blackbenzz

http://www.dailymotion.com/dbasons55...xdx9m_mov00280

Militant-Grunt

404 Not found =/

Correct Link

http://www.dailymotion.com/visited/s...xdx9m_mov00280

HOLY **** OWNED!

Jaki

Damn... Not sure what the exact specs are on the S65, but I didn't think it would rape the Gallardo that bad... I thought it would be a close race... The first race the S65 did get the jump, but I think the Gallardo driver wasn't the best either. to the S65

FThornton666

The gallardo doesnt stand a chance vs a 65 engine series. The 65 is a seriesly powerful engine. Doesnt the S65 run 0-60 in 3.8 or 4.0 Seconds, and from a roll the gallardo looses its AWD launch advantage.

AMG_55

those cars shpuld be about even to 100. especially if the lambo is 06+

the driver of the lambo doesnt know how to drive

TopGun32

from a roll its a different race...

The S65 is just a sick sedan..

C240Style

2007 S65 = 604hp 738tq, est. curb weight 5035lbs
2006 Gallardo = 520hp 376tq, est. curb weight 3151lbs

Yes the 2000lbs is a difference, but a car with double the torque should pull harder off the line. Amazing car if you ask me, never was a fan of the Italian sports cars, not enough power to back up the price. Get them for the looks, not the race. Just my opinion.

ldangeli

Here is what I don't get. If the S65 is running 0-60 in 4.2 or so, tops out at 165, and the gallardo, AWD on, is running 4.0, tops out at 215 or so, how is it the s65 jumped off the line and smoked the gallardo so badly? Doesn't make any sense.

Carl Lassiter

Yer jokin aren't ya? The 520ps Gallardo can't hit 200mph, Lambo claim 197 officially. To go 215 it would need another 100bhp and a rather downward slope wouldn't hurt either. Delimited, an S65 can apparently go to 205-210mph. Can't explain the jump off the line as easily- it has to be poor driving.

C240Style

Easy.

376tq AWD or 738tq RWD?

I'll take my stronger launch with double the torque.

ldangeli

You're right, they are both electronically limited. The MB at 155 and the Gallardo at 191-197. So like you said, must have been some bad driving on the Lambo drivers part.

Lambo 0-100kmh - 4.0 sec.
Merc 0-100kmh - 4.4 sec.

Lambo 0-200khm - 12.5 sec.
Merc 0-200kmh - 13.3 sec.

Even http://benzinsider.com/uploaded_images/1-50-787441.gif says it's 4.0.

ldangeli

376? Max. torque : 510 Nm at 4500 rpm are the numbers for the Lambo, double that for the Benz. With numbers like that, the benz should be 3.0 flat, not .4 seconds or 4 car lenghts behind the Lambo.

Carl Lassiter

It doesn't work like that. The S65 cannot transfer that kind of power through its rear wheels as competently as the Lambo can its lesser power through all four. Of course the 65 is faster from a roll but a well driven Gallardo should hit 60, or at at least 30 before an S65. That is fact.

Carl Lassiter

376 is the lb/ft and the S65's 737 is also lb/ft. The Merc is too heavy to make a great 60 time. Weight and grip are the most important factors in 0-60. Look at the Elise. Of course power is important, but not as much as it is when rolling.

Improviz

The SL65 (Car & Driver didn't test the S65, but weights are close) traps at 123 mph to the Gallardo's 118. 5mph is pretty substantial in the 1/4, and to 130 mph the SL65 was 1.6 seconds faster.

Gallardo ACCELERATION Seconds
60 mph 4.1
100 mph 9.2
130 mph 15.0
Street start, 5–60 mph 4.6
Standing 1/4-mile 12.4 sec @ 118 mph

SL65 ACCELERATION Seconds
Zero to 60 mph: 3.8 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 8.2 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 13.4 sec
Street start, 5-60 mph: 4.3 sec
Standing 1/4-mile: 11.9 sec @ 123 mph

From a roll, the Gallardo should get handily pulled with that difference in traps, especially at higher speeds.

It would have been closer, though, but the Gallardo driver here was obviously short-shifting, which cost him extra time. Gotta use the whole power band of that V10!!

ldangeli

So you are saying the SL65 is faster than the SLR Mclaren?

http://benzinsider.com/uploaded_images/1-50-787441.gif

Improviz

SLR McLaren ACCELERATION: Seconds
Zero to 60 mph: 3.6
100 mph: 7.9
130 mph: 12.5
Street start, 5-60 mph: 3.8
Standing 1/4-mile: 11.6 sec @ 125 mph

So, to answer your question: no. But it's faster than a Gallardo.

ldangeli

So how come every other website around says the the S65 is 4.4 seconds, but car and driver's over zealous number crunchers say 3.8? I find it hard to fathom that if every other german and us mag rag (yes car and driver is a rag) says over 4.0 then only car and driver could be right? I'll admit the numbers are very close, but my original point is that the video is very deceiving. The S65 is not going to dump the Gallardo as quickly as it appeared in the video, or in car and driver.

Improviz

Did you catch the following:
I already stated that the guy wasn't driving the car to its max potential.

Simple answer: they don't. You're quoting the car's rated 0-100 km/h time, *not* its 0-60 mph time. The extra 2 mph tacks on a few tenths, and with these cars the time is very dependent upon launch conditions, but 0-60 is more like 3.9 to 4.1. Look at Treynor's bone stock times/videos if you're doubting what a stock SL65 will run; he ran a best of 11.7 @ 126, bone stock, stock tires. His average time: 11.8 @ 125 . Here's the thread:

Now, the S65 is about 200 pounds heavier, but it would still be in the high 11's to 12.0 range, still faster than a Gallardo, and once rolling where the Lambo would lose its AWD launch advantage, the gap would be larger still.

Here's another run, from the German "rags" Auto Motor und Sport and Sport Auto, of an SL65 (they didn't have any tests I could find of an S65):
SL65 AMG Test in ams 13/2004
Gewicht 2057 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,1 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 12,6 s
400 m, stehender Start 11,9 s (400m ~= 1/4 mile)

SL65 AMG Test in sport auto 09/2004
Gewicht 2049 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

SL65 AMG Supertest in sport auto 02/2005
Gewicht 2049 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

The numbers quoted above are from German road tests, and are to 62 mph (100km/h), which usually tacks on another few tenths from 60 mph. So other mags have gotten comparable times, German ones at that, AMS and Sport Auto on top of that. The slowest of them would put the car at about 4.1 0-60, the best at 3.7.

Further, their 0-200 km/h times (about 126.5 mph) were consistent with the Car & Driver run: the first should have beaten it, the second and third were within a few tenths. That's three different mags on two continents. As to Car & Driver being an "optimistic rag", I actually beat the time they ran in the CLK55 by two tenths, so there's some personal experience...and anyway, your subjective opinion of the magazine hardly disproves their test data, particularly when it's supported by others.

Also, Motor Trend tested the CL65, and ran 0-60 in 3.8, and an 11.8 @ 121, still trapping several mph higher than a Gallardo:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html

Unless the driver in question screws up and shifts well short of redline, which is obvious by listening to the video, and as I pointed out above and in my previous post. But even if he'd done everything perfectly, a car that traps around 5 mph faster than him would pull him, hard. This is like my CLK, which traps at 106, running an E36 M3, which trapped at 100 or so....*** rape. No contest. Eat 'em up. 0.5 sec/5 mph is several lengths in a quarter mile race, and that's with an AWD launch for the Lambo; from a roll, it'd be toast.

ldangeli

You're right, I am quoting 100kmh or 0-62, which every german rag quotes, in which every case, the lambo won. I am not doubting anything about about the "SL65", but in this forum we are talking about a "S65" and the above "video". That is what I was doubting. But apparently that was over looked. But then again, this is an MB forum, you are IPROVIZ and this discussion would and could continue to go round and round. In anycase, IMHO I much prefer the Lambo over the Merc. Two reasons, Italian, and not sharing parts with Chrysler. Oh right, its not a chrysler and it's not sharing parts. Just like the Lambo isn't sharing parts with the Audi. a.k.a. Platform sharing. In anycase, I personally wouldn't spend 3k a month on a MERC, and I've spent more on other cars. and ??

Improviz

Um, no, I don't think so. The Car & Driver data shows the SL65 to be faster, and you are not The Lord God of what does and does not constitute valid test data, and so cannot simply dismiss Car & Driver test data with a wave of Your Mighty Hand because you don't like what it says. But here's data from "a German Rag" for you:
Lambo Gallardo Test in sport auto 07/2005
Gewicht 1636 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,4 s

Test in Auto Zeitung 08/2005
Gewicht 1580 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,5 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,3 s

Test in sport auto 11/2005
Gewicht 1640 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,4 s

Test in sport auto 06/2006
Gewicht 1748 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,5 s

Uh-huh....guess again, smart guy. Look at the SL65 data I posted from before, and wake up.

So what? As I pointed out, the SL65 has the same engine, driveline, transmission, gear ratio, Cd as the S65, and weighs about the same. If you know squat about cars, you would know that it then follows that the S65 is going to accelerate at the same rate as the S65. I also pointed out that I was using SL65 data because I couldn't find S65 data. I also provided data for a CL65, which weighs the same as an S65, and it's still faster than the lambo.

...says the guy who overlooked everything I posted about the reason I was using SL data instead of S data, and that all other things are equal here....

So why don't you list the parts that the SL65 shares with any Chrysler product? I can certainly list some that the Lambo shares with Audi, like the engine, which, detuned, is in the S6 and the S8.

I'll bet you have. But for some reason, you come here and troll like a jerk, insulting Mercedes at every chance you get, acting more like a kid with sour grapes syndrome than an adult who can supposedly afford all of these expensive cars.

ldangeli

Oh goodie, and so it starts, with your usual banter. I forgot, you are the forum god and everything you say is WORD. I give into you oh lord of the tool boxes. I am not trolling, like you apparently are. Again, stating that I didn't believe the "S65" destroyed the Lambo, like in the "video" but again you point out all the obvious, my flaws, all of my datas flaws, all of the websites that I quoted, flaws, flaws, flaws. Except for yours. Hmm... you are right, I am wrong, it's cool bro, I give. I forgot how smart you were. It's funny, I view this forum from time to time, but the BS still never changes. You're right, the AMG is sold, assembled, and made seperate from all other MERCS.. You're right, you're right, you're right. Is that good enough for you, king of all trolls? Oh BTW, I own 2 MERCS, I think I have a right to express my opinion on what I think of them, but then again, I forgot you and your BENZO are the bomb! Thats how you kids talk these days, right?

Improviz

....you debate from a position of ignorance, and when data is presented showing that you're wrong, you refuse to admit it and start trying to disparage the data sources, and shooting the messenger.

Only problem is, the data is data, and it shows you're wrong.

You want more video of an S65? Here's an S65 destroying an E60 M5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRdCt4mXV4

And here's acceleration data for an E60 M5 from two German magazines. You will note that they both tested faster than three of the four German magazine tests of Gallardos I provided previously. And yet the S65 kicked the **** out of the M5...from a dead stop.

E60 M5 Test in auto zeitung 26/2004
Gewicht 1820 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

E60 M5 Supertest in sport auto 12/2004
Gewicht 1844 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,5 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,6 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s

Now, again: note that a) both of these cars are faster than three out of the four Gallardos tested by these same magazines, and that b) the one Gallardo that tested faster was only 0.2 faster than the M5. And look at what the S65 did to the M5.

Yeah, hard to believe it could beat a Gallardo after watching this video and reading those numbers.

Hmm, and what data might that be? What websites might that be? Looking back over your posts, I see one data point to my dozen or so, a chart listing a 0-100 km/h time for the Gallardo. Wow. No tests for the S65. No video. No links to any other websites.

Where's the beef?

You're very amusing.

ldangeli

This is the last thing I am going to say on this point (I am sure you'll come back with something.) I just want to know why when you present data, it is absolute, cannot be refuted and it must be right if you are posting it? We are in a unique situation, you, I and everyone else on the forum. due to the preverbial "Flat world", I too can search the internet and get all of the data I can possible absorb. i.e. www.google.com. You want me to quote my references, ok, I will. Although I doubt it will do any good as you will surely come up with another source that has a different answer.

You know, I was never doubting the performance of the "S65", but you brought up the "SL65" Which, the SL65 is roughly 600lbs lighter than the S. Not that it makes a big difference. What I was saying is I didn't believe in the video.

It’s funny, we've met, you and I. About a year or so back. I had just picked up my 360, and my buddy was in his CLK55. We had stopped at a gas station and ran into you. What amazes me, is that you are as pompous now as you were then, and we still laugh at your arrogance. You thought you were the king and that your "****" didn't stink. But, you continue to prove that arrogance here on this forum, attacking every person who disagrees with your innate ability to "prove the truth" through data found on the web.

Here is some data for you: Now I know its not as true as yours, but you didn’t think I could provide data, so I am providing that info for you..

On your S65 and SL65 http://www.mbusa.com/models/features...65&class=07_SL

http://www.mbusa.com/models/main.do?modelCode=S65

http://www.dragtimes.com/Lamborghini...ag-Racing.html
http://www.dragtimes.com/Mercedes-Be...ag-Racing.html
Oh no, the Merc was faster.. Must be the truth.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=109530 - 4.1
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=104673 - 4.2

http://www.autoblog.com/2005/07/21/l...lly-announced/ - special edition (4.0)
http://www.autoblog.com/search/?q=s65 – 2007 (4.4)

http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...ecs_price.html - 4.2
http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows...ow/index3.html - 4.2

http://www.engine-power.com/lamborghini/gallardo.html 4.0
http://www.engine-power.com/mercedes...z_s65_amg.html - 4.4

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/merc...t-slr-0-a.html

Even Benzworld ranks it in the top 3 over the Mclaren, and the CLK DTM. 0-60-0. PERFORMANCE

So, there you go. I too can post info I found on the Net.

Improviz

I have never met anyone at a gas station driving an 360, period, let alone when a CLK55 was there. Either you're taking some really strong medication, or whomever you met lied to you, or you're very confused, or you're knowingly falsely claiming to have met me.

Now then, since you have finally provided some actual data, let's have a look at what you've provided. You provided data pairs, one for the Gallardo, one for the S65. So, I'll examine them pair by pair:

First pair: Mercedes' specs for the two cars. Their acceleration data for both cars is the same:

Mercedes' performance figure for the 2007 SL65: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds

Mercedes' performance figure for the 2007 S65: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds

This proves my point. Thank you.

You will recall that I had written previously that I had used SL65 acceleration data because I could find no test data for the S65, but that the two would be close as the cars use the same engine, same horsepower, same transmission, same gearing, same drag coefficient, etc. Only difference is weight, which is a few hundred pounds heavier in the S65. Again, since you seem to skip much of what what I write, here is the acceleration data for the two cars, provided by Mercedes on the pages you provided:

Mercedes' performance figure for the 2007 SL65: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds

Mercedes' performance figure for the 2007 S65: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds

Again: thank you.

I also provided Motor Trend test data yesterday from a CL65, which I said should be pretty close to the S65, as both cars (again) have the same engine/driveline, etc....as w/the SL65 data, I used the CL65 data because Motor Trend does not have an actual road test on their site for the S65.

So, just to see if this is a valid assmption, let's compare Mercedes' acceleration data for the CL65 to the S65:

Mercedes' performance figure for the 2006 CL65: 0-60 in 4.2 seconds

Wow, what do you know? It's the same!!!! Therefore, my citing of Motor Trend data for the CL65 was equally as valid as my use of the SL65, which again I was forced to do because of a lack of data for the S65. But you verified my central claim on this matter by using Mercedes' own data: the three do accelerate the same.

Again: thank you.

The second pair is timeslips from Drag Times. They speak for themselves: S65 (one slip):
1) 11.524 @ 120.300
Oh, and then there's Treynor's data, running an 11.7 @ 125 in his SL....so in this case, the S65 ran a faster time than the SL, but the trap was a bit off. Still, either one is sustantially faster than any of the Gallardos:

Gallardo (Five slips):
1) 12.300 @ 117.400
2) 12.400 @ 118.000
3) 12.500 @ 116.700
4) 12.610 @ 111.210
5) 12.810 @ 116.020

So, the S65 fan nearly 0.8 seconds faster than the fastest Gallardo, and 1.3 seconds faster than the slowest. Again: thank you.

The third pair is from Edmunds.com's inside line. They have an actual road test for the Gallardo SE which ran more or less in line with other Gallardos (a few tenths faster than the US mags and German mags got for the standard Gallardo, but given that this version has more horsepower than the standard Gallardo, this is to be expected). Yes, that's right: this Gallardo is the SE version, which has more power, and we have no way of knowing whether or not the car in the video is the SE; it is a limited-edition car with only 200 examples produced worldwide.

The second edmunds.com link is not a test, but a press release quoting the Mercedes factory 0-60 numbers for the S65.

The fourth pair consists of a press release for the Lambo Gallardo SE, with factory-provided specs; only problem with this is, 1) we don't know whether or not the SE that ran the S65 is an SE, and 2) there is no actual test data; this is a press release. I would argue that real-world test data is more trustworthy than press releases. If you would argue otherwise, please state why.

Also, recall that one of the road tests I provided yesterday *was* a Gallardo SE; here are the results:

Gallardo SE test in sport auto 11/2005 link_text
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,4 s

Which is slower than both of the M5's I cited yesterday, and we can see again this video what an S65 does to an M5: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRdCt4mXV4

So, I have another question for you: if the M5 was tested faster than the M5 by two publications, and the video I provided above shows that an S65 will pull an M5 by multiple lengths, then why is it you don't believe that an S65 would pull a Lambo by multiple lengths?

And now that we have established, thanks to you, that Mercedes rates the acceleration of the S65 and the SL65 the same, here is actual road test data for the SL65: SL65 AMG Test in ams 13/2004
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,1 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 12,6 s
400 m, stehender Start 11,9 s (400m ~= 1/4 mile)

SL65 AMG Test in sport auto 09/2004
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

SL65 AMG Supertest in sport auto 02/2005
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

Now then, if you look at the above, it becomes clear that Mercedes, as has been discussed here numerous times, gives conservative ratings for their acceleration: all three of the SL65s tested ran 0-100 km/h mph faster than MBUSA's time of 4.2 seconds would indicate. The first would've hit 60 in about 3.6-3.7, while the last two would've hit it in about 4.0-4.1. And the 0-200 km/h is *substantially* quicker than all but one of the Gallardos, just as the S65 whose timeslip you so generously provided is *substantially* quicker than all five of the Gallardos.

Beginning to see a pattern here?

The second item in the fourth pair is a press release of the S65, which claims that the car will run 0-100 km/h (different from 60 mph, as we discussed yesterday) in 4.4 seconds, ***AND*** it states that the S65 will run from 0-200 km/h in 13.3 seconds.

As seen above by looking at the actual numbers for the SL65 compared with the factory ratings, the factory numbers are a bit conservative, and the cars run faster in real-world tests, unlike the Gallardo, which tends to run slower than the factory numbers. And one, count 'em, one of the Gallardos we've looked it managed to hit 200 km/h in the low 13 second range; the rest were substantially slower. And even this one was not a match for the fastest SL65, which hit it in 12.5, nor was it a match for the other two SL65s, each of which hit it in 13.1. And again: the other Gallardos were much slower than this one.

The next pair is from Motor Trend. The first is a road test of a Gallardo, which gives the following numbers: 0-60: 4.7 seconds 0-100: 11.0 seconds 1/4: 13.08 @ 109.89

Now, how this helps your case when every road test I've provided, along with the data from Mercedes that you yourself provided, shows that the S65 is a very low 4-second car to 60 mph, is beyond me. It would seem to buttress my argument, and to demonstrate along with the other road test data for the Gallardo (and timeslip data that you so thoughtfully provided) that the Gallardo's acceleration times are not very consistent, with a much larger spread than that for the S/SL/CL65 AMGs.

The second item from this pair is again from Motor Trend, and like the others you provided for Mercedes is not a road test, but is again a press release which quotes Mercedes factory acceleration numbers for the S65 of 0-60 in 4.2 seconds.

So, you provide data from Motor Trend which would indicate that the S65 is 0.5 faster 0-60. Again, thank you. I personally think this is a bit optimistic, but nice to see that you're finally coming around.

Next, you provide two pages from something called "engine power.com", which seems to be a compilation site of data from places unknown. No references, no way of knowing from where the data came. What it does have is acceleration data for the Lambo which is unmatched in any of the other data points we have here. It lists 0-60 mph in 4 seconds, 0-100 mph in 8.2 seconds and a 1/4 mile of 12.2 @ 122 mph.

Yet in the actual road test from Motor Trend, the car is 0.7 slower to 60, 2.8 seconds slower to 100, and 1 second / 12.21 mph slower in the quarter mile. In the actual road test from Car & Driver, the car is 0.1 slower to 60, one second slower to 100, and 0.2 seconds/4 mph slower to the quarter mile. And the edmunds.com test you linked to before has the Gallardo at 0.1 faster, but with a trap that's 5 mph slower.

Furthermore, the German road test data I provided yesterday gives 0-160 km/h (which is 100 mph) times for the Gallardo of 9.9, 11.1, 11.9, and 13.0 seconds.

Oh, and then there's Road & Track, which tested the Gallardo and got: 0-60: 4.0 0-100: 9.1 1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 117.4 mph

R&T also tested an SL65 (unfortunately, they don't have the test on their website), which as I recall ran a 12.0 @ 122 (will double check this later)

So this "engine power.com" seems to have come up with a trap speed and 0-100 time that no American magazine, nor no German magazine, has been able to touch, including the ones you provided.

Further, all of the actual magazine tests we have available indicate a 1/4 mile trap speed of 117-118 mph. This is supported as well by the DragTimes.com data you provided, giving traps of 116-118 with one at 111.

Contrast this with the trap speeds of Car & Driver (123 mph), Motor Trend (121 mph), Road & Track (120), our own Treynor (126), the DragTimes.com data you provided (120), and it's clear that the Benz quickly overcomes the Gallardo's AWD traction advantage at launch and out accelerates it up high.

And the video we saw put the Gallardo at a disadvantage: it was a rolling-start race (NO AWD launch advantage), *and* as I've pointed out to you three times now, the Gallardo driver in that video was short-shifting the car. This means that he was shifting the engine short of its redline. This would slow the car down. Therefore, the Lambo in that video lost by a larger margin than would a well-driven Lambo. Hello? Are you listening? Can you hear me now??

We also have the video of an S65 utterly destroying an E60 M5, a car which has been tested faster than the Gallardo. Again and again and again the evidence shows that the xx65 AMG cars are substantially faster than the Gallardo from a roll.

The last datapoint is from the same chart you provided yesterday, and measures only 0-60-0 times. Which, unfortunately, isn't much help in a drag race, because as you can see from watching the video, the cars did not brake.

So, of the six pairs you provided:

1) the first supports my argument, that the use of SL/CL65 data in the absence of S65 data is appropriate given that Mercedes claims equal acceleration for the three cars;

2) the second pair, from dragtimes.com, suports both the time obtained by Treynor in his SL65 *and* the video of the M5 vs. S65, which is that the S65 is substantially faster than the Gallardo in the 1/4 and in trap speed;

3) the third pair is a real-world test of the Gallardo pretty much in line with the other tests (although it was a few tenths quicker to the 1/4 than any other American mag got, but its trap speed was right there with the rest of them), coupled with a press release from Mercedes claiming 0-60 in 4.2 (which does not dispute the data I provided earlier, which shows the two cars close from 0-60 but the Benz hitting 0-xxx speeds faster and faster as speeds rise). Also, as noted before: this Lambo is the SE version, which has more power, and we have no way of knowing whether or not the car in the video is the SE; it is a limited-edition car with only 200 examples produced worldwide.

4) the fourth pair is another pair of press releases, which shows 0-60 times about the same, but provides Mercedes (typically conservative) data showing 0-200 km/h in 13.3, faster than all but one of the Lambos we've seen tested;

5) the fifth pair is from Motor Trend which gives an actual tested time for a Gallardo which is over a full second slower than any S/SL/CL65 for which we've seen actual numbers, and yet another press release (no test data) for the S65 which again regurgitates Mercedes' factory 0-60 time for the car, which is a full half second faster than the Gallardo they tested in the first link of the pair you provided.

6) the sixth pair is from a compilation site which does not do testing of its own, and which gives only the factory 0-60 time for the S65, along with acceleration data for the Gallardo which is suspiciously faster than every other data point we've got, both magazine and real-world dragstrip results.

7) the final link contains data which appears to be from the same chart you produced from yesterday, which does not have anything above 100 km/h and which is a compilation of 0-100 km/h-0 times, which isn't very relavent in the current debate, as the video we're discussing didn't have a braking contest.

Lastly, you keep parroting 0-xxx data without acknowleding or taking into account the launch advantage that the AWD of the Gallardo enjoys over the S65 will disappear in a rolling-start race like that shown in the video. The edmunds.com test you provided for the Gallardo confirms that they launched the vehicle at 8.000 rpm to get that 4.1 0-60:
Again, making this about the fifth time this has been pointed out to you: the race in the video was done from a rolling-start. This would put the Gallardo at a disadvantage, as it would lose the huge traction advantage it enjoys at launch by virtue of its AWD.

Got that?? Do we need to repeat it again?? The Gallardo would be slower from a roll by not being able to do a high-rpm launch, while the Benz would not lose so much as its measured times were done by simply stepping on the gas, ***AND*** the Gallardo driver in the video short-shifted the car.

If you can launch a car at 8,000 rpm, it will scoot of the line faster. If you do not do this, it will be slower. If you shift a car at its redline, it will be faster than if you shift it far short of redline. If you do a rolling-start run in said car ***AND*** short-shift it, it will be slower still!

If you have any valid argument as to why the previous two paragraphs do not explain why the Benz pulled the Gallardo so hard, please present it, becuase I feel that the data presented so far, including yours, fully supports this argument. And I'd also like to hear some answers to my previous questions.