 6.0 liter engine, that it should be making 600hp @ 100hp per liter, correct???? Than that means that the Nissan 350Z should be coming with 350hp instead of 306hp??? or the C63 should be coming with 630hp??? I feel I have been ripped off if your "theory" is right...... And according to your "theory" that means that the 1993 Mazda RX-7 with a 1.3L and 80 cubic inch engine, should only come with 130hp instead of 255hp??? And can you explain that one to me... I mean I am pretty confused on that..... I really hope you can help me out on that one.....
But regardless on all that.... Let me clear something up for you, since you dont know the difference between wheel hp and hp to the crank. IT'S REALLY BASIC..... Crank HP is the true horsepower produced by the motor. The HP that your engine produces to the tranny (transmission, for those of us that are slower than others). For example... The C63 puts out 451hp to the crank, the Nissan 350Z puts out 306hp and the RX-7 puts out 255hp. Now that is all power to the crank, actual hp produced by the motor (dont want to lose anyone here.....).... NOW..... Your WHP or lb-ft of torque (Wheel Horsepower) is what you actually put down with your wheels. For example, the C63 produces 451hp but 443 lb-ft of torque and 268 ib-ft of torque for the 350..... Its called Drivetrain Power Loss... For the most part with alot of cars, there is always a loss of power when comparing the whp to the actual hp. If your still confused on this..... Google is an amazing tool to use before opening your mouth on something you know nothing about......
quote]
hmmm. wow.
i'm suprised that someone who 'knows' as much as you do has never heard of making 100hp per litre. a 20k civic si pretty much does it. a 30k s2k exceeds it. not to mention plenty of lambos and ferraris and audis, be it through finely tuned natural aspiration or forced induction.
if honda had fooled with this motor it would be making over 600 hp. i think that was the only point he was trying to make.
and its kinda unfair for you to throw in the mazda reference, because rotary engines make power totally differently and usually have MUCH more than 100 hp per litre. (so i guess maybe you HAVE heard of such things?)
toma. :)
A car of this caliber should be making at least 100 hp per liter.
Ummmmm...... I have never heard that before in my life...... So what your really trying to say in your little "theory" is..... IF the car has a 6.0 liter engine, that it should be making 600hp @ 100hp per liter, correct???? Than that means that the Nissan 350Z should be coming with 350hp instead of 306hp??? or the C63 should be coming with 630hp??? I feel I have been ripped off if your "theory" is right...... And according to your "theory" that means that the 1993 Mazda RX-7 with a 1.3L and 80 cubic inch engine, should only come with 130hp instead of 255hp??? And can you explain that one to me... I mean I am pretty confused on that..... I really hope you can help me out on that one.....
But regardless on all that.... Let me clear something up for you, since you dont know the difference between wheel hp and hp to the crank. IT'S REALLY BASIC..... Crank HP is the true horsepower produced by the motor. The HP that your engine produces to the tranny (transmission, for those of us that are slower than others). For example... The C63 puts out 451hp to the crank, the Nissan 350Z puts out 306hp and the RX-7 puts out 255hp. Now that is all power to the crank, actual hp produced by the motor (dont want to lose anyone here.....).... NOW..... Your WHP or lb-ft of torque (Wheel Horsepower) is what you actually put down with your wheels. For example, the C63 produces 451hp but 443 lb-ft of torque and 268 ib-ft of torque for the 350..... Its called Drivetrain Power Loss... For the most part with alot of cars, there is always a loss of power when comparing the whp to the actual hp. If your still confused on this..... Google is an amazing tool to use before opening your mouth on something you know nothing about......
quote]
hmmm. wow.
i'm suprised that someone who 'knows' as much as you do has never heard of making 100hp per litre. a 20k civic si pretty much does it. a 30k s2k exceeds it. not to mention plenty of lambos and ferraris and audis, be it through finely tuned natural aspiration or forced induction.
if honda had fooled with this motor it would be making over 600 hp. i think that was the only point he was trying to make.
and its kinda unfair for you to throw in the mazda reference, because rotary engines make power totally differently and usually have MUCH more than 100 hp per litre. (so i guess maybe you HAVE heard of such things?)
toma. :)
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Sid 6.7
Other Car Related Discussions
6
06-07-2009 11:26 AM
