FInality

Not too sure about the S but apparently the SL55 has a 53/47 weight split which is pretty damn good in my books.

Trimmer2

Originally posted by sillydriver [/i]
[B]This is a long shot, but I notice the review says “The five speed automatic offers a three mode manumatic function. just as it does in the SL55.” I thought the SL600 (at least in US form) actually didn’t offer that, but Renntech’s ECU and transmission control modifications added it.


True. Stock my SL600 did not offer the "manual" moda ala AMG but, the RennTech SL65 transmission computer does offer the "manual" mode along with the "sport" and "comfort" modes. I do not however have the shift buttons on the steering wheel.

[B]

Bigbob

As most journalist know, the cars that they recieve are usually hand picked by the manufacture and some are slightly better prepared. The SL600 in the US and Europe only comes with 2 modes in the transmission, this would indicate that this car has the AMG 65 transmission modifications which with some modifications to the ECU would allow for the exceptional performance of this car. Given that under ideal situations and being tested in Michigan these numbers could be reached. If you want this type of performance, you would have to get the modifications that a company like Renntech offers. Car and Driver should have picked up that this performed a lot better than it has in other publications and notified its readers.

I doubt Mercedes intended it to perform this well, because I am sure a lot of customers who have a stock SL600 will want to know why their car is not as fast and does not have 3 modes in the transmission.

Bilal

I know this is a public forum and we're supposed to respect other's opinions, BUT THIS IS LUDICROUS!


Its just as bad as the Iraq and WMD issue.


Come on, how can an SL do 0-60 in 3.6? is everyone crazy to assume this? Andf what is a difference in transmission going to do to 0-60 time? Even if it has a shorter first gear and a monster scond, there is NO way any SL could pull off a time like this.


I have to say this, people who belive that 0-60 time are plain idiots.

Sorry, but true.

AMGBENZ

Do you think they had bad timing gear? or just the perfect built SL600, or Car & Driver is crazy!

Maybe the TQ and HP are very under rated on the Twin Turbo V12 engines.

I also thought all SL600s got the Winter, Summer, Manual Mode Tranny.

The SL65 AMG I would think could pull these numbers but the Stock SL600 Wow, I would have to see it with my own eyes!

It must really pull from 70MPH and up

AMGBENZ
2003 SL55 AMG
2005 SL65 AMG on order
2000 ML430

Bigbob

Again, read between the lines. Most probably ECU and transmission computers were most probably modified.

Considering the times posted with Ben Trayners S600 with modified ECU and transmission computer it could be possible to get the Car and Driver numbers.

But do not expect to get that performance from a stock SL600 off the showroom floor.

sillydriver

I totally agree with bigbob. Far from meaning I don't need the Renntech upgrades, I think the result is an advertisement for the Renntech or similar upgrades.

RU_MATRX

11.9 secs COULD be realistic for a SL65 AMG like I've said. That would simply be awesome! That would be in ideal conditions. 0-60MPH is again, plain ludicrous even for an SL65. Drag slicks, manual 3-mode trans, ideal conditions, lose ~600lbs, then it might start becoming believable. Oh....that's more like the SLR and it's not even there yet.

Mike P

Has another source road tested an SL600???? A number of articles have appeared BUT the numbers are all from MB---not an actual road test, potentially a big difference.

A number of comments have been made concerning the SLR's "3.8 sec" 0-60 time. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't recall seeing an actual road test----once again only MB numbers. Porsche and MB claims are almost always on the conservative side. Would MB really provide a ringer SL600??? The same claims were made about an SL55 multicar test where the SL55 looked awfully fast.

MAP
600&560SL,SL65 on order

blueSL

Mike's right, the original multi-car test of the SL55 made the SL55 look unbelievably fast until it was discovered the SL55 was not stock.

This thread is repeated on the R230 forum, but I've put some calculations there which show up to 65% of the maximum rated power of the engine is required just to deliver the kinetic energy to 120, and 54% to 60. To do that requires extreme abuse of the car: foot on brake, floor the throttle, let the torque converter cook and then go. These times will depend more than anything on the tyres and the road surface and the car's ability to put the power down.

As any SL55 owner knows, if you take off the traction control, and floor the throttle, the rears light up. In normal conditions, the performance of the car is constrained by traction, not power.

RU_MATRX

Thanks BlueSL for taking the time to present the mathematical calculations. Your percentages explain exactly why AWD vehicles make the best use of traction to translate into top notch acceleration runs despite the relatively low drivetrain losses vs. RWD @ low speeds.

996TTs, Murcielagos, the new Bugatti Veyron 16.4, Mitsu EvoVIII, Subaru WRX-STI, all show superior acceleration times relative to their classes despite significantly lower HP/TQ going to 60MPH (except for the Bugatti which needs AWD just to harness all of that power and torque into something meaningful). Less of a true advantage from 60MPH up to the trap speed of the 1/4 mile.

stephens

The Brabus times are 0-100kmh which is 62.5 mph. This equates to approx 4 sec flat 0-60. The 0-200kmh time of 12.9 is 0-125mph, the extra 5mph takes 1 second making a sub 12sec 0-120mph time possible .
When you take into consideration a level of conservatism in the Brabus estimates, I believe it is possible for the SL600 to produce the numbers posted, along as the boost is wound up with the car producing 620+hp.
This should be a real indication of the expected performance capability of the SL/CL/S65.

athlon70

Don't forget, the temperatures are below freezing atm. Where was it tested, depending on how the ECU is allowed to respond to temperature compensation, it could be making an extra 30+ hp easily.

baron

Who cares if the car made an extra 300HP. The 0-60 time will be traction limited. Given the freezing temperatures, the tires will be less sticky and traction will be even worse.

Also, having a front-engine, rear-wheel setup with 285 street tires doesn't help, no matter how good ESP is.

blueSL

Agree with that; it's no accident that the fastest accelerating cars have the engine over the driven (rear) wheels or 4 wheel drive to improve traction. They're also lightweight. Both of which count out the SL600. And the SLR come to think of it on at least the first count.

Improviz

Road & Track gives the following equation for calculating crank hp given trap speed and weight (with driver), and if you try it on anything they've tested except the new Uber-Benzes, it is quite accurate:

hp = w*(spd/234)^3

If you use 4680 for weight (4500 plus 180 for driver & test equipment), you'll get the following:

hp = 4680*(120/234)^3 = 631 horsepower.

The equations I've seen which use ET are not as accurate as the previous...but I've run the previous one on about fifteen or twenty cars in the road tests, and it is always quite accurate.

Still, 140 horsepower above rated seems suspect...the E55's are putting out well above rated to trap at 116, though; using the 4237 pound curb weight (plus 180 pounds as before for driver/equip) & 12.5@116 1/4 from the May 2003 issue gives hp = 4417*(116/234)^3 = 538 crank, about 70 more than rated.

The other cars in the article fall pretty much right in line:

M5: 13.4@108, 3995 lbs => 4175*(108/234)^3 = 410 (a bit higher than rated, but well within the equation's advertised +-5%)

RS6: 12.8@108, 4229 lbs => 4409*(108/234)^3 = 433 (a bit lower, but ditto)

The S-Type R's won't be accurate as Jaguar's auto short-shifts the motor before its power peak...

But an overrating of 70 is a lot more beliveable than 140, I agree!

Edited: in the other thread, I found out the source of the error: the authors of the webpage you used mistakenly thought this equation is for rwhp, and so divided the result by 0.82 (assumed an 18% driveline loss) to get "crank horsepower". Their mistake, not yours!

RU_MATRX

also be "bone-stock" with drag slicks, high-flow filters, synthetic oils, electronic reprogramming of shift points, weight loss of any sorts, etc.. It adds to fractions of a sec overall. Some people even refer to "stock" as minor mods, ECU upgrades, cat-back exhausts, etc.with no breaking of the intake/engine block. As I stated before, true bone stock is the SL600 that you pick up at the local Mercedes dealership. Or at least, a SL600 that came from a dealership not from Mercedes-Benz' P.R. ringer dept.

Chappy

Couldn't have summarized it better myself

FWIW, the S600 that ran 12.2 was stock 'off the showroom floor', including tires. The car is just damn fast

Ted Baldwin

.........like everyone I do not know if the C&D 0-60 time for the SL 600 is correct. However, I doubt that MB will purposely give C&D a doctored SL600. If they did, they probbly were not aware of what 0-60 times the car will produce. I say this because these numbers if correct means that no one will buy the SLR.


Ted

JackStraw

I disagree. The SLR and SL600 target two distinct markets. However, an argument could be made that the SL65 will be a tougher sell...

MYOFB

Guys, you've all heard of the saying "dont believe everything you read". Here is an example related to the "3.6 sec" acceleration figure C&D is giving. Go to the kleemann website. They have a s600 v12 biturbo tuned by them that produces 620 hp.
Here's their own description:
************************************************
The new Kleemann S60 K. Based on the already powerful Mercedes-Benz S600 V12 Bi-turbo, the S60 K is aided by optimised turbo-chargers and a newly developed intercooler-system to produce a massive 620 BHP/950 NM!
With horsepower resembling that of a pedigree super car and a torque curve usually reserved for large trucks only, the 2,5 ton S60 K catapults itself from 0-100 Km/h in just 4,6 seconds. With the S60 K, the term “Executive Express” has just been redefined!
*************************************************
source:http://www.kleemann.dk/tuning/index.htm
(bi turbo link)

As we already know this acceleration figure can be achieved with the stock s600 (without any modifications) . How do you explain these figures!?

Lucas

When you drive a KLEEMANN S 60 K, it will move it self nicely from 0-40 km/h, then from 40 there is nothing you can do to make the tires grip, it's simply smoking the tires when it passes 100 km/h.

If the car is accelerated on a drag strip with a thick layer of rubber
or on antoher non real surface, the car will do completely different acceleration times to 100 km/h. It's from 100 to 200 the car really shows it worth.

MYOFB

where you able by any chance to time your accelerations? Cause the 4.6 figure is too suspicious, on the website.

greenfrog

just because you dont believe it, doesnt mean it cant be true.

ACCEPT it

CarandDriver are pros when it comes to testing cars. The particular article is referring to a car that is just how you receive it from the dealer. stock tire pressure, tires, air filter, etc.
[list=1][*]these guys are expert drivers. The can consistenly get the best figures from any car[*]they do multiple tests and use only the best numbers[*]numbers are then put into a formula to compensate for temperature, pressure, etc to make all their numbers consistent[*]its possible the car was a 'massaged' press version from the factory like toyota did with the Supra in 92. But highly unlikely since that was Toyota taking on Porsche and Ferrari with a with a cheap car. If it is, then they will get to the bottom of it, although it looks like they def believe those figures no problem. [*]I bet MB figures are conservative, if anything[/list=1]

ps. if anyone knows if 60mph is achieved in 1st gear (like the ford gt50), then that time is def acceptable cuz it doesnt have to shift.

BTW, C&D knows more about car and testing them, and dragging them better than anyone on this board!

RU_MATRX

Hey Greenfrog:

Why the hating? Did someone here offend a family member that wrote that article or conduct that SL600 test?

You've added no analytically value or insight with those defensive statements. I know that there are lots of experience and reality checks posed by the enthusiasts on this forum. I, for one, respect the forum's prespectives and that's what makes it interesting to actively participate in any discussion topic. I also bet that you'd be surprised at the success and backgrounds of auto enthusiasts in general as it relates to performance of any vehicle. Who knows? I bet you that there are club racers here, even professional racers that have an extensive network of friends/peers within the auto performance industry. Could some of them drive/own a Mercedes Benz or two?!? We always learn, and we learn most from other people, their backgrounds and experiences with similar products, not what is just hand-fed to you...

I take direct issue that you so easily (unilaterally) write-off everyones' thoughts and opinions based on your truly naive notions... You also rehash many simple facts that others have already presented. So, how is it that you have such grand insight (above and beyond even Mercedes Benz) that C&D is the end all be all of driving performance??? Btw, the industry standards of PV=nRT @ sea level to compensate for variations in performance is used by all magazines for comparative purposes. The "pros" at C&D didn't suddenly create this standard out of the blue for other competitive magazines to worship.

"ACCEPT THIS!" A higher level of maturity, tone and attitude will add more crediblity to YOUR particular opinion though don't sit back thinking everyone has nothing to add, contradict, or say otherwise......