R107SL

So I was driving back home from waterpolo practice when this Porsche Carrera blasts past me. I catch up to him at a stoplight by Carmel Valley. I get to his right and look at him. He was a middle aged man with that looked like he wanted a race. I dropped from 4th to 1st gear and took off as the light changed from red to green. Surprisingly I kept up quite well, losing by about a half a car length by 90 mph. I believe he was trying because I could hear his car screaming as we switched gears. Idk if he was trying for sure but it was pretty cool.

R107SL

any responses?

SL BRABUS

nice run........ I use to hate the R107 body sl......... but now I like them as I got older.......... Any pictures of your 560 SL.........??

R107SL

friend's cayenne turbo

SL BRABUS

nice......sl you got there.......

egxpimp

indeed very clean SL ! these suckers are fast, nothing to underestimate !

JLP

0-60 in 8 seconds is fast? Sorry but by todays standards a 89 560SL is a turd. They are nice cars but far from fast.

HLG600

I wouldn't categorize a pristine classic Mercedes as a turd, in any context of the word. Back in the 80s, it was considered a very quick automobile, with a power-to-weight ratio comparable to the Ferrari 308. It actually clocks 60 in the low 7 second range. Of course sluggish compared to today's sports cars, yet still capable of outrunning the average car on the road with ease. However, one would not purchase this car for speed alone. It is more of a classy, lasting vehicle.

JLP

Accords and Camrys are running 6 second 0-60s..........which average cars are you referring to?

HLG600

The 4-banger variants of most sedans in that class, a large amount of SUVs, etc. It's a classic car, not so much a road rocket. But, it still has enough power for a spirited driver to have some fun in.

Going off topic, any luck with that SL74?

Improviz

Weird...those mid 80's 911s were still fairly quick. Here's a test of a 1983 Cabrio, which ran 0-100 km/h in about 6.5 seconds(meaning 0-60 in the 6.2 range), and 0-400m (1/4 mile) in 14.6 seconds:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/porsche/p...1sccab1983.htm

The numbers for the 560SL were about 7.5 0-60, with 1/4 miles ranging from 15.2-15.8. This is a pretty big gap...assuming you're stock, if he was in a good state of tune (and a decent driver), he should have pulled you, but those are two big ifs here, especially with a manual! Anyhow, good kill!

1985mb

Anyone who evaluates the R107 SL by 0-60 numbers is missing the point entirely...

Improviz

Funny, I thought the point of this thread was a race between the two cars, which would make the two cars' acceleration data somewhat relevant.

Roupin

Improviz, adding to your variables, also keep in mind that the 911 has a relatively peaky engine, and is harder to launch than the SL. Further, the average 911 has been driven harder than the average SL, which might play into it as well. I've raced quite a few of the older 911s and always had the impression that they were low 16 second cars

Roupin

Well, maybe in the case of the 380

HLG600

What 1985MB380SE is saying is that one would not purchase an R107 for speed alone. It is a rare and classic car, and meant to be enjoyed. For same amount, one could purchase a faster car without the class of the R107. His point was in regards to owning an R107, not racing one.

Improviz

Well, the launch would factor into the "driver skill" portion I'd raised, and the hard driving would lower its state of tune, so I covered those. And given that this is a nearly 20 year old car, its tune is definitely an open question!

But yeah, in an auto vs. a manual, if you come up against someone who doesn't drive a manual well from a performance perspective, it can make a big difference.

Improviz

He said nothing about purchasing the car, only that anyone who evaluates the car by numbers alone is missing the point. My point is that when taken in the context of this thread, which is after all dealing with the two cars' relative performance, the numbers are irrefutably relevant, far more so than the reasons for which one would, or would not, purchase this car. Of course people don't buy these cars solely for speed, but this is the kill stories section, after all!

HLG600

Ah, but he posted a "ditto" to my comment, which said that.

Improviz

Pffft.....

HLG600

Um...okay?

Improviz

It means this is a waste of time. The topic of the thread is a race between the two cars. Therefore, it IS sensible to "evaluate" the 0-60 numbers of both cars, to see which one would, under ideal conditions, be faster.

Now, having said that, we've already established that a 20 year old vehicle with a manual transmission which may or may not have been driven by a less-than-Schumacherish driver, and which may or may have not been in a decent state of tune, could certainly have gone down to the Benz.

So stop . The guy got a nice kill in, looking at the numbers was valid, it's plausible, kudos to him, done.

1985mb

Improviz: This is the context (can't believe I'd quote someone and then have to quote posts before that just because the thread has digressed from its original context):

So I was basically disagreeing with this post above. Seems like you are disagreeing with me, which is fine, but I want to clarify whether you intended to agree with the above post or not.

Calling a 560SL a "turd" is one form of "evaluation" -- IMHO, this particular evaluation misses the point. Do you disagree?

PS: Talking about context, in a thread titled "560sl vs. 1985 Porsche Targa or Carrera" isn't it rather pointless to begin anything by saying "Sorry but by todays standards..."?

Improviz

I agree with it in that the 560 SL is not fast by today's standards. I can't read the poster in question's mind, but I believe that he was referring to it as a "turd" only in the speed context, not in reference to its overall quality or to the caliber of the vehicle itself....but I'll let him speak to that.

In any case, I'd have chosen a different word if I'd have written it.

I disagree with the choice of words, am unsure whether or not the poster meant it to describe its relative accleration compared with today's cars, and agree that it is not very quick compared to today's cars.

Not in this specific instance, because I think the poster who wrote that was responding specifically to this:

Now, while the thread is dealing with older cars, JLP was responding to a specific post:

1) egxpimp posted that the SL in question is "fast", and bear in mind: is deals with the present tense, which shifted the conversation to the relative performance of this car in the present tense;

2) JLP responded out that by today's standards, it is not especially fast.

So, I do agree with him on this point. Four cylinder non-turbo cars are hitting 60 mph in the mid 7's these days, so this mark is not a particularly fast time anymore. But "turd" was a rather intemperate choice of words.

JLP

LOL..............WOW some of you guys need to relax, I specifically called the SL a turd in reference to its lack of performance compared to todays cars.

If you also note I did call the SL a nice car, which it is, but it is NOT a fast car!
And no one was evaluating the SL in this thread............it was simply a Kill thread that was twisted once again.
Maybe we can try and stay on topic, Kill threads are easy Fast or Slow.


HL600- No I passed on the Renntech SL 7.4...........helluva car but its traction was severly lacking for all that grunt.