Lexino

I personally think that MB couldn't have had made a worse decision than introducing the SL65 not because its not a good car the least its an outstanding performance vehicle probably the best roadster availble for you money but if they were looking to sell their $450 000 USD (Can't beleive its more than a Maybach) beast the SLR McLaren which looks tremendous but performance wise is handicapped compared to the SL65 its V12 and bi-turbo 604 hp, 738 lb-ft of torque, 0-60 in a mere 4.4sec where as the 5.5 L hand-built supercharged on the SLR is making eventhough an amazing 617 hp, 575 lb-ft , 0-60 3.8sec but compared to the SL65 its not very impressive and yea the SL65 is lighter in not only weight but where it counts most in price ...what do you guys think?

SLR Mclaren

MSRP $450,000.00 USD

Engine type AMG-built intercooled supercharged 90° V-8
AMG V-8 engine

617 hp @ 6,500 rpm
575 lb-ft @ 3,250-5,000 rpm

SL 65 AMG

MSRP $179,720.00* USD

Engine type 5,980-cc AMG-built intercooled twin-turbocharged SOHC 36-valve 60° V-12.

604 hp @ 4,800–5,100 rpm
738 lb-ft @ 2,000–4,000 rpm

P.S Or maybe they shouldn't have introduced the SLR

drunkenoldman

Both cars are pretty insane. I like the 65, more practical car, and the engine has alot more power waiting to be opened. My de-limited SL55 already popped my 200mph cherry, so i guess next step is getting to 200mph quicker thus needing both cars. zoom:

Lexani

Lex- This is a wrong comparison. It should be SL600 vs. SLR McLaren, since the SL600 is infact faster than both SLR and SL65 and SL55.

drunkenoldman

Really? Jesus. But value wise the SL600 doesnt keep its value.

Lexino

Do your research before you speak...

SL 600

0-60 4.7 seconds (maybe in your world this is faster than the SL65 or the SLR)

Engine type 5,513-cc intercooled twin-turbocharged SOHC 36-valve 60° V-12.

493 hp @ 5,000 rpm

590 lb-ft @ 1,800–3,500 rpm

Dont just say anything for the sake of saying it specially when its wrong

HighRev

i think both cars arenīt really comparable. the SL is a roadster with a monstrous engine that satisfies a lot of wishes. but the SLR plays on a different level. not because of itīs engine or itīs performance but because of itīs shape and itīs price. i claim that the price and looks can make a car a supercar if the right manufacturer is producing it. just one example: whatever ferrari produces, itīs a supercar. they could put a old rusty V6 into an owful body and still people would spend a lot of money on this car. similar itīs with the SLR. the name of MB and the formula 1 team McLaren are able to create a legend without an outstanding performance. donīt get me wrong. both cars, the SL and the SLR are great and powerfil cars but the SLR is something special. how many of them only stand in showrooms an are never taken to the limit? more than enough.
so i think itīs quite the converse. with the SL65 they satisfy customers which want a great AMG with more than enough power but also quite a lot of understatement. for someone who isnīt well versed with cars there is no difference in looks between the SL65 and a SL500. but the SLR is built for customers who want to show that they have something special. show that they have a car that costs more than some people spend for cars in their entire life. show that they have a car made of carbon-fiber. so i think that both cars will sell very well.

drunkenoldman

SL65 does 0-60 4 seconds, trust me I test drove it and it feels scary faster than a sl600. Have you ever owned an AMG? Completely different beast.

HighRev

where do you have this time from? i never read about a SL65 doing the 0-60 in less than 4,4s.

drunkenoldman

We had 98 Octane booster. Could have been 4.2, we didnt have a stop watch.

Lexino

Please stay on topic your fighting over .2 second

Sleestack

Hello... why is that so many MB owners only care about straight line acceleration times. There's alot more to a car than those specs. The SL65 is a great car... but there is abig difference between the SLR and SL65. I'm sure they could have put a V12 in the SLR, but they wanted to build a car that could actually be called a sports car and not just yet another big, heavy, MB that goes really fast on the Autobahn.

drunkenoldman

Lexino

No offence so far i didn't find any reasonable comments excepts HighRevs & yea Drunkoldman i beleive you the 98octane certainly turns a vehicle into a rocketship anywayz here is the original post again..think before you say anything guys..

Sleestack

No offense, but you're the one who needs to think before saying anything. You're saying the SLR is handicapped in performance compared to the SL65, but then you provide numbers that show that despite the fact their HP numbers are similar, their torque figures aren't even close... yet the SLR still has a better 0-60 acceleration time. First of all, performance embodies alot more things than hp, torque and 0-60 numbers. Furthermore, if you did enough research on both cars, you would realize what makes the SLR a completely different beast than the SL65. Despite haveing a massive engine, the SL is still not a sports car in the way that the SLR is. Perhaps the SLR is not worth the money, but someone buying the SLR isn't going to worry so much about that... and certainly isn't going to feel that they could have gotten a comparable car by buying the SL65.

Lexino

None taken and No Offence to you either...
i thought u were the one that didn't beleive in 0-60 numbers not I..I was saying that even though the SLR beats the SL65 in staright line the SL65 would take over the SLR after that. But i guess you dont have the competence to understand the complexity of the matter. you contradicted yourself and yes i have done enough research on the matter and thats why i told people like you to think before you say anything and in all honesty no offence its people like you who think that a person buying a SLR wouldnt care about the price ppl that cannot buy the car so dont say that its just very ignorant the reason i put this post up is because i cant makeup my mind between the two and besides the SLR when i order it would take me 6 months to receive and HELL yea i care about the price

HighRev

sorry but from my point of view the SLR is everything but a sporty car. it has a lot of power but nevertheless it is a GT. the porsche carrera gt is a sports car. but compared to this a SLR is a heavy, sluggish chump. it has power an is fast in a straight line. but driven on a racetrack with itīs corners and twists it understreers to much. with the use of the throttle you can create a power-oversteer put this means a los of laptime. and a REAL sporty car has to be quick on racetracks.

Lexino

thanx HighRev i have been on this case for the last 2 months and personally i found the SL65 to be a much better car and plus its half the price

Sleestack

You were saying that even though the SLR beats the SL65 in a straight line, the SL would take over after that? What planet do you live on? What would make you think that the SL65 would outhandle an SLR? Or, does your "after that" entail something other than handling? And yes, I know plenty about people who would buy the SLR b/c our family had a $200K deposit on one for 3 years. The matter is not that complex... you just aren't making any sense.

Reread youir inital post.

First you say the SLR is handicapped in performance compared to the SL... but the only details you provide to back up that claim completely comtradict your statement. You provide 1 performance number which happens to be a 0-60 number. I certainly didn't highlight that figure. You also provide hp and torque numbers that would indicate that if the SL65 was the better performer, it should easily outaccelerate the SLR.

After spewing out that nonsense, you fail to metnion anything else about performance.

You might make sense to yourself, but perhaps you need to articulate your points a little bit better. It's not that difficult.

Sleestack

The SLR is alot closer to a sports car than the SL65. Look at the numbers it put up on a track against the Enzo and CGT. It was pretty damn close. I don't even like the SLR, but to say that the SL65 is a purer performer is just nonsensical.

Lexino

last time i checked those were all the performance numbers requried by any man in his right state of mind to determine the better car. The HP, Torque their respective RPM ranges and 0-60 timings but the thing is some cars in this case SLR will kill the SL 0-60 but because of its massive torque at very minimal ranges and low end HP the SL65 is bound to take over after that. Finally the looks are solely the buyers discreation i personally like the styling of the SLR but everything else compels be to get the SL65

HighRev

i never said that the SL65 is in any way better than the SLR. and to be honest i didnīt even think about it. i canīt find anything that would make the SL more a sports cars than the SL. itīs the other way round. the SL is heavier and itīs handling is not as good as the handling of the SLR. but still i think even the SLR has no handling that fits into the the level of the carrera GT or the enzo ferrari. the SLR scores when it comes to straight line acceleration. but just by looking at its weight an weight balance you have to admit that it canīt be the corner grubing monster.

Lexino

and i wouldnt make the mistake of saying that the SL65 would be BETTER than the SLR in handling maybe close but in no way better but its not like i will take corners at 160KM anywayz...even the top speed on the SL65 is less than the SLR SL65 being 250Km and SLR over 300KM but i just think the price isnt worth it i mean the SL65 is so close performance wise to the SLR yet the price is more than x2 for the SLR

Sleestack

OK... despite the fact that the SLR might not feel as great as the Enzo or CGT.... and the fact that I would take either of those cars any day over the SLR, the fact remains that it did put up very similar numbers on the same track during the same testing sessions. It might feel really soft, but the numbers show that it is in fact, very capable.

HighRev

of course. the laptimes arenīt tooooo bad
but the SLR makes itīs pace on the straight line while the other two competitors have an outstanding handling through the corners. but this doesnīt mean that the SLR is a slow car. for heaven's sake no! this is really discussing on a really high level. iīd say the SLR is an outstanding, mindblowing supercar, competing with cars as the enzo or the CGT. the differences exist but are not vast. the SL65 is through its concept a more smooth roadster with enormous power. so going from functionality to pure racing iīd say the SL is the most functional one. the enzo and the CGT are the purest racers while the SLR has his position somewhere in the middle but closer to enzo & CGT than to the SL.
i hope my opinion is understandable to some extent. itīs just the english you learn at german schools iīm sorry for that.
ouch. itīs 2am here in germany. i think iīll got to bed. i wish you a good evening.

cya

Sleestack

Your position is completely understanable, your english is just fine and I pretty much agree with you.... although in the article I read, it didn't seem to say that the SLR was making its time on the straights. If you think about it, both the Enzo and CGT are probably just as fast on the straights, which would mean that the SLR has to be keeping up through the turns.