Stephen04E55

I couldn't believe it when I read it that the SL600 in the new C&D ran the 1/4 mile 11.9@120 and 0-60 in 3.6 sec. That is absolutely smoking for a car that weighs in at 4500lbs. Everyone must get the new issue and read even though it is just a "short take" article. Amazing. My E55 is just a wanna be compared to this car.

sillydriver

Holy smokes! Haven't received my issue yet. Is the car stock or modified? CD has tested the 575M at 4.2/12.6, the 996tt at 3.9/12.3 and the Murcielago at 3.8/12.6, so that's quite a result.

sillydriver

And I should add, the SL55 at 4.5/13.0

2003G55

You might want to re-read the article. The Car and Driver article featured the 617 hp 2005 SLR not the SL600. My 2004 SL600 does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and that feels astonishly fast. The extra 1.3 seconds will cost you an additional $270,000.

Bilal

That 270K also buys you a whole lot of other exclusive stuff in the SLR.

Mike P

Contrary to a previous post by 2003G55, the Car and Driver story was in fact an SL600(give the listers some credit for reading comprehension!). The V12's torque is obviously of paramount influence in the spectalular times.

MAP
SL600&560, SL65 on order

Stephen04E55

March '04 C&D pg. 144....I think I can tell the difference between the SLR and SL 600. The car was bone stock and even they were very surprised. They give a long explanation on torque and acceleration.

W210

Absolutely amazing, 0-60 in 3.6s!! In the Feb 2004 C/D issue, it lists the SLR Manfacturer's performance rating 0-60 in 3.8s.

The SL600 seems almost like a bargin with those numbers when compared to 996TT, the Lambos and Ferraris.

CLK 69

Courtesy of 4sfed4 of FerrariChat.com

amb9800

Hmm....that seems very strange.

I really don't see how C&D is showing the SL600 at a second less from 0-60 than other places. IIRC other reviews have put the SL600 at just a tad faster or around the SL55. A full second less is MAJOR when you're only talking about 3-4 seconds.

Personally, I can't believe that until I see other reviews saying the same numbers because IMO there's just not enough difference between the SL55 and the 600 to warrant an SLR-beating time.

The SLR has more than a 100 more horsepower, weighs almost 1000 pounds lighter, and yet is still slower than an SL600? Somehow I don't buy that....

Well, maybe everyone should just buy a Chrysler ME412! 0-60 in 2.9 seconds, top speed over 250MPH - why not just fly?

FIXEDupW209

the SLR although it has over a hundred more HP i believe it has equally the same if not less torque then the sl600. if it is rated at the same amount of torque or even more for that matter the sl600 applies its torque at very low rpm's. I am sure c&d did not make a mistake because they compare to the gt2's and gt3's and dodge vipers who although have more hp and lighter weight. they do not produce as much torque.
Now HYPOTHETICALY speaking, if the sl600 does in fact do the 0-60 in 3.6 seconds i would LOVE to know how fast it would be after kleemann and renntech and brabus get done with it.

dswildfire

there's still something fishy about those numbers. at that trap speed and weight, the car is underrated by about 100hp. although, i mean, i wouldnt complain if i got a car that has 100 more hp than i paid for, but it's still funky.

RU_MATRX

Now this would be a pleasant surprise if the SL600 was the first application of the V12 TT, but how can one even account for this particular hotrod SL600 being so much quicker than MErcs own S600 and CL600 V12TT? 4501 lb vehicle needs around 728HP to attain a 120MPH trap speed period. The same vehicle needs no less than around 633HP to even get to that trap speed in 11.9 secs!!! This is simple physics. The 0-60mph is simply ridiculous cause my modified 996TT with consistent AWD, a 6 speed weighing 1100lbs less does 3.5-3.6 secs 0-60MPH and the 1/4 mile in around 11.6 secs which is spot-on for a 3388lb vehicle. It makes near 520HP, 510ftlbs TQ. Although we haven't even taken account of the driver weight so the ratings are still a bit optimistic.

Check here for the simple calculations.

http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm


Here's C&D's first review.,,,

"Mercedes claims the SL600 will waft to 62 mph in 4.7 seconds, which equals its claim for the snarling SL55 AMG that we prodded to 60 mph in 4.5 seconds. That car's supercharged V-8 is just 74 cubic centimeters smaller and is rated at an equivalent 493 horsepower, but its torque is, ahem, “just” 516 pound-feet. If the gearing were the same, the 12 would clearly be quicker, but a taller axle ratio (2.65 versus 2.82 in the SL55 and SL500) guarantees dignified throttle response in the SL600 and leaves some bragging rights to the AMG."

I'd love to believe these numbers BUT the physics don't make any sense at all given the proposed numbers. Torque and HP come up way short if we're talking about similar gearing to an SL55. Take a look at my post in regards to my experience with a modified 996TT vs my SL55 AMG under the SL55 threads. We need some true insight from someone here that owns an SL600
and can tell us if it's truly faster than say a 996TT stock 6sp that does ONLY 3.9 secs and 12.2 in the 1/4 mile. Can the SL600 really be 1 full sec (10+ car lengths) quicker than Mercs own S600 and CL600 that use the same V12TT application with the exact same ratings??? I think that this C&D SL600 isn't the same production vehicle you'll see at your local dealership.........

W210

Perhaps this shows how inaccurate C/D's numbers can be?

sillydriver

In his March 22 03 post, Treynor achieved 12.45 in his pre-modification S600 without drag slicks, so there is only a half second difference to explain. I suppose that difference could be due to the weight difference (4429 for the SL vs. 4610 for the S, according to mbusa.com) or to temperature or other conditions, or to factors like an octane booster in the gas of the CD test car (relevant for a turbocharged car) or just car-to-car variation.

amb9800

Even if the quarter-mile can somehow be accounted for, I don't see how an SL600 can suddenly become a full second faster from 0-60 from better gas.

The CL600 is 4473lbs - 44lbs makes a full second difference from 0-60? I don't buy that....

And the funniest is how nonchalantly C&D is treating its own fuzzy numbers. 'Oh by the way, today we tested a $120,000 luxury cruiser that just happens to be faster than a Dodge Viper, a 911 Turbo, a .....'

amb9800

Well the SLR puts out 626HP and 575 lb-ft at 3250rpm. It is also 500lbs lighter than the SL600 and more aerodynamic. 0-60 in around 3.8 sec and 1/4 mile 11.3 sec.

I don't see how the SL600 is faster 0-60...

RU_MATRX

And that's exactly why I feel that the 1/4 mile times are highly optimistic and I reiterate highly...not even drag slicks..

Now the 0-60mph of 3.6 secs is just plain ludicrous GIVEN the information that C&D stated. In fact, with only (relatively) 73 ftlbs more torque than an SL55 in the same general RPM ranges, higher overall gear ratios, heavier weight and no significant improvements in traction, how can anyone realistically theorize that a an auto SL600 could possible be a full sec quicker than their own SL55, S600/CL600, let alone comparable to my modified 996TT, 6sp with AWD? My previous 996TT even stock is world's apart in acceleration than any AMG merc in production today. The SL65 might touch a stock TT and that'simply amazing in itself

amb9800

Hmm...although it is OT to this thread, I'd like to see what an E-Class (E320 = 3635 lbs, E55 = 4087 lbs) with the twin-turbo 6.0L AMG V12 from the CL65 / S65 would perform like

mbr129

The legitimacy of the numbers aside, you folks realize that there is also the element of handling, right?

Numbers or not, the SL is a GT, not a sports car. That they throw in a ridiculously powerful engine when you go for the V12 (and pay for it) is great. And with that engine come great numbers.

But to say the car is a bargain compared to true supercars sounds like madness to me. The Lotus Elise will probably destroy the SL600 in any kind of racing event and it's because of its handling.

Don't get me wrong, I love SL's (see my handle). When I first saw the R230 I told myself I'd own the V12 version at one point in my life. It is simply a gorgeous car. And it's better when the gorgeous car has a V12. And better still, when it has THAT V12. But it is just a nice GT, not a sportscar.

RU_MATRX

We're just focusing on the power acceleration aspect of performance. A true sportscar is completely on a different calibre and realm when one starts speaking of handling and feel compared to any of these GT cruisers. That's my main disappointment in the SL55 though I expected ithis as a trade-off for a spectacular, luxurious everyday comfortable convertible with great power to boot!

Stephen04E55

Since there are many "doubters" to this SL600 and its acceleration #'s, someone needs to write a letter to C&D asking if this car was indeed stock and the test conditions. This publication would have mentioned if the car was not a factory unmodded version in my opinion.

RU_MATRX

C&D couldn't confront Mercedes to truly ascertain whether this was a "Stock" SL600. For magazines, there are many instances of new model intros where the particular vehicle is purposely (in stealth) massaged to show greater numbers which aren't the production standard you'd normally find at your Mercedes dealership. It sadly tests the integrity of the supplier and rep. when instances like this occur. This particular vehicle is just plain blatantly obvious that something is spectacularly fishy.

It happens very often in the open-class sportbike realm where new designs from the ground-up are introduced almost every 2-3yrs within a model range. Some manufacturers are consistently notorious with respect to "hot" press bikes. I'd like to trade my SL55 for that "Stock" SL600 they tested if we see every test unilaterally show these times

blueSL

The math shows that something around 2/3 of the maximum rated power of the engine is required just to give the car the kinetic energy it will have once it reaches those speeds and there are additional losses from wheelspin, driveline friction and so on.

To maintain an average of 2/3 max power from a standstill requires extreme abuse of the car and traction is all, so my guess is they were running on very sticky tyres/high grip road surface and the car would not survive treatment like that for very long - the transmission, differential and drive shafts will have taken a real beating.

Fine if it's a loaner from Mercedes, not something to do if it's your own car. That sickening bang you hear will be expensive to fix.

For the mathematicians among you:

120mph = 53.64 m/s; M = 1980 kg; Energy at 120mph = MV^2/2 = 2.85 MJ, average power over 11.9 seconds = 240 kW; engine is rated at 368 kW max power, so average power = 240/368 = 65%

Corresponding figures for the 0-60 time show the average power is less, which reflects the greater proportion of time spent at lower revs and the greater proportionate losses due to wheel spin.

60mph = 26.82 m/s; M = 1980 kg; Energy at 60mph = MV^2/2 = 712 kJ, average power over 3.6 seconds = 198 kW; engine is rated at 368 kW max power, so average power = 198/368 = 54%

sillydriver

Excellent, blueSL, it’s great to find forum members with an understanding of Newtonian mechanics. Adding to your calculation (and using English units) if the 1 – 2 upshift comes at 6000 RPM, then you enter second gear at 47 MPH and 3650 RPM, when torque is still very close to the peak electronically limited 590 lb-ft level. Entering second gear the engine is producing 590*3650/5252 = 410 HP which is 83% of the 493 HP maximum. During both the 0 to 60 and quarter mile runs, the engine never dips below that power level in any of the higher gears. In first gear the same 410 HP at 3650 RPM is achieved at 29 MPH, less than two seconds into the run if we assume constant acceleration from 0 to 60. Hence the engine is producing more than 83% of its maximum power for about 85% of the time during the 11.9 second quarter mile. As blueSL’s calculation shows, the fraction of engine power turned into kinetic energy is only 65% during the whole run. In other words, it is plausible that the stock car could produce an 11.9 second quarter if frictional losses in the drive train and on the road surface along with air drag amounted to a loss of no more than about 15% or so.

I also agree with blueSL that CD’s test is very hard on the car: I think the telling figure here is the “street start” 5 to 60 time given as 4.5 seconds in the review. This is an indication of what the real acceleration would be without wheel spin.