S65 vs. Gallardo
09-22-2006, 10:24 PM
#51
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
09-22-2006, 10:41 PM
#52
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-22-2006, 10:54 PM
#53
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: West Michigan
Posts: 18,414
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
2007 E63
Uh, why don't we ask the owner of the S65 who just happens to be a member of this forum? 
Is it just me, or does it sound like the Gallardo driver shifts WAY too early?
Boom...amazing what the search brings up.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...29#post1759429
Is it just me, or does it sound like the Gallardo driver shifts WAY too early?
Boom...amazing what the search brings up.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...29#post1759429
Last edited by AsianML; 09-22-2006 at 10:58 PM.
09-22-2006, 11:02 PM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 2,767
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW FTW
Why are we fighting about lambos? Come on guys lets end this.. Everyone knows lambos are slow and heavy. They cant even compete in a racing series let alone drive 2,000 miles without having service done on them. If you want a fast car go buy a Neon SRT-4 and add some nitrous to it then we can quote 1/4 mile times and the Neon owner can brag about how he paid 1/6 less for his car.
But in all seriousness fast expensive sports cars are over ratted and I know that from growing up around them and having driven a few of my fathers and the hours I spent waiting in the service department from them to get fixed. Who really cares about whos car is faster just enjoy what you have and be grateful that you have such a nice car when 99% of the population is driving around in a car that is worth less than the rims on your car.
Just to have some fun I will race any sports car or any sedan for pink slips in my ML in a simple drag race on my terms. Terms will be different depending on the car, obviously the faster the car the more of a head start I get.
But in all seriousness fast expensive sports cars are over ratted and I know that from growing up around them and having driven a few of my fathers and the hours I spent waiting in the service department from them to get fixed. Who really cares about whos car is faster just enjoy what you have and be grateful that you have such a nice car when 99% of the population is driving around in a car that is worth less than the rims on your car.
Just to have some fun I will race any sports car or any sedan for pink slips in my ML in a simple drag race on my terms. Terms will be different depending on the car, obviously the faster the car the more of a head start I get.
09-22-2006, 11:10 PM
#55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
I don't know Improviz (other than the fact he resembles a dog with a particularly dear bone when Mercedes is criticized) but he may have friends who have high end cars which gives him some perspective.
09-22-2006, 11:33 PM
#56
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're featured in the L.A. Times with that grammar? I feel for the copy department.
I don't know Improviz (other than the fact he resembles a dog with a particularly dear bone when Mercedes is criticized) but he may have friends who have high end cars which gives him some perspective.
I don't know Improviz (other than the fact he resembles a dog with a particularly dear bone when Mercedes is criticized) but he may have friends who have high end cars which gives him some perspective.
09-22-2006, 11:36 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why are we fighting about lambos? Come on guys lets end this.. Everyone knows lambos are slow and heavy. They cant even compete in a racing series let alone drive 2,000 miles without having service done on them. If you want a fast car go buy a Neon SRT-4 and add some nitrous to it then we can quote 1/4 mile times and the Neon owner can brag about how he paid 1/6 less for his car.
But in all seriousness fast expensive sports cars are over ratted and I know that from growing up around them and having driven a few of my fathers and the hours I spent waiting in the service department from them to get fixed. Who really cares about whos car is faster just enjoy what you have and be grateful that you have such a nice car when 99% of the population is driving around in a car that is worth less than the rims on your car.
Just to have some fun I will race any sports car or any sedan for pink slips in my ML in a simple drag race on my terms. Terms will be different depending on the car, obviously the faster the car the more of a head start I get.
But in all seriousness fast expensive sports cars are over ratted and I know that from growing up around them and having driven a few of my fathers and the hours I spent waiting in the service department from them to get fixed. Who really cares about whos car is faster just enjoy what you have and be grateful that you have such a nice car when 99% of the population is driving around in a car that is worth less than the rims on your car.
Just to have some fun I will race any sports car or any sedan for pink slips in my ML in a simple drag race on my terms. Terms will be different depending on the car, obviously the faster the car the more of a head start I get.
Your BMW M3, was the biggest POS introduced by BMW in recent years and we could say that the new Benz's are some of the most unreliable, and even moreso fastest depreciating cars in history, with the majority of the newer AMG cars hitting close to a 50% depreciation their first year. 
For example, recent sales at the Adessa auction of 03 E500's. For my little brother I just picked a pristine 03 E500, not one dent, ding, paintwork etc. What were they new? 68K? Paid $20,250.
Last edited by allanlambo; 09-22-2006 at 11:39 PM.
09-22-2006, 11:40 PM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
09-22-2006, 11:53 PM
#59
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sv is cool, I sold it not too long ago, had it a long time. That dynoed at 416rwhp. My Murcielago dynoed at 433 AWP (bone stock, all wheel drive dyno). We figured it would make approx 470rwhp. My Gallardo Se just dynoed 455rwhp.
Also, I believe you are thinking of the L.A. Times newspaper. It is a magazine from Japan.
Here is a link to the article:
http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032250zp9.jpg
http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032310iu9.jpg
Last edited by allanlambo; 09-22-2006 at 11:57 PM.
09-23-2006, 12:05 AM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: OC, SoCal
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
The H2 is a beater. I agree, it is a POS!
Sv is cool, I sold it not too long ago, had it a long time. That dynoed at 416rwhp. My Murcielago dynoed at 433 AWP (bone stock, all wheel drive dyno). We figured it would make approx 470rwhp. My Gallardo Se just dynoed 455rwhp.
Also, I believe you are thinking of the L.A. Times newspaper. It is a magazine from Japan.
Here is a link to the article:
http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032250zp9.jpg
http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032310iu9.jpg
Sv is cool, I sold it not too long ago, had it a long time. That dynoed at 416rwhp. My Murcielago dynoed at 433 AWP (bone stock, all wheel drive dyno). We figured it would make approx 470rwhp. My Gallardo Se just dynoed 455rwhp.
Also, I believe you are thinking of the L.A. Times newspaper. It is a magazine from Japan.
Here is a link to the article:
http://img55.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032250zp9.jpg
http://img74.imageshack.us/my.php?im...4032310iu9.jpg
Good links.
What color scheme did you go for on the SE? White/black looks great.
BTW, do you really believe the E46 M3 is a POS or were you just venting?
09-23-2006, 12:39 AM
#61
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Southern Cali (Ontario)
Posts: 3,466
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
10 Posts
Wow! Youve really got some experience with these cars. Your daddy had some experience with these cars, so you know all. Your BMW M3, was the biggest POS introduced by BMW in recent years and we could say that the new Benz's are some of the most unreliable, and even moreso fastest depreciating cars in history, with the majority of the newer AMG cars hitting close to a 50% depreciation their first year.
For example, recent sales at the Adessa auction of 03 E500's. For my little brother I just picked a pristine 03 E500, not one dent, ding, paintwork etc. What were they new? 68K? Paid $20,250.
Your BMW M3, was the biggest POS introduced by BMW in recent years and we could say that the new Benz's are some of the most unreliable, and even moreso fastest depreciating cars in history, with the majority of the newer AMG cars hitting close to a 50% depreciation their first year. For example, recent sales at the Adessa auction of 03 E500's. For my little brother I just picked a pristine 03 E500, not one dent, ding, paintwork etc. What were they new? 68K? Paid $20,250.
first: Its an auction. That is why your little bro went their. True auction can only be done with a dealer lic. But there a many public ones.
There is 03 model year, 04 MY, 05 MY, 06MY.. and now a MY07 (but we count that year yet)
So let's divide the MRSP 60k for the 2003 MY vs 4 years of service...
Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $55,515
Options on Test Vehicle: In-dash six-disc CD changer ($400); E1 Value Added Package ($1,150 — includes bi-HID headlamps and headlamp washers); E2 Value Added Package ($1,550 — includes sunroof and 12-speaker Harman Kardon Logic 7 premium sound system); Gas Guzzler Tax ($1,000).
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $59,615
and the answer is
60k /4 years = 7.5k per year (Trade value is 30k)
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2003/mer...89/prices.html
so in 4 years it has only lost 50%
Not bad considering its only E500
====================================
my point.. don't try hype your argument with factless remarks.
09-23-2006, 12:44 AM
#62
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
I do have the article....
Unfortunately, it disproves, rather than proves, your point. You claimed the following:
To which I responded:
Duly noting that you skipped out on proving point b), or that any of the five other publications from which I provided Gallardo tests were fraudulent or inaccurate, you spewed in response:
Oh, gee: how about proving anything I've written to be wrong, or proving anything you've written to be right?
BUZZ!! Thanks for playin', but that's the wrong answer, jimbo! I do happen to have the article, and in fact what it says is this:
Not a "reprint" as you're alleging. A joint effort. Big difference, and in any case an irrelavant point and attempt at diversion.
And I notice that in your second outing, you backed away from your earlier claim:
And in reading the article, I can see why you dropped this one and hoped I wouldn't notice, because they didn't write any such thing.
In other words, my colossally arrogant friend, right now you are batting 0.000. And in reading the rest of your rant, it's apparent that you struck out there as well.
Translation: "I don't have anything to refute the data you provided, so I'm again going to resort to cheap shots and meaningless, irrelavant arguments." It is irrelavant whether or not you own the car, designed the car, built it from scratch, or had sex with the car. Facts is facts, friend, and the fact is clear; five timeslips. Six magazine tests. NONE trapping as fast, nor running as quick through the 1/4, as any xx65 AMG car. Cold hard numbers show that you're simply wrong.
Period.
[snip boring, egotistical rant about how wonderful you are]
Hmm, in perusing the booring, egotistical rant you posted, I noticed that you did nothing to dispute, contest, or disprove any of the road tests or timeslips provided, all of which show that the S65 is faster.
Why am I not surprised? Just as I am not surprised that, absent any sort of data to refute the proof which has been laid in front of you, you instead resort to cheap shots, ad homenim attacks, and other silly diversionary tactics.
In your modified car? Puh-leeze. If you want to run modded vs. modded, have a run with Treynor in his modded SL65.
I mean, I really love this: you interject yourself into this thread stating that, despite the reams of data to the contrary, the Gallardo is faster. All we have to do is a) ignore the data, and b) show up and race you in your modified Gallardo. "This will settle it, guys...please, please stop looking at actual road tests and time slips! Just run me, me, the Great Wonderful Fantastic Owner of a Modified Gallardo, and stop looking at that data!"
And you have the gall to call me Johnnie Cochran? At least I can put together a cohesive argument and produce facts to back it up....so far all you've done is cast aspersions, hurl insults, rant, and urge people not to pay attention to what all of these numbers plainly show.
No, I'm actually having more fun making you look stupid, which frankly isn't proving to be very difficult.
Yawn...more deflection and ad homenim, zero substance. The data stands, and you've been proven wrong.
Prove it. Prove a) that the article was a reprint and not an original conducted by Road & Track, and b) that there was something wrong with the Gallardo.
And then, once you've finished, prove that there was something wrong with the other Gallardo SE's tested by other publications for which I provided test data.
And then, once you've finished, prove that there was something wrong with the other Gallardo SE's tested by other publications for which I provided test data.
Oh, gee: how about proving anything I've written to be wrong, or proving anything you've written to be right?
Lets see Johnny Cochran, lets start with the Road and Track article. I dont have time to look for and scan the article, but Ill let you know that on the very first page of that article , it says that it is from their friends at Quattroroute in Italy. Since you have soo much time on your hands to quote every single magazine in the nation, you may want to follow up on that little tidbit.
Originally Posted by Road & Track, September 2006 issue, page 60-61
Actually we were guests of Quattroruote, Europe's leading automotive magazine whose publishing group owns a fantastic test facility...(snipped discussion of test facility). Conducting concurrent tests for our respective magazines, we logged hundreds of track hours over the course of a week, gathering subjective impressions of handling and acceleration as well as cold, hard data, through both our standard battery of performance tests and a section-by-section analysis on each car's relative brilliance (or Achilles' heel) on the handling course.
And I notice that in your second outing, you backed away from your earlier claim:
In other words, my colossally arrogant friend, right now you are batting 0.000. And in reading the rest of your rant, it's apparent that you struck out there as well.
Period.
[snip boring, egotistical rant about how wonderful you are]
Hmm, in perusing the booring, egotistical rant you posted, I noticed that you did nothing to dispute, contest, or disprove any of the road tests or timeslips provided, all of which show that the S65 is faster.
Why am I not surprised? Just as I am not surprised that, absent any sort of data to refute the proof which has been laid in front of you, you instead resort to cheap shots, ad homenim attacks, and other silly diversionary tactics.
I mean, I really love this: you interject yourself into this thread stating that, despite the reams of data to the contrary, the Gallardo is faster. All we have to do is a) ignore the data, and b) show up and race you in your modified Gallardo. "This will settle it, guys...please, please stop looking at actual road tests and time slips! Just run me, me, the Great Wonderful Fantastic Owner of a Modified Gallardo, and stop looking at that data!"
And you have the gall to call me Johnnie Cochran? At least I can put together a cohesive argument and produce facts to back it up....so far all you've done is cast aspersions, hurl insults, rant, and urge people not to pay attention to what all of these numbers plainly show.
Yawn...more deflection and ad homenim, zero substance. The data stands, and you've been proven wrong.
Last edited by Improviz; 09-23-2006 at 01:06 AM.
09-23-2006, 12:54 AM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Suffice it to say that first-year depreciation for AMGs is nowhere near 50%, and that you're still maintaining your 0.000 batting average there, sparky!
Last edited by Improviz; 09-23-2006 at 01:10 AM.
09-23-2006, 01:15 AM
#64
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the M3, yes, I find it to be a terrible car inmo.
09-23-2006, 01:24 AM
#65
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
first: Its an auction. That is why your little bro went their. True auction can only be done with a dealer lic. But there a many public ones.
There is 03 model year, 04 MY, 05 MY, 06MY.. and now a MY07 (but we count that year yet)
So let's divide the MRSP 60k for the 2003 MY vs 4 years of service...
Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $55,515
Options on Test Vehicle: In-dash six-disc CD changer ($400); E1 Value Added Package ($1,150 — includes bi-HID headlamps and headlamp washers); E2 Value Added Package ($1,550 — includes sunroof and 12-speaker Harman Kardon Logic 7 premium sound system); Gas Guzzler Tax ($1,000).
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $59,615
and the answer is
60k /4 years = 7.5k per year (Trade value is 30k)
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2003/mer...89/prices.html
so in 4 years it has only lost 50%
Not bad considering its only E500
====================================
my point.. don't try hype your argument with factless remarks.
There is 03 model year, 04 MY, 05 MY, 06MY.. and now a MY07 (but we count that year yet)
So let's divide the MRSP 60k for the 2003 MY vs 4 years of service...
Base MSRP of Test Vehicle: $55,515
Options on Test Vehicle: In-dash six-disc CD changer ($400); E1 Value Added Package ($1,150 — includes bi-HID headlamps and headlamp washers); E2 Value Added Package ($1,550 — includes sunroof and 12-speaker Harman Kardon Logic 7 premium sound system); Gas Guzzler Tax ($1,000).
MSRP of Test Vehicle: $59,615
and the answer is
60k /4 years = 7.5k per year (Trade value is 30k)
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2003/mer...89/prices.html
so in 4 years it has only lost 50%
Not bad considering its only E500
====================================
my point.. don't try hype your argument with factless remarks.
Please do not try and teach me the car business. If you think an E500 is worth 30K on trade, please get off the crack. Ive been involved in the auto industry for many years. If you reread my post, my brother did not go to the auction, I did. I have an auction card. And here is how it works, delaer takes your trade, if he doesnt throw it into his retail lineup, it goes to auction, where the dealer will still turn a profit. For example, my sisters 03 C230, dealer giving her 11K for the car, auction sales are approx 13K.
So, since I do not have the sticker for this car, but i am assuming it loaded, with nav, chrome wheels, Cd etc, and since the cars in service date was 6 of 03, I put the car at 3 years old, and have held 33% of its value from new. Obviously at a point the depreciation must stop.
Other examples, 06 Sl65's are doing 100-105K, from an Msrp of 192! Retail you can pick these up for 120K all day long. Nice 70K hit in 6 months.
09-23-2006, 01:40 AM
#66
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, it disproves, rather than proves, your point. You claimed the following:
To which I responded:
Duly noting that you skipped out on proving point b), or that any of the five other publications from which I provided Gallardo tests were fraudulent or inaccurate, you spewed in response:
Oh, gee: how about proving anything I've written to be wrong, or proving anything you've written to be right?
BUZZ!! Thanks for playin', but that's the wrong answer, jimbo! I do happen to have the article, and in fact what it says is this:
Not a "reprint" as you're alleging. A joint effort. Big difference, and in any case an irrelavant point and attempt at diversion.
And I notice that in your second outing, you backed away from your earlier claim:
And in reading the article, I can see why you dropped this one and hoped I wouldn't notice, because they didn't write any such thing.
In other words, my colossally arrogant friend, right now you are batting 0.000. And in reading the rest of your rant, it's apparent that you struck out there as well.
Translation: "I don't have anything to refute the data you provided, so I'm again going to resort to cheap shots and meaningless, irrelavant arguments." It is irrelavant whether or not you own the car, designed the car, built it from scratch, or had sex with the car. Facts is facts, friend, and the fact is clear; five timeslips. Six magazine tests. NONE trapping as fast, nor running as quick through the 1/4, as any xx65 AMG car. Cold hard numbers show that you're simply wrong.
Period.
[snip boring, egotistical rant about how wonderful you are]
Hmm, in perusing the booring, egotistical rant you posted, I noticed that you did nothing to dispute, contest, or disprove any of the road tests or timeslips provided, all of which show that the S65 is faster.
Why am I not surprised? Just as I am not surprised that, absent any sort of data to refute the proof which has been laid in front of you, you instead resort to cheap shots, ad homenim attacks, and other silly diversionary tactics.
In your modified car? Puh-leeze. If you want to run modded vs. modded, have a run with Treynor in his modded SL65.
I mean, I really love this: you interject yourself into this thread stating that, despite the reams of data to the contrary, the Gallardo is faster. All we have to do is a) ignore the data, and b) show up and race you in your modified Gallardo. "This will settle it, guys...please, please stop looking at actual road tests and time slips! Just run me, me, the Great Wonderful Fantastic Owner of a Modified Gallardo, and stop looking at that data!"
And you have the gall to call me Johnnie Cochran? At least I can put together a cohesive argument and produce facts to back it up....so far all you've done is cast aspersions, hurl insults, rant, and urge people not to pay attention to what all of these numbers plainly show.
No, I'm actually having more fun making you look stupid, which frankly isn't proving to be very difficult.
Yawn...more deflection and ad homenim, zero substance. The data stands, and you've been proven wrong.
To which I responded:
Duly noting that you skipped out on proving point b), or that any of the five other publications from which I provided Gallardo tests were fraudulent or inaccurate, you spewed in response:
Oh, gee: how about proving anything I've written to be wrong, or proving anything you've written to be right?
BUZZ!! Thanks for playin', but that's the wrong answer, jimbo! I do happen to have the article, and in fact what it says is this:
Not a "reprint" as you're alleging. A joint effort. Big difference, and in any case an irrelavant point and attempt at diversion.
And I notice that in your second outing, you backed away from your earlier claim:
And in reading the article, I can see why you dropped this one and hoped I wouldn't notice, because they didn't write any such thing.
In other words, my colossally arrogant friend, right now you are batting 0.000. And in reading the rest of your rant, it's apparent that you struck out there as well.
Translation: "I don't have anything to refute the data you provided, so I'm again going to resort to cheap shots and meaningless, irrelavant arguments." It is irrelavant whether or not you own the car, designed the car, built it from scratch, or had sex with the car. Facts is facts, friend, and the fact is clear; five timeslips. Six magazine tests. NONE trapping as fast, nor running as quick through the 1/4, as any xx65 AMG car. Cold hard numbers show that you're simply wrong.
Period.
[snip boring, egotistical rant about how wonderful you are]
Hmm, in perusing the booring, egotistical rant you posted, I noticed that you did nothing to dispute, contest, or disprove any of the road tests or timeslips provided, all of which show that the S65 is faster.
Why am I not surprised? Just as I am not surprised that, absent any sort of data to refute the proof which has been laid in front of you, you instead resort to cheap shots, ad homenim attacks, and other silly diversionary tactics.
In your modified car? Puh-leeze. If you want to run modded vs. modded, have a run with Treynor in his modded SL65.
I mean, I really love this: you interject yourself into this thread stating that, despite the reams of data to the contrary, the Gallardo is faster. All we have to do is a) ignore the data, and b) show up and race you in your modified Gallardo. "This will settle it, guys...please, please stop looking at actual road tests and time slips! Just run me, me, the Great Wonderful Fantastic Owner of a Modified Gallardo, and stop looking at that data!"
And you have the gall to call me Johnnie Cochran? At least I can put together a cohesive argument and produce facts to back it up....so far all you've done is cast aspersions, hurl insults, rant, and urge people not to pay attention to what all of these numbers plainly show.
No, I'm actually having more fun making you look stupid, which frankly isn't proving to be very difficult.
Yawn...more deflection and ad homenim, zero substance. The data stands, and you've been proven wrong.
The Road and Track article is a copy of Quattroroutes test. Whether they stood around watching is neither here nor there. Quattrouroute performed the test, and Quattroroute made announcements in regards to the validity of that test. There were several discrepancies with the test, including the fact they allowed Ferrari engineers to retune the suspension on the 430 after it posted slower lap times than the others. Have you driven a 430? No, I didnt think so.
Recently there was an article, I believe Autocar, which tested an older G at 11.7 in the 1/4, did a compro with the new 997TT. The 997TT has been clocked at 8 sec to 100mph. In print they wrote that the Gallardo SE, in the roll on race, matched the 9977 TT gear for gear. Is your S65 ( oh wait, not yours, you dont have one going to run down a 997TT also?
As for racing my modded Gallardo against a stock S65, this is true. We changed exhaust and air filters and picked up 18rwhp. To prove you wrong, I would be willing to put my car back to stock. Even if I choose not to, I know several Se owners who would be willing to run, and they are all completely stock.
You continue to quote your magazines, and living through the eyes of others.
09-23-2006, 01:47 AM
#68
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
You are quoting times from an Sl65 which is faster than a S65. Also, in your equation you seem to have forgotten this test of an 04 Gallardo, one with 50hp less than an SE, also from Sport Auto:
Supertest in sport auto 12/2003
Gewicht 1613 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,0 s
Also, in your quoted tests, did it dawn on you, that of the 2 Sport Auto tests they just used the results from the previous tests, or do you actually believe that on 2 seperate days, 1 year apart, the car actually ran the EXACTLY same times to the tee?
So I ask yet again, I am here, willing to donate a car, to prove my point. What are you personally going to do other than show up to race and line up a bunch of magazines?
09-23-2006, 01:48 AM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,703
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
SL55AMG, Ferrari 348, Ferrari Testarossa, Ferrari F40, Ferrari Mondial t, Ducati 916, Indycar
Oh no!! More internet armchair racing!! Fact is the S65 beat a G...in that video, and now we have pages of posts contradicting the facts.
And lets add the 'internet tough guy', Alanlambo to the mix. This guy has been booted off of every forum on the grounds of 'pestiness'. It really is quite pathetic....only 50 posts and already alienated another group.
And lets add the 'internet tough guy', Alanlambo to the mix. This guy has been booted off of every forum on the grounds of 'pestiness'. It really is quite pathetic....only 50 posts and already alienated another group.
09-23-2006, 01:53 AM
#70
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to mention, you are trying to compare the stats of an Sl65 which has a quoted weight of 4564lbs, to that of the S65 which has a quoted weight of 5065lbs. Do you have any idea how big of a difference that makes?
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merce...ecs.html?p=ext
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merce...ecs.html?p=ext
Not to mention, do you realize that when magazines test cars, they usually do not use 1/4 mile tracks? Do you know they usually just use their own timing equipment and where ever they have an open stretch? For example, when magazines tested the Ferrari Enzo or F430, they were tested at Fiorano. Now someone like you, would read those stats as gospel, since you do not have the ability to find out for yourself, while someone like me knows that the straight in which they run those tests actually goes downhill.
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merce...ecs.html?p=ext
http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/merce...ecs.html?p=ext
Not to mention, do you realize that when magazines test cars, they usually do not use 1/4 mile tracks? Do you know they usually just use their own timing equipment and where ever they have an open stretch? For example, when magazines tested the Ferrari Enzo or F430, they were tested at Fiorano. Now someone like you, would read those stats as gospel, since you do not have the ability to find out for yourself, while someone like me knows that the straight in which they run those tests actually goes downhill.
09-23-2006, 01:54 AM
#71
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh no!! More internet armchair racing!! Fact is the S65 beat a G...in that video, and now we have pages of posts contradicting the facts.
And lets add the 'internet tough guy', Alanlambo to the mix. This guy has been booted off of every forum on the grounds of 'pestiness'. It really is quite pathetic....only 50 posts and already alienated another group.
And lets add the 'internet tough guy', Alanlambo to the mix. This guy has been booted off of every forum on the grounds of 'pestiness'. It really is quite pathetic....only 50 posts and already alienated another group.
09-23-2006, 02:06 AM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Let's see, with no data, what does our brainless hero do??
Why, go right back to his time-honored techniques: casting aspersions, hurling insults, and ranting. To wit:
Wow, all three techniques in one sentence. As expected, no data.
Yawn...more irrelavant nonsense, and you have no idea what I have, or have not, driven, my ever presumptuous, none-too-bright nemisis. You are publicly accusing Road & Track magazine of plagarism in directly copying an article (I'm sure you've read the original Italian to verify it, lol), and again:
1) you falsely claimed that the article stated the Gallardo had something wrong with it; it did no such thing.
2) you falsely claimed that the article was a "reprint" of an Italian test. The authors at Road & Track stated otherwise, as quoted above, and given your track record of making false/dishonest statements up to now, I'm sure this one is also false as well.
3) now it's the Ferrari that was modded? Who cares? still nothing to do with the acceleration capabilities of a Gallardo.
4) you still haven't provided anything to disprove the Road & Track test results for the Gallardo SE, NOR have you provided anything ot disprove the Sport Auto test results for the Gallardo SE, NOR have you provided anything to disprove the edmunds.com test results for the Gallardo SE.
Oh, gee, more ad hominem and irrelavant nonsense...what a surprise. And I thought that magazine results were not to be trusted, oh, wait, that's only the magazine articles and time slips that show you're wrong. 
Well, here are a few magazine articles for you, sweetie, a few more to add to the pile...which, I might add, disproves the pile of **** you've been spewing.
Lol, says the guy who just (claims to have) quoted a magazine. You continue to lie about what is in magazines, produce no data to back up your argument, cast aspersions on and/or ignore any data which does not support it, and produce rant-filled, ignorant, factless posts.
The Road and Track article is a copy of Quattroroutes test. Whether they stood around watching is neither here nor there. Quattrouroute performed the test, and Quattroroute made announcements in regards to the validity of that test. There were several discrepancies with the test, including the fact they allowed Ferrari engineers to retune the suspension on the 430 after it posted slower lap times than the others. Have you driven a 430? No, I didnt think so.
1) you falsely claimed that the article stated the Gallardo had something wrong with it; it did no such thing.
2) you falsely claimed that the article was a "reprint" of an Italian test. The authors at Road & Track stated otherwise, as quoted above, and given your track record of making false/dishonest statements up to now, I'm sure this one is also false as well.
3) now it's the Ferrari that was modded? Who cares? still nothing to do with the acceleration capabilities of a Gallardo.
4) you still haven't provided anything to disprove the Road & Track test results for the Gallardo SE, NOR have you provided anything ot disprove the Sport Auto test results for the Gallardo SE, NOR have you provided anything to disprove the edmunds.com test results for the Gallardo SE.
Recently there was an article, I believe Autocar, which tested an older G at 11.7 in the 1/4, did a compro with the new 997TT. The 997TT has been clocked at 8 sec to 100mph. In print they wrote that the Gallardo SE, in the roll on race, matched the 9977 TT gear for gear. Is your S65 ( oh wait, not yours, you dont have one going to run down a 997TT also?
Well, here are a few magazine articles for you, sweetie, a few more to add to the pile...which, I might add, disproves the pile of **** you've been spewing.
As for racing my modded Gallardo against a stock S65, this is true. We changed exhaust and air filters and picked up 18rwhp. To prove you wrong, I would be willing to put my car back to stock. Even if I choose not to, I know several Se owners who would be willing to run, and they are all completely stock.
You continue to quote your magazines, and living through the eyes of others.
You continue to quote your magazines, and living through the eyes of others.
You continue to lie about what is in magazines, produce no data to back up your argument, cast aspersions on and/or ignore any data which does not support it, and produce rant-filled, ignorant, factless posts.
09-23-2006, 02:12 AM
#73
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You must have a hard time reading as I posted results from Sport Auto, and you keep running around in circles posting points on every car OTHER than an S65, and trying to use figures from an SL65 which is 500lbs lighter than an S65.
And again, will you be racing my actual car with your stack of magazines?
Or will you be racing mein this bad boy?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Merce...spagenameZWDVW
And again, will you be racing my actual car with your stack of magazines?
Or will you be racing mein this bad boy?:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Merce...spagenameZWDVW
Last edited by allanlambo; 09-23-2006 at 02:15 AM.
09-23-2006, 02:38 AM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Not according to Mercedes, which as I already established in a previous post, gives acceleration for both vehicles as the same:
Also, here's a time slip from an S65 AMG from dragtimes.com:
11.524 @ 120.300
Can you produce a timeslip of a Gallardo running an 11.5, lambo boy?
Weren't you telling us a moment ago that we shouldn't pay any attention to magazine articles? Now they're the gospel? Intellectual consistency is really not one of your strong points, is it?
Hmm, and you seem to have forgotten the following road tests in particular the first three I shall list of Gallardo SEs, now that you've seemingly changed your tune and are accepting road tests as valid data:
Gallardo SE test in sport auto 11/2005
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
2006 Gallardo SE test at edmunds.com:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 2.8
0 - 60 (sec): 4.1
0 - 75 (sec): 5.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.1@117mph
Road & Track, September 2006 issue test of Gallardo SE:
12.3 @ 115.6
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 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
Motor Trend's road test of a Gallardo: 0-60: 4.7 seconds 0-100: 11.0 seconds 1/4: 13.08 @ 109.89
Five time slips from Gallardo owners posted at drag times.com:
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
(not quite on a par with the S65...)
Road & Track tested the Gallardo and got: 0-60: 4.0 0-100: 9.1 1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 117.4 mph
EVO's test:
Now then, I have some questions for you, and until/unless you answer them, this discussion is over:
1) what evidence do you have that the Road & Track test in the September 2006 of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
2) what evidence do you have that the edmunds.com test of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
3) what evidence do you have that the Sport Auto test of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
4) what evidence do you have that the Motor Trend test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
5) what evidence do you have that the EVO test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
6) what evidence do you have that the Auto Zeitung test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
7) what proof do you have that the car in the video was a Gallardo SE?
8) what evidence do you have that the other Sport Auto tests of Gallardos were inaccurate or flawed?
9) what evidence do you have that the five timeslips submitted by Gallardo owners at dragtimes.com are innacurate, flawed, or fraudulant?
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
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
11.524 @ 120.300
Can you produce a timeslip of a Gallardo running an 11.5, lambo boy?
Also, in your equation you seem to have forgotten this test of an 04 Gallardo, one with 50hp less than an SE, also from Sport Auto:
Supertest in sport auto 12/2003
Gewicht 1613 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,0 s
Supertest in sport auto 12/2003
Gewicht 1613 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 6,4 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,0 s
Hmm, and you seem to have forgotten the following road tests in particular the first three I shall list of Gallardo SEs, now that you've seemingly changed your tune and are accepting road tests as valid data:
Gallardo SE test in sport auto 11/2005
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
2006 Gallardo SE test at edmunds.com:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 2.8
0 - 60 (sec): 4.1
0 - 75 (sec): 5.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.1@117mph
Road & Track, September 2006 issue test of Gallardo SE:
12.3 @ 115.6
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 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
Motor Trend's road test of a Gallardo: 0-60: 4.7 seconds 0-100: 11.0 seconds 1/4: 13.08 @ 109.89
Five time slips from Gallardo owners posted at drag times.com:
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
(not quite on a par with the S65...)
Road & Track tested the Gallardo and got: 0-60: 4.0 0-100: 9.1 1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 117.4 mph
EVO's test:
Now then, I have some questions for you, and until/unless you answer them, this discussion is over:
1) what evidence do you have that the Road & Track test in the September 2006 of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
2) what evidence do you have that the edmunds.com test of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
3) what evidence do you have that the Sport Auto test of a 2006 Gallardo SE was inaccurate or flawed?
4) what evidence do you have that the Motor Trend test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
5) what evidence do you have that the EVO test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
6) what evidence do you have that the Auto Zeitung test of a Gallardo was inaccurate or flawed?
7) what proof do you have that the car in the video was a Gallardo SE?
8) what evidence do you have that the other Sport Auto tests of Gallardos were inaccurate or flawed?
9) what evidence do you have that the five timeslips submitted by Gallardo owners at dragtimes.com are innacurate, flawed, or fraudulant?
09-23-2006, 02:49 AM
#75
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And I say, What evidence have you given that supports your performance claims of the S65? The S65, not the SL65, not the M5, not the M6, but the S65? 
And in the morning when you hit the 9 to 5, will you be driving an S65 or reading about one?
Not to mention the drag times slip you posted is of a MODIFIED S65. Modified, and it only hit 120 in the 1/4 and Ill bet it was on drag radials.
And in the morning when you hit the 9 to 5, will you be driving an S65 or reading about one?
Not to mention the drag times slip you posted is of a MODIFIED S65. Modified, and it only hit 120 in the 1/4 and Ill bet it was on drag radials.
Last edited by allanlambo; 09-23-2006 at 02:52 AM.
