Lexani

Carrera GT!? Haha, bring it! But- only to 62.

reggid

probably 4.4s not 3.4s, a mistake easily made

Erik

Yes, and it would make much more sence compared to the time to 100 mph and also the 120 mph time.

But who knows...

Lexani

Yes! I agree! Don't give SL600s any props! WTF? A V12 Twin-Turbo will not sprint to 60 in 3.6! Stupid. 4.4 is right. I completly agree. No doubt in my mind- SL600 deserves no credit whatsoever, ah, however the Carrera GT, does. Even if the Carrera GTs times, where taken from the same mag, its a Porsche, lets give it some ****ing credit. ****. The Porsches times, are believable, but not the SL600s, I mean, it was probably a published typo. Funny, how typos happen only for the SL600s, what is the deal with that? Who knows, we all know that it can't do anything below 4.5, so why argue? I agree.

CLK430ROB

Anyways..Lexani, you can say this/that and you did this.. and you did that. bottom line is, you posted about a video. That thread has been going on for like god knows how many pages... and guess what? STILL NO VIDEO. People have offered to host it. There are numerous sites that can host your file for free, yet I believe you haven't even tried. No Offense, but when I see lame posts like that ... i think of nothing but ...

Your posts just leads people to go on through pages and pages of bs talk, looking for a video ... and after 1/2 an hour of reading ... thinking a video is coming soon ... we get Jack*****. Stop wasting peoples time, searching for a non existent video.

Rob

Lexani

Again, (why do I find myself repeating everything I say around here?) its a technical problem. Make of it what you will, I promised a video in the first post, which I, unfortunatly, did not deliver. Now, on page two, you cann see in a post, I posted saying:

"Im sorry fellow MB enthusiasts, and members whos hopes I rose, for as of this point was for nothing. The video shall not be posted up, due to technical problems. I have tried, time and time again to send it to doofoo and time and time again, all he gets is a photo. I apologize for this thread, and hopefully in the future I can find out how to work this thing." Lexani Page 2 of thread: "Lexani's SL600 vs. SL55 AMG PLUS VIDEO"

Now, after that post the typical member would stop reading, if you read past that, its at your own will- for I specifically stated: The video shall not be posted. So, the only reason the thread even went on for so long, is because me, and other members started chatting off topic. Not my fault you read to the end. I don't see why people blame me for them reading something at their OWN will. And yet again, I have tried sending it to doofoo, and all he got was a picture, every time. So I tried sending it, and as for websites hosting it for free-- good for them! I won't bother, and if that means, its going to look bad on me, so be it. Think Im a liar? Awesome , think otherwise? Great You searching a thread, and not finding what your looking for- is you wasting your own time, not me wasting yours. If I go to a thread, such as "E30 vs. Acura TL" Or whatnot, and hate what I read, is it the authors fault? No. Tis no ones fault but my own. And please, if you have something to say about that thread, say it there, not here, espically whilst Im in the middle of a friendly convo. Thank you.

And if I really must to end this-- Im sorry for wasting your time, it shall no happen once more.

Liar? Ok. Thanks for your comment.

Deuce

Because you write them first.

Erik

I cant belive some of you guys, it sure as hell does not do this forum any credit to be this rude to each other.

I have absoloutly no problems with this and cant for my life understand that anyone can be this worked up because of a missing video of a little "race".

I do not always agree with you Lex, but I sure as hell does not see you as 9 year old makebelive story teller. A little naiv from time to time
, but NOT a liar.

Just ignore it, and if you manage to post it later on, I probably gonna enjoy whatching it. Good luck

Erik

Hi Lex

Relax, this has nothing to do with not giving your baby respect. It is fast, fast as hell BTW, but this numbers are not correct. Stop being so defensive and just think for a second.

If I claimed that the new M5 would toast your SL600 from 62 mph and up to 100 mph you would probably go balistic, Improwiz would get a heart attack and I would mayby get banned from this site.

But if we use the reported times in this post as the truth, the new M5 with lot less torque and HP is much faster from 62mph until 100 mph.
It is almost 10 % faster according to the numbers you yourselves claim to be the truth...
Does that make sence to you ?

I could belive the M5 was more or less equally fast, but NOT faster, at lest not as much faster as the numbers in this report indicates.
Also the SL55 is just a bit faster, and since you yourselve has walked away from such a car, it should also look a bit strange to you......

The time in this post 0-100 mph is very simular to what was achieved in an CL65 here is a link if you are interessted, and that car managed the 0-62 in 4,8 sec. ( equalls 0-60 in app 4,6 - 4,7) BTW this is also the same mag that got the figures in my previous post so they are comparable.

http://www.ilpistone.com/downloads/sa/5.jpg
Report from SPORT AUTO.
Since you claim your SL600 is equally fast as the SL65 they should be comparable.

And why is it so hard to belive that a Porsche Carrera GT should be able to outrun a SL600 from 0 - 62. It is a hell of a lot leighter, has more or less the same Hp, mid engined and much wider tires.

In really life I would not be supprosed if you managed to take the lead over a CGT, but that would be because it is difficult as hell to get the maximum result in CGT, while you in your SL just push the funpedal and of you go.

BTW I never said 4,4 was the right number, I said 3,5 ( 3,4 sec) is wrong, its just to good to be true.

You know it if look like a duck, walk like a duck, sounds like a duck, it most likly is a duck.....

Improviz

No, because according to Auto Motor und Sport, it is not true.

First we shall examine the SL55 vs. the new M5:

From 0-200 km/h, the cars were separated by 0.1 second.

So, how does the SL600 stack up against the times the SL55 got in that test in Euro tests?

Well, I'm glad I asked. First, here are the SL55's numbers:
0 - 80 km/h 3,1 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,8 s


As tested in Sport Auto, 4/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

Note that while the SL600 was 0.3 sec. slower to 100, by 200 it was only 0.1 slower. Note that the SL600's 100-200km/h time is 9.3 seconds to the SL55's 9.5. So, it would certainly seem that the SL600 pulls a bit harder up high, which one would expect from a V12...

Oh, but wait: there's more. In fact, Auto Motor und Sport tested one too, in August 2003:
As tested by AMS, 8/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,5 s

Hmm, I believe that this one also did 100-200 in 9.3, and was faster both to 100 and 200 than the M5. Its 100-200 split was also faster...most impressive when you consider it has five gears to the M5's seven, the same rated horsepower, is heavier, and has a poorer drag coefficient.

Well, that CL65 test you're citing is pretty bogus, as we shall see...let's have a look at some other SL/CL65 tests out there, shall we? I assume that since the SL65 has the same gearing, motor, and actually weighs a bit more than the CL65, you'd accept that the two should be equal in acceleration?

SL65 tested in Auto Motor und Sport, 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 (400 m = 0.2485 mi, or one 1/4 mile)

SL65 tested in Sport Auto:
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

Road & Track tested the SL65 in this month's issue. Results:
0-60: 4.0
0-80 (128 km/h): 6.0
0-100 (160 km/h) : 8.3 (9.8 in the CL65 fluke test)
1/4: 12.0@122.8

Motor Trend tested the CL65:
0-60: 3.8
0-80: 5.9
0-100: 8.5
1/4: 11.8@120.9

Car & Driver tested the SL65:
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

So, all of the cars tested ran 0-160 km/h (100 mph) in about 8.5 seconds or less, and the 1/4 mile below 12 seconds. Clearly, the lone standout is the slug tested by AMS. Either there were severe traction issues, the car's motor was not running at full strength, the test driver weighed 500 pounds, or they ran it with the parking brake on. So, yes, you are correct: the numbers for that CL65 are screwy.

I personally think that an SL65 should very handily run down an SL600 once rolling, as 100 horsepower is a *HUGE* deficit.

Lexani

Is this a joke post? I mean, I agreed. I was not being defensive. After all, we must always believe Porsche times, but Mercedes? What are we? ****ing stupid? I don't care if the SL600 times are from the same mag as the Porsche, I will not believe them! As I said, an SL600 will not do anything under 4 seconds!

And please, give me a break with the M5. With all due respect, I would tear that thing limb from limb. Hate that car, more and more everytime you bring it up. So please, spare it the remaining respect I still have for it.

Lexani

A little naiv? Haha, I'll admit to that. As for the video, if all else fails, at one of our meets, I'll just bring the camera with me.

Erik

My point exactly.

I am not sure your post is in my defence or not.

My only point is that the mid 3 sec 0-60 run is not correct at least not in combination with the 0-100 mph run. I also have all the times you refered to, I did not want this to be a huge mag race debate so I did not throw them all in. But all of your references prove my point.

The reasson for bringin the M5 into the equation was just to prove how wrong the number( mainly the 0-60 time) in this post where.
I know the SL/CL is or should be faster than the M5, so relax

That the CL65 car tested is slower than normal could be related to many things. It was for sure faster than the other cars 612 Ferrari and the Aston in straigt line but got as expected seriously beaten on the track.

Exepct from that all you quotes from AMS and Sport Auto is correct. Those mags are as good as they gets and can definatly be trusted.

Thank you



And Lex, as for you tearing the M5 appart limb for limb .... you would win in a straight line but maybe not as much as you think....... ,or are you thinking of the old M5??

BTW: Why the hate for this car, its an impressive piece of machinery.... and fast as hell as well. (It will hit 125mph in mid to high 13 sec)

Lexani

No. Im thinking of the new. Although, the old M5, I would beat too. I hate it because I once encountered one, whilst I was cruising down the PCH, somewhere near Dana Point, and I looked over at the driver, a gentlemen in his late 50s, possibly, and he looked over at me. I gave him the thumbs up, he glared at me, gave me the middle finger. Needless to say my smile faded, and I ignored him. He than started swerving in and out of traffic, expecting me to iniate in a cat-mouse race, I refused, puzzled by his attitude.

Erik

I know , but do not underestimate the new one......
If you compare the numbers Improwiz quoted in his reply to me, I can show you M5 reports indicating more or less equall times all the way to 200 kph.



Dont blaim the car for having an Assholse owner, but I understand your point of view.

Problem is that to many of this type of cars is bought by owners with absoloutly no feeling for cars at all, they just get it because they are very expensive and they want the attention, to prove that they have a lot of money.

This is very often the case with MB and also BMW owners. In fact there are even less enthusiast that buy MB than BMW. AMG and M owner has a higher percentage of enthusiast but even there you find many with no or little interesst.
MB has always been and still is about Status, BMW is close.
To bad actually.... I myselves have come across several M owner that has absoloutly no interesst in what they drive or are willing to great a fellow M owner. My experience is that MB owners is worse.

I had a race with a SL55 owner in German just after tha launch of the car, he totaly humiliated me, but when I gave him thumbs up and a smile when I passed him after his limiter kicked in he did not even look at me.....

Not everyone is up to play and I totaly respect that, but if they do, I cant see why they cant give a smile or some sign of mutual respect.

I once had the plesure to drive together with a convoy of 5 MB test cars, from North of germany and app 700 km south toward the MB factory. We drove fast all the time and had several high speed pulls all the way.....
In the end they all flashed the light to me and wawed godbuy when we had to go separate routs. That was great fun, it looked like they all enjoyed a little competition with the "enemy"

Lexani

Agreed. The new M5 can, and more or less will keep up with me to 200. I guess I should not hate the car for its owner, its jut everytime I see one, I immediatly think back to that gentlemen who gave me the finger. I know its odd but, its a first impression thing. I guess. It is, a nice car, and can hold its ground, by all means. I just wish better people would buy them.

And as for your BMW M5. You can't win them all. Afterall, how do you think my day goes after I see a SL65, its pretty much shot. Even though, in the 1/4 we tie- it still looks a hell of a lot better and after that, I might as well play with my thumbs.

Improviz

It was neither offensive nore defensive; more of a clarification, and also wanted to provide some more SL600 data for users' perusal.

You mean the Car & Driver time?? I'm quite certain that they actually did test this time, because afaik someone wrote them a letter questioning it, and they did reiterate that the car had gotten this number. Or are you referring to another test?

? I don't believe that anything in my post could be construed as "unrelaxed". I can assure you that there was no spike in emotion or blood pressure when I composed it...

Generally, yes, but not in the case of that CL65, as the other tests I provided show. I would guess that the test was performed in colder temperatures where traction is virtually nonexistant for a high performance high torque car on too-skinny rear tires (as I proved last night when testing some new tires I mounted up! ) Either that, or the track surface was poor...these cars are extremely traction-limited, and thus their times are quite dependant upon track surface and temperature, which is why you see more of a variance in their times than other models.

But hell, even looking at numbers for the CL600, with over 100 less horsepower, as tested by Car & Driver in 8/2004 gives an idea of how truly screwed up that CL65 test was:

0-60: 4.3
0-100: 9.8
0-150: 23.7
1/4: 12.6@115
rolling start 5-60: 4.5

The last one illustrates my point about traction: the differential between the 5-60 and 0-60 is low with low-traction cars, and high with high-traction cars. For AWD cars like the Turbo Porsche, this number will be 0.8 or so. For the other cars in the test I'm citing (Aston Martin DB9, Bentley Continental GT, and Ferrari 612) the difference between each respective car's 0-60 and 5-60 times were 0.6, 0.6, and 0.5. Which shows that each of them are benefited greatly from the "catapult" effect of a good launch, while the Benz was unable to muster sufficient traction to do so.

Which is why I was pointing out that in a rolling start race, the supercharged and turbocharged V8/V12 Benzes will stick it to a Porsche Turbo, a fact verified by Gustav, the moderator of the M5 Board, in this post:

Which corroborates the C&D test numbers: in their fastest road test of any Turbo Porsche ever, the 5-60 time was 5.0 seconds--a full half slower than the CL600's 4.5, meaning that in a rolling-start straightline race, the Porsche is toast as verified by Gustav.

I assume this was meant for Lexani? I don't hate the new M5...by all acounts it will be an amazing sedan, but I personally don't much care for the appearance of the new 5 series....to my eyes, it looks more Japanese than German, a criticism I would also apply to the new Mercedes sedans (CLS excepted). However, to my eyes the new M5 is far more objectionable...and then of course there's I-drive, along with BMW's spotty record in new engines (remember the original 540i's engine problems? the M3's 140 or so blown engines in the US?), which would make me reluctant to be the first kid on the block to sign up for one...

As to the Benzes: from what I've read, Mercedes is aware of these criticisms, and the new SL, SLK, and CLS are their first moves into "sexing up" their line. We shall see...

But anyway, just on numbers alone, the M5 is definitely an amazing machine..and that motor just sounds incredible, at least in the videos I've seen of it. And for a 4,000+ pound car to lap the 'ring in the 8'13" range is most impressive....which is another reason to respect the SL55/600 as well!

Erik

Ops, I am not English so from time to time my writings come out wrong. I did not accuse you to be defensive, I should have written, in suport of my view or against it......

Sorry..

I was refering to the numbers you gave in the start of this thread.

And the reasson for my reaction is that the time used for 62 and until 100 mph does look weird. And I still belive they are wrong.

And the "relax" comment should have been followed by a .

It could also have been done in high temp, where the engine performance are reduced, but since the 62 - 125 mph look a bit more normal its probably much due to traction problems.

But I guess also this cars has or can show large tolerances from car to car.
Remember the CLS55 vs the new M5. That M5 was app 1 sec slower to 125 than every other of the 3 or 4 test I have seen.

How knows

This CL65 was for some reasson slower than normal.

Yes it was meant for Lex.

I have not fallen completly in love with the new 5 either, it looks nice with a nice set of rims and the right colour, but I like the older better ( so far )

The M5 is awsome and the sound of that thing is mindblowing. The I-drive on the 5 is perfect IMO, but in the 7 it is redicolous.

The CLS is awfull on pics, but I have been told it nicer in reall life.


Agree, the 8 min 12 on the SL55 and also the 8 min 13 on the M5 is extremly fast. I do not belive many on this board understand how fast that really is. I have driven the track and it scares the **** out of you.....

Improviz

That's OK; I am not English either!

Oh, the numbers from Car & Driver, which are these:

0-60: 3.4
0-100: 8.9
0-120: 11.9
1/4: 11.9@120 mph

I am not sure what you mean by "weird", though...probably a translation thing...are you thinking they are just too fast, or there's too big of a gap?

Hmm, I think I see what you're saying...let me repost the two euro SL600 tests I found earlier:

SL600 tested in Sport Auto, 4/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,6 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,4 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,9 s

SL600 tested by AMS, 8/2003:
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,1 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 130 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,5 s

Now, for all three of these tests, the car's 0-160 km/h are pretty much the same: Car & Driver got 8.9, as did AMS, while Sport Auto got it in 9.2.

But as to the 0-60 and 0-100 km/h times: C&D's 0-60 time probably means a 0-100 km time of 3.7 or so, AMS's time of 4.1 would probably translate to a 3.8 0-60 time, while Sport Auto's would translate to a 4.3 or so. So, Car & Driver's 0-60 time does seem a bit faster than one would expect, but it's a very small bit if the AMS test is indicative. But if they managed to find an extremely sticky track surface, I could certainly see the car picking up some time, as these cars are so traction limited it's not even funny.

But the cars' 100-180 times are odd: 5.2 for Car & Driver, 4.6 for SA, and 4.8 for AMS. From looking at everything else, the C&D car's 0-60 does seem to be a bit too fast, by a few tenths.

In any case, its rolling-start 5-60 time is a full half second faster than the fastest Turbo Porsche Car & Driver ever tested, which when coupled with Gustav's story I posted above certainly does not make a win against a Turbo in a rolling-start race unbelievable, particularly if the driver in question was not of the caliber of your typical test driver (and the odds are 99% that this would have been the case in my experience! )

Ah, OK.


Yeah, definitely....

Oh, I haven't seen these M5 tests....to which other ones are you refering?

Yeah, it sounds incredible...but I can't fall in love with that bodystyle. I'll have to wait until I see one in person, in any case. Speaking of which:

I think that in *some* pics I've seen it looks pretty bad, in others it looks really cool...in person it does look pretty nice. But the one I saw was a forest green, which is not high up on my list of favorite colors....so I suspect that in a proper color, like silver , it will look really great in person.

Yeah, I've heard the same....and that is just unbelievably fast for cars of this weight!! This truly is the golden age of automobiles, no doubt about it!

Erik

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...32&postcount=1

this is a post that summarice what Sport auto have gotten with M5, SLK55 and CLS55.

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...47&postcount=1
Link to a scanned article of a "test" of the E55, M5 and the new Maserati. This is not a reall test on numbers, more a driving comparison...

I have tried to find the rest of them again ( they all are in M5board somewhere), so far no luck...I just have them downloaded on my computer and here are some of the times.

German Mag,
0-100 4,4
0-160 9,3
0-200 13,9

Antother German Mag, Autobild
0-100 4,7
0-200 13,5 Fastest time from all mags.
This mag tested the car against the new 355 Hp 997S Porsche
Porsche times.
0-100 4,7
0-200 16,1

Sport auto times you have, but here goes,
0-100 4,5
0-160 9,2
0-200 13,8.

Only the very first test made was in the high 14 sec to 200 kph, all the rest show consitantly sub 14 sec for the long sprint....
In this it was compared to the CLS55.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...32&postcount=1

The 0-150 mph time has been claimed to be app 20 sec,. Have no clue of that is correct.


BTW: A tiny little remark to your attempt to compare 0-60 and 0-62 mph time. You estimate a difference of 0,3 sec. Do you really think they use 0,3 sec to increase 2 mph...... I would have guessed the did it faster.
I

Erik

Sorry, I used the wrong link.

This is the correct one.
http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/sho...27&postcount=1
M5 vs SLK55 vs CLS55

Improviz

Oh, I got my mag tests mixed up: I thought you were talking about the M5 test from track-challenge.com, not the CLS comparo.

Yes, around 0.2-0.3 is typically about what it takes. This is from direct observation of a number of American & Euro mags.

One can also test this as follows: while these cars are definitely not accelerating in a truly 100% linear fashion, one can assume a certain amount of linearity over a small range...if you take, for example, the 100-120 km/h times below, they're around 1.4 seconds. This works out to about 14.3 km/h per second, or roughly 8.9 mph per second.

So the additional 2 mph would take about .22 seconds at that rate of acceleration. Pretty close.