wow, its a good thing i didnt **** you off this much in the other thread!

c230 lease,

 

the w208 clk is an excellent platform.... certainly better than any mustang no matter how much money you waste on it.

 

Hey...when is Cletus, Billy Bob, Bessie Mae and Cooter commin on the innanet to talk to these foriegn car drivin yokles? Sheeeet. My coon hound can run faster wit a bottle rocket up its *** than your MURSADEES can son! Don't make me geet in my pickum up truck and teach you a lessin boy! Now imma gonna go home to my woman. She ain't no purdy virgin but if she aint good enough for her brothers, she aint good enough for me! YEEEHAAAWWW

Seriously.....Of course the mods to domestic cars are cheaper than on a foriegn made luxury car. I can get a high rise manafold with dual carb and get 20-40 horses on most small block chevy engines and do it for under $600. Hell, I have seen some 60's and 70's bugs pull some crazy fast 1/4 mile times. Fact is this....YOU CAN'T POLISH A TURD!! YOU GET **** ALL OVER YOU IN THE PROCESS!! Hell, I can drop a V8 into an MG B and give your "STANG" a spanking! Why don't you strap one of those J.A.T.O's on top of your mustang and you can start smokin space ships.

Oh...and my dad can beat up your dad.

 

i prefer, MARCADEES

 

Pathetic attempt at a comeback.

 

I agree....it wasn't a comeback LOL

I ripped into you enough times Shane, you should know when I'm really tryin' right?

As long as I win on the street I'm happy. And aside from the AMG's like I said in my original post, I'll beat all these other beanbags. Nobody buys an MB for speed or handling (AMG excluded). Any average Accord can beat a C class, and any BMW will out handle a MB.

I've come to realize, myself included, that MB's are acquired simply becasue they are MB's. Not the fastest, not the best made, not the most nimble, but they are MB's.

 

> I've come to realize, myself included, that MB's are acquired simply becasue they are MB's. Not the fastest, not the best made, not the most nimble, but they are MB's.

Really? I "acquired" my SL65 because it was the fastest stock car I could buy in its price range.

 

And Im about to make you look like a fool (not that hard), along with everyone else who bashed on me on the shane issue, today at the meet.

 

I beg to differ. *cough* SL600 *cough* :v

 

not even remotely true. i defy you to show me a stock accord that can beat a stock c-class on a curvy road. not happening. the c320 is also faster than a v6 accord in a straight line, and the c230 is only slightly slower. so, basicaly the accord is not better in any respect. why do you think its better?

BMWs understeer badly in stock form, so i dunno why you think they handle better.

 

He says there better, and yet he drives a Benz.

 

Oh, come on...Treynor's got video of himself running an 11.7 @ 126 in his bone stock SL65. Seen any videos or road tests of a stock SL600 meeting or beating that time?

As to the Car & Driver test, wherein they noted that the SL600 was faster due to traction problems with the SL65 (and as others have pointed out, it's questionable whether that SL600 was stock): well, these are not the only tests...both cars have been tested overseas as well:

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 Auto Motor und Sport, 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

SL65 tested by 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 by Sport Auto, 2004:
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

Plainly, the SL65 is quicker--and it had damn well better be when it's packing 100 more horsepower and costs about $60 large more!!

 

clearly he is confused.

 

most expensive cars http://www.autobytel.com/content/res...all/listtype/5

I dont see honda, ford rustang, lexus or any other POS in this list! but I see 3 Mercedes benz in it. I think it rich people just like to drive real cars not no P.O.S Specially A FORD (found on road Dead)

 

****ers only roll downhill

fireball on rear dent (my fav)

fix or repair daily, etc.

 

Funny Improv, look:
https://mbworld.org/forums/kill-stories/59786-holy-shiznit-did-you-guys-see-times-car-driver-got-sl600.html
Nice find by the way.

 

> I beg to differ. *cough* SL600 *cough*

I assume you are pulling my chain. I know how fast the SL600 is, and I know how fast the SL65 is, and there's at least a 10% difference between the two. Same day, same track, the SL65 will beat the SL600 every single time.

 

Here's another nice find for you, Lexani, from December 2004:

And another find, from July 2004:

And a third find, also from July 2004:

As you can see, I'd raised skepticism about this test before, along with others in the SL AMG forum, who alertly noted that the test vehicle to which you keep referring had features that stock SL600s do not have, but Renntech-chipped SL600s do (here's a post from one of your fellow SL600 owners which confirms that the Car & Driver car had the Renntech chip). I also posted four other tests, Lexani, which you manage to keep right on ignoring as though they never happened.

Unfortunately, they did happen.

And they all clearly point to a trend: the SL65 is faster than the SL600.

Are you really trying to argue that a car with 100 less horsepower is faster? (if so, click here and win $1000!) Because even Car & Driver said, flat out, that the ONLY reason the SL600 got a faster time was because of traction.

And further, the ONLY magazine to get that quick of a time in an SL600 was Car & Driver. Now, the interesting thing is this: Car & Driver also tested a CL600, Lexani. Same drivetrain, same tires, same motor, same gearing and final drive ratio, and weighing in at a whopping 40 more pounds than the SL600 they tested.

What was their time? Well, read the article and see:

0-60: 4.5
0-100: 9.8
0-150: 23.7
1/4 mile: 12.6 @ 115

They also tested an S600. Again: same motor, same gearing, same rated horsepower, weighing about 100 pounds more than the SL600, which would cost it 0.1 in the 1/4 mile. Their results:

0-60: 4.3
0-100: 9.7
1/4 mile: 12.5 @ 115

So, we now have five tests. Only one shows any stock Mercedes with this motor/drivetrain getting into, or close to, the 11's, which is the Car & Driver test; the remainder are right in line with the other 493-horse-rated V12's, right in the mid 12's. And the Car & Driver tests, of which there are three, have two of the three cars 0.1 apart, with one flyer, the freakishly fast SL600. A flyer that, as they happened to point out in the article, somehow managed to have a mode of operation that stock SL600's do not have, but that Renntech-chipped SL600s do have. Interesting coincidence...

Oh, and then there's this: a documented test by Sport Auto, side to side, of the SL55 and SL600. Again, showing that acceleration of SL600, while impressive, is in line with the SL55, not the SL65:



So, what do we have? A Car & Driver test that even your fellow SL600 owners admit was a modded car, against several other tests which all line up neatly. The one standout is the Car & Driver car. Clearly, the car was souped-up before being given to C&D...

Give it up, dude...a car with 100 more horsepower than yours is faster. Newsflash: physics still works!

 

Ah, "dude", but Im not ignoring any tests-- you assume I do.

Ok, lets get all this straight, C&D was given a tuned SL600, (with more than 640HP, I imagine, as you stated, the Renntech SL600 busts a 3.9, the) and they got a 3.6 time, and did not check under the hood?

Ok.

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2

Oh yeah, look at that engine, looks tuned, huh? For sure-- look at that! Uh, no. And whats this, look at times? Oh-- let me guess-- that SL600 had about 800HP right? Because, we know the 640HP version only does 3.9, so therefor this one must have at least 800Hp, looks like it too.

And whats this?

That the only reason? So... what are you argueing? I thought, you said the only reason it was faster is because it was modded before handed to C&D... are you confused? You stated right there-- the only reason its faster, is because of traction-- I agree, I also agree after the 1/4 mile mark, the SL65 walks the SL600-- but until than the SL600 is ahead of the game. So, why are you contradicting yourself?

And an owner really wrote that!? Oh-- than it must be true. Hey, Im an owner, as proven by the meet earlier, so I say: The SL600 is faster than the McLaren F1. True-- dont argue, Im an owner, I know what Im talking about.

Come on now, I'll admit to physics, and I'll admit to whose faster: SL65-- in the long shot. 1/4 Mile: SL600.

Newsflash:
http://www.supercars.net/cars/2002@$Ferrari@$Enzox.html -660

http://www.supercars.net/cars/1997@$McLaren@$F1x.html -627

McLaren is faster-- there go physics for you.

 

Yes, sure, Lexani...the SL600 tested by Car & Driver is ***THE*** representative test. We can simply ignore each and every one of the other tests wherein either other SL600s tested, or CL600s and S600s with the same motor, same horsepower, and roughly the same weight, ran a full second slower to 60, and over 1/2 second slower in the 1/4 mile.

No, but you sure are; you're seeming to say that Car & Driver and me are one and the same. What *I* (and others) have said is one thing; what Car & Driver has written is another.

No, I said that Car & Driver wrote that the SL65 had traction problems. Just to clarify, here is their direct quote:

See, Lexani? *That's* what they said...they did NOT say the "only" reason; I was paraphrasing.

I'm not. You're trying to twist Car & Driver's words into mine, but it won't work: I wrote what I wrote; I did not write the Car & Driver article. I've written for months now that the car in the Car & Driver article **HAD** to be producing over 600 horsepower to produce those numbers, specifically 620 in my estimation. Interestingly enough, the Renntech mod gives it 625, almost exactly what I'd said it calculated out to be, here, in July 2004:

Pretty good, eh? Within 5 hp of the Renntech mod.

As to whether the engine "appears" stock: this is quite amusing. Really, it's very funny. Because I assume that you, like other humans don't have X-ray vision, and so cannot determine the internals of an engine by looking at a photograph of one. Can you? Didn't think so. So then, I take it you would agree that your posting a photograph of an engine, which also happens to be shod in a nice, big plastic cover, as "proof" that the engine has not been modified is rather ludicrous? Because I sure as hell do.

What's even more funny is that a Renntech chip is just that: an IC, a chip that will fit in the palm of your hand. A modification to the engine control unit, which is done without *touching* the motor. And you didn't even know that. But you do now...learning is a good thing. Click here to learn:

In addition to "625 horsepower", there are three little words which stand out here: "transmission computer upgrade". Perhaps you'd care to address the following, Lexani. In the article, Car & Driver writes:
Only one problem: as pointed out to you in the previous post, astute SL owners have noted that stock SL600s do NOT have a "three-mode manumatic function", *and* that Renntech-modded cars do. Here's what your fellow SL600 owner sillydriver had to say about it:
Perhaps he was wrong. Might you be so kind as to scan and post the portion of the SL600 owners' manual wherein it details these three modes of operation that Car & Driver mentioned? Then you could show that sillydriver and others have been lying all along, and put this to bed. Because if I'm not mistaken, you seem to be implying that he was lying when he wrote that.

Moving on: you are not ignoring the other tests, Lexani? Funny...exactly how is it that you're not ignoring them? Because the one, and only one, you seem to be paying attention to is the Car & Driver test, but only the Car & Driver test of the SL600; the CL600 and S600 tests seem to go in one eye and out the other. If the cars have the same motor, same power, and weight within 100 pounds of one another, how is it that one, and only one, is a full second faster to 60, and 0.6-0.7 and 5 mph faster in the 1/4 mile?

How do you explain these? How do you explain that no other magazine has come close to these numbers? How do you explain that the same magazine did not come close to these numbers when testing two other Mercedes with the same engine, same gearing, same driveline, and roughly the same weight?

Does physics only work on the SL600, but enter into a strange, parallel universe with the S600 and CL600? Is there something about the mass of the S600 and CL600 which makes them work outside the f=ma formula we all learned in Physics 101?

Do please explain...and while you're at it, please scan and post the portion of the SL600 owners' manual where it states that there are three manumatic modes....I'm all eyes.

 

My stock cl600 weighing 4745 lbs ran 12.24@115 and with the Renntech mods ran 11.64@120..My car has 3 modes on the transmission S,C and M.It is in my owners manual..

 

Hmmm...can you please get with sillydriver and sort this out? He and several others posted that the stock SL600 definitely does *not* have three modes...if they're wrong, it needs to be clarified. He is on the SL600 forum...

Of course, what *might* explain it is that you're driving an CL600, and they're writing about an SL600? Don't know...

But what's interesting is how after adding the Renntech mods, you picked up 0.6 and 5mph in the 1/4 from 115 to 120, just as the Car & Driver SL600 ran 0.6 faster and trapped 5 mph faster than they got in their tests of the CL600 and S600....pretty good correlation there!

I don't think a stock SL600 is gonna trap at 120...of course, Lexani could take up Schiznick on his $1000 offer and be the first to do it!

 

[QUOTE=Improviz]But what's interesting is how after adding the Renntech mods, you picked up 0.6 and 5mph in the 1/4 from 115 to 120, just as the Car & Driver SL600 ran 0.6 faster and trapped 5 mph faster than they got in their tests of the CL600 and S600....pretty good correlation there! /QUOTE]

Excuse me for my ignorance but the trap speed in a stock SL600 is 115mph in the 1/4 mile. The trap speed for a E55 in the 1/4 mile is about the same or better, right?

 

Yup. Confusion comes from fact that Car & Driver tested an SL600 last year at 11.9 @ 120, waaaay faster than other tests (as shown by reading the two other SL600 tests I cited earlier in the thread).

The thinking among many here is that it was a Renntech-chipped (625 hp) ringer. Unless of course one is willing to believe that a stock SL600 will trap at about the same speed as an SL65, and trap 5 mph faster and 0.6 sooner than both an S600 and CL600, both of which Car & Driver also tested, at 12.5/12.6 @ 115.

And now we see that Chas Jr. picked up exactly 0.6 seconds, and 5 mph, by adding...(drumroll please)...a Renntech chip!

Lexani is a holdout: he thinks the SL600 test is accurate and that the car was stock, even though no other test of a stock SL600, CL600, or S600 show this, and is arguing that an SL600 is faster through the 1/4 mile than an SL65. He could take his SL600 to a strip and prove, though...right, Lexani?

 

Lexani claims a lot of things...
I'm still waiting for the vid confirming his other claim....