Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

07-29-2006, 11:11 PM

#16

teal98

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Santa Clara, CA

Posts: 3,132

Re: Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threxx

Well I just did a search and saw several editorial-tested curb weights ranging from 3560 to 3586, but nothing over 3600... much less over 3700. What were these mags that tested over 3700?

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html

I found my R&T today with the test of the C55. It listed 3720 pounds. MT just recently started weighing their cars, so perhaps the test you refer to used the mfg curb weight. The R&T car had the COMAND and premium audio and one more thing I can't remember.

Recent C350 tests put it at a bit under 3500 pounds with a six speed manual. The C55 has a bigger engine, bigger tires, auto, etc., so 3720 sounds reasonable.

07-29-2006, 11:15 PM

#17

91_z28_4me

Registered User

Join Date: Jun 2001

Location: Pewee Valley, KY

Posts: 4,600

Re: Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threxx

Recently Mercedes latest styling directions have really tickled my fancy...

I agree. In fact I saw a new S550 at the grocery today and did a slow stroll by to check out some of the curves. It looks very nice. I think from the rear spy photo this car could have a similar rear light setup. Which BTW I definately liked in person.

07-29-2006, 11:26 PM

#18

teal98

Registered User

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Santa Clara, CA

Posts: 3,132

Re: Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Quote:

Originally Posted by 91_z28_4me

Really? Someone here at work has one of the new S550s. I like the looks of the older model much more. But I like the engine much more in the new one.

07-30-2006, 07:20 AM

#19

R377

Registered User

Join Date: Nov 2000

Location: Ontario

Posts: 2,712

Re: Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Quote:

Originally Posted by Threxx

I mean, if you placed a vehicle magically in the air at about 16000 feet of altitute, it would weigh about 2 hundredths of a percent less (2 tenths of a pound for every 1000 pounds of weight). But, well, first of all the fact is if you are 16000 feet in the air, you are on top on a big mountain, and that extra mass underneath you will reverse that decreased gravitation effect to an extent. It might be safe to assume it's effectively lowered to 1 hundredth of a percent decrease, or 1 tenth of a pound per 1000 pounds.

Being on a mountain isn't going to reverse the effect any. If you're at sea level you have a heck of a lot more mass directly under your feet than if you're standing on a mountain top. Besides, a mountain's mass in comparison to the entire earth is inconsequential.

07-30-2006, 11:01 AM

#20

Threxx

Registered User

Thread Starter

Join Date: Sep 1998

Location: Memphis

Posts: 4,334

Re: Mercedes leap-frogging RS4/M3/CTS-V? AMG C63 spied

Quote:

Originally Posted by R377

Er... no.

I said if you placed the car magically at 16000 feet altitide just in free air with sea level ground below it, then the effect of gravity would be reduced by about .02%.

With the mass of a large body of mountains undearneath the it absolutely would effect the gravity and lessen the reduction of gravity when compared to the "magically floating in air scenario". I just threw the .01% number out there - can't really do the math on that unless we can assume a certain mass/density/size for the mountain range and its dispersion. I was just saying it would be safe enough to say that the mass of the mountain wouldn't be enough to reverse the effect.

The real point, though, is that nobody tests cars at 16000 feet above sea level, and even if they did, the difference in weight would be completely inconsequantial. It would be less than the difference in having a 97% full gas tank and a 99% full gas tank.