SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: SL600 vs. SL65
Banned
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 725
Likes: 1
From: Irvine, CA.
2005 SL55, 2000 CL500
The true test.
Member
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
From: DFW
LS460L
Not upset, I just feel sad that people may read a thread like this and as you, actually believe it 
Let me be clear, I don't think the SL65 is faster than a stock SL600, it is. The SL65 puts down the power much better than you would think. I have put down 1.8x 60' time running stock rubber on my SL65 on my way to 11.69's bone stock. With just drag radials I have run 11.5's.
I will raise the challenge to $5000. You bring the SL600 and I will bring my SL65 and we can settle this at the drag strip.
Your data is all screwed up. C&D never had the ***** to admit they were wrong.
No other stock SL600 has EVER EVER EVER run any where near an 11.9. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single one that has run under 12.4.
You keep spouting off around here like you know what you are talking about but you are racing magazines.
Take your car to the drag strip, on any given day it could possibly be beaten by an SL55. The performance of the two are much closer than what you would think. I hate to tell you, but the added weight of your SL600 plus the taller rear axle ratio really hurts the SL600 in a drag racing environment.
Stop quoting magazine articles and let's start talking about real world results.
Take your car to the drag strip and prepare to be disappointed if you think it is faster than a SL65 of a SLR.
I have seen SL600's run at the drag strip, they are NOT 11 second cars in stock trim.
Bring your money and let's go! You are living in never never land.
Cheers!
Schiz
Let me be clear, I don't think the SL65 is faster than a stock SL600, it is. The SL65 puts down the power much better than you would think. I have put down 1.8x 60' time running stock rubber on my SL65 on my way to 11.69's bone stock. With just drag radials I have run 11.5's.
I will raise the challenge to $5000. You bring the SL600 and I will bring my SL65 and we can settle this at the drag strip.
Your data is all screwed up. C&D never had the ***** to admit they were wrong.
No other stock SL600 has EVER EVER EVER run any where near an 11.9. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single one that has run under 12.4.
You keep spouting off around here like you know what you are talking about but you are racing magazines.
Take your car to the drag strip, on any given day it could possibly be beaten by an SL55. The performance of the two are much closer than what you would think. I hate to tell you, but the added weight of your SL600 plus the taller rear axle ratio really hurts the SL600 in a drag racing environment.
Stop quoting magazine articles and let's start talking about real world results.
Take your car to the drag strip and prepare to be disappointed if you think it is faster than a SL65 of a SLR.
I have seen SL600's run at the drag strip, they are NOT 11 second cars in stock trim.
Bring your money and let's go! You are living in never never land.
Cheers!
Schiz
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,054
Likes: 340
From: NJ
2009 SL63 AMG
Correct. I recalled reading it had the RennTech ECU tune, which would explain the unusually fast time. Now, stock for stock, the SL65 is a fair amount quicker. However, I would personally choose an SL600 and use the savings for a RennTech Stage II. 
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 277
Likes: 1
From: MI
2011 Hyundai Elantra GLS
C&D disclaimed that traction problems were what held the SL65 back from matching the S600 they had tested a while back. Let us not forget that even if the SL600 had not been ECU-tuned, these TT V12 are not at all consistent on the power they produce. There are 600-engines out there that may produce upwards of 550 or 600 horses. We have heard more than once of 600 cars that when dynoed knocked the manufacturer estimates right out of the park. Truth is, we cannot fully account for Herr Hans' prankful mood when he works on the engine line at the factory in Germany.
What's even funnier, the SL600 tested by C&D weighed about 50 or so pounds more than the SL65 they subsequently tested, which throws rationale out of the window with the reinforced equipment that the 65 is supposed to have--it could not have all been due to the removal of wood in the steering wheel now, could it...LOL
What's even funnier, the SL600 tested by C&D weighed about 50 or so pounds more than the SL65 they subsequently tested, which throws rationale out of the window with the reinforced equipment that the 65 is supposed to have--it could not have all been due to the removal of wood in the steering wheel now, could it...LOL
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 387
From: Kenilworth, il usa
GT63S ePerformance 4dr, '25 Bentayga Black Ed.(wife), Wrangler and 250 MLB(kids)
C&D disclaimed that traction problems were what held the SL65 back from matching the S600 they had tested a while back. Let us not forget that even if the SL600 had not been ECU-tuned, these TT V12 are not at all consistent on the power they produce. There are 600-engines out there that may produce upwards of 550 or 600 horses. We have heard more than once of 600 cars that when dynoed knocked the manufacturer estimates right out of the park. Truth is, we cannot fully account for Herr Hans' prankful mood when he works on the engine line at the factory in Germany.
What's even funnier, the SL600 tested by C&D weighed about 50 or so pounds more than the SL65 they subsequently tested, which throws rationale out of the window with the reinforced equipment that the 65 is supposed to have--it could not have all been due to the removal of wood in the steering wheel now, could it...LOL
What's even funnier, the SL600 tested by C&D weighed about 50 or so pounds more than the SL65 they subsequently tested, which throws rationale out of the window with the reinforced equipment that the 65 is supposed to have--it could not have all been due to the removal of wood in the steering wheel now, could it...LOL
Since then,countless 600s and 65s were tested,drag raced and timed,and countless times, and every one of them,were proving the obvious,that the latter (65) were always faster at ANY speed....
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
From: Lausanne, Switzerland
SLK 55 AMG
I don't think this is the first time that C&D has provided numbers which are way too low for the given car in question... I recall a few other tests where up to half a second were shaved off from numbers that other magazines were able to obtain.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 911
Likes: 1
From: Wichita
2005 SL600, 2011 Honda Odyssey Touring Elite
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
The 3.6 sec figure always seemed a little hard to believe, but I do seem to recall them defending this test time in response to a letter to the editor, and they sure do use a lot of ink comparing this test result to those from a number of sports cars.
This being said, there is no reason to doubt that a stock SL65 is faster than a stock SL600. But I am interested to know how a RennTech SL600 stacks up against a stock SL65. I recall a thread on the topic but am not aware if the head to head was done.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,894
Likes: 8
From: Connecticut
2003 CLK55
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes Teases Updated EQS With Steer-By-Wire and a Yoke
Verdad Gallardo
8 Mercedes Models With Poor Reliability Records
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 7,894
Likes: 8
From: Connecticut
2003 CLK55
No ****....C+D has the 2004 CLK55 going 0-60 at 4.5sec. Give me abreak. What kind a miracle do I have to perform to get my stock CLK55 to go 0-60 in 4.5sec. Maybe first turn water into wine?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 5
From: Ann Arbor
'03 SL55
Good eye! I'm a C&D subscriber and I re-read the article when this whole discussion popped up but I missed that point.
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
05 c55
If I line up in my c55 against a c350 and we both just mash the gas pedal, the c55 will have a lot more wheelspin and get off the line much slower, thus the c350 could get to 60mph much faster.
That doesn't mean the c350 is a quicker car because the c55 has traction issues.
If you get a good launch on the SL600 and you launch the SL65 properly, who gets to sixty faster?
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
2006 sl55
Im a dealer in South Florida and specialize in pre-owned Mercedes products. Over the last 6 years Ive owned just about every Mercedes made but my passion is in SL's.
No exaggeration I must have owned at least 200 SL's from the weak and underpowered SL500 to the monsterous SL65 and the overhyped and overpriced Mclaren.
The discrepancies in this post are reasonable and all posters appear to have a legitimate and firm stance. However, the truth is in the numbers not in theories and hypothesis!
The fastest SL ** under $200,000 ** is clearly the SL65. However, quarter mile times will show that the SL55 and SL600 run similiar times. In order for The SL65 to run consistent times faster than the SL55 and SL600 it needs sticky tires with plenty of tread otherwise rest assured an SL55 or SL600 with good tires will run faster.
If Mercedes wakes up they will upgrades The SL65 with one or both of these:
1) AWD system
2) wider rear tires with more tread.. preferably the sticky Bridgestone RE011
As far as claims that the SL600 runs a 3.6.. complete nonsense.. thats an impossibility... even with a good tune and exhaust, I believe the fastest it can run is 3.8 to 3.9.
Keep in mind gentlmen that the v12 turbos will never be as reliable as the supercharged 55... in the long run, you will see serious intercooler and turbo issues on the v12's that will cost too much to fix driving the price of these cars down.
Last but not least.... i find the SL65 the most fun car to floor at 50mph on the highway... the accleration and torque cannot be matched!
No exaggeration I must have owned at least 200 SL's from the weak and underpowered SL500 to the monsterous SL65 and the overhyped and overpriced Mclaren.
The discrepancies in this post are reasonable and all posters appear to have a legitimate and firm stance. However, the truth is in the numbers not in theories and hypothesis!
The fastest SL ** under $200,000 ** is clearly the SL65. However, quarter mile times will show that the SL55 and SL600 run similiar times. In order for The SL65 to run consistent times faster than the SL55 and SL600 it needs sticky tires with plenty of tread otherwise rest assured an SL55 or SL600 with good tires will run faster.
If Mercedes wakes up they will upgrades The SL65 with one or both of these:
1) AWD system
2) wider rear tires with more tread.. preferably the sticky Bridgestone RE011
As far as claims that the SL600 runs a 3.6.. complete nonsense.. thats an impossibility... even with a good tune and exhaust, I believe the fastest it can run is 3.8 to 3.9.
Keep in mind gentlmen that the v12 turbos will never be as reliable as the supercharged 55... in the long run, you will see serious intercooler and turbo issues on the v12's that will cost too much to fix driving the price of these cars down.
Last but not least.... i find the SL65 the most fun car to floor at 50mph on the highway... the accleration and torque cannot be matched!
