2007 Mercedes-Benz S600 V12 - black - rvr

My trip to DD yesterday was disappointing. Big crowd of people milling
about in front of every shot - too many cars parked too close together - and
the winter sunrise shot white hot sunlight from a low angle above the
horizon to the southeast. It was so bad that if you went to the west end of
the parking lot and walked eastward toward Zubie's you had to shield your
eyes. Impossible lighting for photography. This MB was in a shaded area
but you can see what the sunlight did to the hardware store, etc.

--
Paddy's pig
-----------------

To reply it's bell not bull

what did you think of the sunroof on that MB? and that damn v12.lol



"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> My trip to DD yesterday was disappointing. Big crowd of people milling
> about in front of every shot - too many cars parked too close together -
and
> the winter sunrise shot white hot sunlight from a low angle above the
> horizon to the southeast. It was so bad that if you went to the west end
of
> the parking lot and walked eastward toward Zubie's you had to shield your
> eyes. Impossible lighting for photography. This MB was in a shaded area
> but you can see what the sunlight did to the hardware store, etc.
>
> --
> Paddy's pig
> -----------------
>
> To reply it's bell not bull
>
>
>

what did you think of the sunroof on that MB? and that damn v12.lol



"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> My trip to DD yesterday was disappointing. Big crowd of people milling
> about in front of every shot - too many cars parked too close together -
and
> the winter sunrise shot white hot sunlight from a low angle above the
> horizon to the southeast. It was so bad that if you went to the west end
of
> the parking lot and walked eastward toward Zubie's you had to shield your
> eyes. Impossible lighting for photography. This MB was in a shaded area
> but you can see what the sunlight did to the hardware store, etc.
>
> --
> Paddy's pig
> -----------------
>
> To reply it's bell not bull
>
>
>

"rob" > wrote in message
...

> what did you think of the sunroof on that MB?


I missed it.

> and that damn v12.lol


My next car absolutely has to have a twin-turbo'd V12 so I can make a quick
run to the ice cream store. That's a must!

Pat

*The 612 ft lbs of torque is well into the category of a mid-range
commercial diesel truck engine. It would handle a 33,000# GVWR truck
without a problem at all - and 510 HP is WAY over the top compared to a
diesel in that torque range. 'Course the diesel operates at only 2200 to
2500 RPM max - compared to 5000.

"rob" > wrote in message
...

> what did you think of the sunroof on that MB?


I missed it.

> and that damn v12.lol


My next car absolutely has to have a twin-turbo'd V12 so I can make a quick
run to the ice cream store. That's a must!

Pat

*The 612 ft lbs of torque is well into the category of a mid-range
commercial diesel truck engine. It would handle a 33,000# GVWR truck
without a problem at all - and 510 HP is WAY over the top compared to a
diesel in that torque range. 'Course the diesel operates at only 2200 to
2500 RPM max - compared to 5000.

yeah but your more worried about torque in a truck than you are horse power.
lots of OTR truck are running only 300-350 HP but 2000 LB FT of torque


"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> "rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > what did you think of the sunroof on that MB?
>
>
> I missed it.
>
> > and that damn v12.lol
>
>
> My next car absolutely has to have a twin-turbo'd V12 so I can make a
quick
> run to the ice cream store. That's a must!
>
> Pat
>
> *The 612 ft lbs of torque is well into the category of a mid-range
> commercial diesel truck engine. It would handle a 33,000# GVWR truck
> without a problem at all - and 510 HP is WAY over the top compared to a
> diesel in that torque range. 'Course the diesel operates at only 2200 to
> 2500 RPM max - compared to 5000.
>
>
>
>

yeah but your more worried about torque in a truck than you are horse power.
lots of OTR truck are running only 300-350 HP but 2000 LB FT of torque


"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> "rob" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > what did you think of the sunroof on that MB?
>
>
> I missed it.
>
> > and that damn v12.lol
>
>
> My next car absolutely has to have a twin-turbo'd V12 so I can make a
quick
> run to the ice cream store. That's a must!
>
> Pat
>
> *The 612 ft lbs of torque is well into the category of a mid-range
> commercial diesel truck engine. It would handle a 33,000# GVWR truck
> without a problem at all - and 510 HP is WAY over the top compared to a
> diesel in that torque range. 'Course the diesel operates at only 2200 to
> 2500 RPM max - compared to 5000.
>
>
>
>

"rob" > wrote in message
...
> yeah but your more worried about torque in a truck than you are horse
> power.
> lots of OTR truck are running only 300-350 HP but 2000 LB FT of torque

Not quite right but close enough. Most OTR tractors today are running at or
above 430 HP. Even the "cheapo" companies like the big pumpkin. Many are
at 500 HP or greater. The typical torque for a 425 - 450 HP engine is 1450
ft lbs @ around 1100 or 1200 RPM. On the bigger 475 - 525 HP engines torque
with be around 1650 ft lbs. So-called "Owner Operators" often specify 535 -
565 HP and the torque may be as high as 1850 to 2050 ft lbs @ 1200. One
manufacturer was building an engine that was EPA certified for emission
compliance that put out 625 HP @ 1800 RPM with 2250 ft lbs torque @ 1100 RPM
before the EPA tightened up the rules effective January 1st of this year. I
am not certain how that effected power output for the new '07 engines but it
most likely dropped a bit. Of slight interest may be the fact that the oil
companies were forced into a new refining procedure for diesel fuel in March
of last year, reducing sulphur content in the fuel by over 90%. The cleaner
fuel and cleaner (but much more complicated) engines - which now include
exhaust aftertreatment - all add up to far lower particulates. The hardware
on each new truck to comply with the new rules adds up to between $8,000 and
$12,000. These modifications apply only to new vehicles and need not be
retrofitted on older equipment. Emission rules will change again on 1/1/10.
The hardware to achieve those requirements has not been invented yet.

Pat

"rob" > wrote in message
...
> yeah but your more worried about torque in a truck than you are horse
> power.
> lots of OTR truck are running only 300-350 HP but 2000 LB FT of torque

Not quite right but close enough. Most OTR tractors today are running at or
above 430 HP. Even the "cheapo" companies like the big pumpkin. Many are
at 500 HP or greater. The typical torque for a 425 - 450 HP engine is 1450
ft lbs @ around 1100 or 1200 RPM. On the bigger 475 - 525 HP engines torque
with be around 1650 ft lbs. So-called "Owner Operators" often specify 535 -
565 HP and the torque may be as high as 1850 to 2050 ft lbs @ 1200. One
manufacturer was building an engine that was EPA certified for emission
compliance that put out 625 HP @ 1800 RPM with 2250 ft lbs torque @ 1100 RPM
before the EPA tightened up the rules effective January 1st of this year. I
am not certain how that effected power output for the new '07 engines but it
most likely dropped a bit. Of slight interest may be the fact that the oil
companies were forced into a new refining procedure for diesel fuel in March
of last year, reducing sulphur content in the fuel by over 90%. The cleaner
fuel and cleaner (but much more complicated) engines - which now include
exhaust aftertreatment - all add up to far lower particulates. The hardware
on each new truck to comply with the new rules adds up to between $8,000 and
$12,000. These modifications apply only to new vehicles and need not be
retrofitted on older equipment. Emission rules will change again on 1/1/10.
The hardware to achieve those requirements has not been invented yet.

Pat

yeah that's close to what I saw in my time at CAT

if a guy a 425 horse 3406 he had something to brag about. the current
series of c15 engines quotes 300 to 550 horse for highway give or take, with
torque 1400 to 2000 depending on the setup im sure. so yeah that sounds
about right.

what most truck drivers and owners forget is the rear end ratio!




"Padraig" > wrote in message
...
> "rob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > yeah but your more worried about torque in a truck than you are horse
> > power.
> > lots of OTR truck are running only 300-350 HP but 2000 LB FT of torque
>
> Not quite right but close enough. Most OTR tractors today are running at
or
> above 430 HP. Even the "cheapo" companies like the big pumpkin. Many are
> at 500 HP or greater. The typical torque for a 425 - 450 HP engine is
1450
> ft lbs @ around 1100 or 1200 RPM. On the bigger 475 - 525 HP engines
torque
> with be around 1650 ft lbs. So-called "Owner Operators" often specify
535 -
> 565 HP and the torque may be as high as 1850 to 2050 ft lbs @ 1200. One
> manufacturer was building an engine that was EPA certified for emission
> compliance that put out 625 HP @ 1800 RPM with 2250 ft lbs torque @ 1100
RPM
> before the EPA tightened up the rules effective January 1st of this year.
I
> am not certain how that effected power output for the new '07 engines but
it
> most likely dropped a bit. Of slight interest may be the fact that the
oil
> companies were forced into a new refining procedure for diesel fuel in
March
> of last year, reducing sulphur content in the fuel by over 90%. The
cleaner
> fuel and cleaner (but much more complicated) engines - which now include
> exhaust aftertreatment - all add up to far lower particulates. The
hardware
> on each new truck to comply with the new rules adds up to between $8,000
and
> $12,000. These modifications apply only to new vehicles and need not be
> retrofitted on older equipment. Emission rules will change again on
1/1/10.
> The hardware to achieve those requirements has not been invented yet.
>
> Pat
>
>