RU_MATRX

I hope we see some new (or same #s) soon from some other magazine tests since we now have a "reference point"
for the SL600. We have them for the S600/CL600 which don't jive with the SL600. Of course, I'd have to then ask if this was the black "press" SL600 being passed around. Kidding aside, I'm truly interested. Why don't they dyno vehicles like they do all bikes in sportsbike magazines? That definitely should be the main professional toolkit of a credible auto journalist in support of their reviews.

As far as a letter to C&D for an explanation, maybe someone can just link them to our controversial thread here to give them a full course of feedback extravaganza.

sillydriver

I sent the editors of CD an email pointing back to this forum shortly after the article appeared but never got a response

Mike P

I too emailed and even spoke to C&D and R&T about an issue about a year ago. The concern was a similar report concerning the new Cadillac V12. GM claimed max hp of 750hp@8000rpm and max torque of 450lb/ft@6000rpm. Think about it---it's total bull**** numbers---impossible.

I personally spoke to the engineering editor(who claims to have a degree!!!) several times. The initial response was that I was mistaken. Very mistaken!! He finally responded, probably after he looked it up or asked someone, that the numbers were impossible. A correction was never printed---editorial vs. advertising perhaps or maybe auto writers are just as infallible as news people in general.

sillydriver

I see your point. 750hp@8000 RPM implies about 492 lb-ft of torque, higher than the listed peak torque of 450. Good catch.

RJC

My suggestion to email C/D should have been better explained. I recently emailed R/T about the great #'s the CLK 500 posted in their test agaist the 645 and some other thoughts; I sent the email to their "letters email address" which some do get published and answered. The email address for this is at the end of the letters section of the magazine. This is no guarantee they will respond but it stands a better chance than just general correspondence. I know they must get tons of mail for this section of the magazine but I gave it a shot.

wrxtacy

Howdy folks-

WRX owner here, got linked to this discussion via a "kill thread" at a WRX forum. No need to worry about a WRX claiming a SL600 kill or anything, it was a "OMG!! I ran an E55 and got whalloped" kinda thing. I posted up the numbers of the SL600 to make a point that MB is NOT playin around.


....and I found this wonderful thread discussing the possibilities of the 4500 beast actually doin the 3.6 0-60 trick.

I think it's quite possible. Look at the torque numbers. 590 ft/lbs is a lot of twist, easily controlled twist at that. The times you see for the ultra-exotics and such are from high-revving lower displacement affairs. The V12TT makes its grunt from 1800(590) and on, that would mean you can keep the rear tires at maximum grip pretty easily. No "shock" to the tires to encourage a spin, nice and smooth power delivery allows for a better launch. Throw in MB's excellent use of electro-gizmos in the tranny and its seems rather plausable.

Anyway, just wanted to say hello, love the MBs! Friend of mine is a MB freak and he has always got a nice one. He did jump ship awhile back and got a Lexus GS400, but is now back in an S-Class(500). So much nicer IMO, it just feels more soild and it goes like stink as well.

GDawgC220

Here is C&D's response to as how/why they got 3.6s for the '04 SL600!

SL65amg

The car that challenged the new 645Ci and the Maserati Coupe was a CLK 55 AMG coupe ... it did the zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds ....

it was not a CLK 500 ... just wanted to let you all know ..



Also, the SL 600's numbers seem very plausible, and like I've said in previous posts ... I've driven both the SL 600 and SL 55 and porsche 996 twin turbo tiptronic ... and the SL 600 is easily the fastest by quite a margin in fact.


Mr. Treynor has in fact calculated (and has documented on video) by very real numbers that his S600 (which I believe has about 665 horsepower and 848 lb/ft of torque by Mr. Brady from Renntech's mathematical calculation which accounts for drivetrain losses) is doing the zero to 60 MPH in 2.9 seconds with the drag radials on ....
I believe his car was clocked going zero to 50 MPH (all in 1 st gear ofcourse) in 1.8 seconds .... very fast car ....

There is a guy out there, can't quite remember the name of his company though ... Gianevvi Motorsports or something ... that has similar numbers on their computer upgraded 600's also ... and are already working on header and further engine upgrades which will take the 600 engines firmly into the 800 horsepower territory ...... These twin-turbo V-12's are unstoppable ....

I know somebody out there is gonna take an SL 65 AMG when they come out and modify the engine and computer and enlarge the engine to 7.0 or so liters ... and we will then begin an era in German machinery of seeing 900 or 1000 or more horsepower Mercedes patrolling like savage beastly predators throughout the streets hunting down the comparatively sheep-like new M6's and M5's and 560 or 565i's that might come, 765i's, supercharged M5's, modified RS6's, twin-turbo 911's ... Vipers, Ferrari's, Lambo's, and everything else ..... and with the extreme ease it takes to make these Benz's go fast, what with the no-brainer auto trans .... they will be extremely hard to beat .... and ofcourse they will be more comfortable and luxurious to drive and be in than any of the other cars out there fawning and drooling over it. :p

MidniteBluBenz

Although MB quotes 493 for both the 55 and the 600, I think the 600 has been underrated at 493. C&D accounted for their 0 - 60 in the SL600 on the same basis.

Twinturbo

Don't forget that those cars can be modded too Looks like your person who you know may have to do a little weight reduction to beat any other car below 100kmh.

e55 baller

Treynor,

Are there any general rules of thumb for converting a 60-foot time into a 0-60 run?

I ran a 1.85 60-foot in my E55 AMG and a 1.7 in my '01 Audi S4 TT.

Rules of thumb which seem for the most part to work are +10hp/tq = +1 mph on trap = 0.1 off E.T. = 1 car length and +100lbs is like -10hp/tq.

Also does the S600 have a limited slip?

Improviz

....anyone seen the new Car & Driver yet? They tested a new CL600, which has the same engine/drivetrain/rear axle ratio as the SL600, except for one thing: the CL600 weighs in at a whopping 44 pounds heavier than the SL600 (per edmunds.com specs for both).

Results:
0-60: 4.3 sec
0-100: 9.8
0-150: 23.7
1/4: 12.6@115

Calculating this out with 180 pounds weight extra for driver & equipment gives a horsepower of 552 crank. Well short of the ringer they gave C&D for the SL600, but it still shows that MB is vastly underrating this engine, and as one car mag pointed out, is probably using the Maybach engine without any internal changes, simply derating the horsepower for sales purposes.

Anyway, looks like the previous SL600 was tuned, as myself and others suspected.

absent

SL had 285s vs 245s of the CL.(may be a factor)

Improviz

1/4 mi times, it wouldn't affect trap speed, which is solely a factor of power.

Imo, the SL600 was definitely a tuned car. A 120 mph trap speed with 4400 pounds of curb weight translates into around 620 horsepower, about 70 up from what the tested S600s and now CL600s have gotten.

dNA3D

I see two clear possibilities here.
Either MB is HUGELY underrating the "600" engine or the cars magazines have been receiving have been tampered with.

I mean, treynor has mustered 0-60 in 3.3 seconds... that's with his tuned S600 (which has more rearward weight bias than an SL), on drag radials, in perfect conditions. 0-60 in 3.6 seconds in an SL600.... nahh.

In fact, there could be another, third possibility. Most of C&D's test vehicles have posted very low 0-60 times compared to that of other manufacturers. C&D hiding world class drag racers? Unlikely. C&D running downhill? Why not?

absent

You are right,providing the car is equipped with the optional Sports Pkge.
The car they use in the test is a plain,standard CL600 with 245/45/18 tires.
As far as the power rating is concerned,I have no idea how MB gets their #s.
Time and time again ,600s are dynoed in poorly ventilated conditions, in cramped service bays and still get anywhere from 450 to 480hp at the wheels.

Improviz

Specifically, from page 38, "Chassis" sidebar, which states:

Mercedes CL600:
Michelin Pilot Sport:
F: 225/45ZR-18 86Y,
R: 265/40ZR1-18 97Y

Maybe they were wrong?? Dunno...in looking at the car, it doesn't seem to have staggered rims. Does the sport package have these?

As to the numbers: from the test of the SL600 and this, both by C&D, the *stock* TT12's seem to be producing about 540-550 horsepower, which as C&D pointed out would indicate that the motor is in fact the same motor as the Maybach (which *is* rated at 540 horsepower), not "detuned" as MB suggests.

Dyno tests and trap speeds from the 5.5L SC AMG motor would also indicate a true crank horsepower in the 520-530 range, so they definitely seem to be purposefully underrating these.

My point is, though, that if the SL600 they tested was truly representative, we'd have seen both the S600 they tested and the CL600 with trap speeds in the same vicinity as the freakishly fast SL600 they tested a few months ago...but they are not. They are in the 115-116 mph range...it takes over 600 horsepower to hit 120+ with this curb weight, which is why myself and others are convinced that the SL600 they tested was not stock, but was rather Brabus tuned--particularly when you note that they listed a feature in that SL600 test which stock SL600's don't even have, but Brabus-tuned SL600's do...but ymmv....anyway, 450-480 hp at the wheels is around 535-570 at the crank, which is what I'm saying: true power output of these motors is right at the Maybach's rated power. Conclusion: they aren't detuning it to put it in the Benzes, but it doesn't put out 600+ horsepower.

absent

Looks like another editorial mistake,they list Sport Package staggered wheels and show pictures of a standard car.

Improviz

...I went to MBUSA's website, and they do list 245's all the way around (which imo is INEXCUSABLE for a $130,000 car with nearly 600 lb-ft of torque!!) on the stock car. That is insane. What idiots are determining what equipment goes on these cars?? I mean, $30,000 Pontiac TransAms came with 275's *and* limited-slip diffs; for 4x that, you get what: 245's and an open diff?? Pretty sad...at least BMW puts limited-slip diffs on their #*@ cars!

Sorry, just venting...too-skinny tires and no limited slip are kind of a sore point with me.

absent

I agree,even Sport pkge 265s are too narrow and lack of LSD is inexcusable.
I'm waiting for Michelin PS2 that is going to be released soon (285/19) and already ordered Kleeman LSD to remedy traction problems in my car.

sl600fanatic

Sorry you are wrong, it's the SL600, not SLR. And how can you say it's physically impossible for another Mercedes to be faster than the SLR??

regor60

3 yr old thread, Rip Van Winkle

Speed Thrills

I have found with my 65, and I'm sure it's similar with the 600, that power and torque increases are not what one would want for lower 0-60 times. It's all about traction with these cars and I have yet to find the optimal way to launch this monster. I would think with heated up track tires or slicks you would be able to get mid 3s. Other than that I don't see anyone finding any magical way to lower their 0-60 time to that degree with a stock SL600 no matter how much extra HP it may have (factory or not).

on another note:

I have found my 65s ESP way over does it and really kills you if you have too heavy of a foot off the line. It also holds back quite a bit even in that crucial time around 35-45mph when you are free to let the V12 loose and you miss valuable time spooling back up. If it senses even a hair of wheel spin the ESP really drops your power. In the same scenario with ESP off in that same range you'll get a tad of wheel spin but you'll launch as soon as you are solid.

Still experimenting.

600love

I believe they ment 4.6

600love

I believe they ment 4.6 sec.