The OP is US based, hence the question for the US buyers is if 550 worth $20K more over 400/450 (just like if 63 worth $40k+ over 550 and 65 worth an other almost $40K over 63). The choice is personal and here in the US comes down mostly to money and not which one is "better" (its ridiculous to say 400/450 is "better balanced" than 550 as much as 550 is "better balanced" than 63).

We all agree here that 400/450 is a great value over 550 here in the US (much lesser one in UK) as per the post above, but those who bought 550 were not concerned about the value but a (much) better experience each time you press on the gas pedal.

If that were true, then everybody would be secretly wishing that they could afford the SL65, but I don't think they are - not even in the US.

I buy my cars with a balance of satisfying my performance desires with how much I want to spend. For me, the 550 vs. the 450 was a no brainer, but I did not feel that the extra performance of a SL65 was worth it. If someone was going to give me a 450, 550, or 65? Well I do believe I would take the 65. I don't profess to know what everyone else is secretly wishing.

IMHO it is absolutely true when comparing 400/450 vs. 550 (R231 550 has 516TQ - same as R230's 55AMG and actually a bit more than R230 63AMG). Any more TQ would become a challenge for non-track driving.

SL65AMG is a $200K no discount car (do not know about the UK, but in my area of the US where SL is truly a 12 months/year convertible , SL AMGs are no discount cars unless one waits till next MY and a dealer still has previous year SL AMG left in stock). Also in SL65 price league, there are other more unique (even if not necessary "better") alternatives. In my experience there's not huge usable performance difference between 550 and 63, but a very noticeable one 400/450 vs 550.

"Afford" is a key word here, again maybe not in the UK since as you mentioned 400vs.550 delta is only about $8K, but certainly in the US where the delta is over $20K. It reminds me of countless discussions on the W212 E board on 350 vs.550 where true delta for cars with identical optional equipment was actually under $6K (yet most E350s MSRP were over $10K less than E550s, but that was because they had much less "standard" equipment).

Completely agree.

Spot on.

That said, the conversation is a bit funny to me because when we got the R231 I was complaining of how uneventful the V8 was compared to the V12 twin turbo we had before. Fast, even faster than the 600 but no sense of torque like the V12!

If Mercedes would still make the SL600, I would have taken that one but the $100k step up from the SL550 to the SL65 just isn't worth it. The SL63 would be a good choice if it weren't for the MCT tranny

But I understand the conversation as Europe is very different and the UK is different from the rest of Europe too as they deal with a tiny right hand drive market.

Europe is dominated by small cars with small engines. Diesel engines (apart from the whole VW scandal) are often viewed as "step-up" from a regular gas engine for their power coupled with high efficiency and those cars typically have higher resale values than their gas counterparts.
In the US, this is a complete reverse.

Even when people drive an S-Class (of which there are very few), virtually none would be 500 and up models.

I've been completely happy with my 2015 SL400. Agree with the lighter and nimble feel and honestly, for a luxury roadster and daily driver, it has plenty of power. All the weight comes off in the nose and it is a noticeable difference to the 550. Not knocking the 550, but the 400 is a pleasure to drive and I've never once felt like it needed "more".

Hi all. I'm kind of a newbie here, although I've been driving CLK's and E Cabs for a number of years now. My current 2014 E550 Cabriolet cost only $8K more than an E350 Cabriolet. Other than that, all options for both cars were the same price. Anyway, I'm now about to order a 2017 SL. I've driven both and do like the extra torque that the 550 offers, especially at highway speeds, but, I can't justify spending almost $23 thousand dollars more for virtually the same car. I live in Connecticut, and except for driving on the twisty, back roads, which I prefer to do in my '68 Porsche 912 soft window Targa, can't see where the extra power is, for me, that necessary.

Do not forget that E550 cab has "Sport" or "AMG" body as standard while E350 cab (at least in the US) does not, nor is available. MB used to charge $4K-5K, depending on a model, for the "AMG" body kit, so the actual difference for E cpe/cap 550 vs. 350 is under $5K.

As was stated above by several different posters, SL400 and now especially a bit more powerful SL450, are both a great value as compared to SL550. One has to make a decision if the massive 516 torque is worth it (it is for me, especially since the White Arrow edition I wanted was available only with 550 engine, or on a much more expensive SL63).

They are both great cars. My only comment is that the 550 is actually not much heavier in front (less than 130lbs total); so it would be overblown to call this a front heavy car (like old SL600).

The price difference is definitely the bigger differentiator than the weight

This is a terrific thread. I'm looking to upgrade from my current '14 E550 cabriolet. First, let me say that the price difference from the V-6 to the V-8 was a complete no-brainer. Really only came to a few thousand $ for the V-8 when as others said you factor in all the standard equipment that is included with the V-8. The V-8 completely transforms the E-Cab, from satisfying to a little beast. It's the best deal in German horsepower upgrades you can find.

The SL price differential is crazy. This is really a question about the value we place on the extra grunt in the SL class. I need to drive them both.

So here is my question- can anyone tell me how the SL drives in comparison to my E550? I have two minor issues with the E, wish it were a bit sportier and the 18" AMG wheels tend to crash over minor potholes.

My 2p.. I have just ordered the SL400 (due end April). I really like the the V8 but just about every article I have seen or read says that, unless you have to have the extra V8 sound, torque and hp (which some clearly do and that is fine), the 400 is a better drive and more bang for your buck than the 500. I got massive discounts on mine which made the V8 more affordable but, i have put £9000 of extras in mine. Maybe if I felt i could justify another £10,000 (£90,000 car with the options i wanted), I may have ordered the V8 but 367 hp is more than enough for me.

Mine will be used for touring (first trip to Stuttgart to visit the Porche and AMG factory and do a run through the black forest in June).

However no matter which one we choose, I'm sure we all agree that they are beautiful machines.

I personally prefer the 5 spoke rims. To me, they look less busy and understated and easier to clean .

However each to his/her own.. Mine will be the AMG line and according to the order form will also have "sporty engine sound" (whatever that is ).

I just received my 500 facelift 2 weeks ago, upgraded from a 2012 R231 350. Loved my previous one and couldn't fault it except that it was underpowered. The facelift 500 is a completely different car to the unfacelift model. Forgetting about the bigger engine everything feels lighter from opening the doors to closing the boot. the driving experience is also quite different. This new one has the active body control suspension, and I m still getting used to it.
Having tried both the 500 and 400 before purchasing, there is a real power difference between the two but it s the sound of the V8 that made my decision final and the ego of having the 500 badge over the 400 could have played a small role

Now hat I have it I realise that you can t really use the extra power without facing loosing your license (at least in the U.K.). It s such an easy car to drive that to get a real exhilarating feel from it you need to be driving really fast.

Also it s a gas guzzler, mostly use it in comfort mode due to the current weather and still only averaging 16mpg after having done 500 miles.
The 400 is definetly the more reasonable choice, dare I say the more intelligent one, but then my decisions when buying cars are mostly made in a teenager state of mind !

Hope you are taking it easy on the accelerator for the first 1000 miles as per the owners manual.


I'm planning to do a three day trip, when I get mine, to get the first 1000 miles behind me ASAP.

[QUOTE=rorywquin;7035376]Hope you are taking it easy on the accelerator for the first 1000 miles as per the owners manual

i did ask the dealership if it needed to be driven in, they told me this is done at the factory before delivery ? To be fair I haven t read the driver s manual in full, but I hadn t seen that mentioned will take another look.

for the moment journeys are about 20 to 30 miles mixture of city and motorways. Might have pushed it a couple of times but nothing that would warrant this mpg. I m hoping it will stabilise with time but I doubt it will ever reach the figures claimed by the manufacturer

MB states a careful drive for the first 1000 miles (not redlining, max speed or manual shifting recommended).

That said, I have never cared and have driven these cars normal from day one. Zero issues in over 20 years and our cars drive better than others that are driven too little or too timid.

I'm sure you are right. My SLK was a dealer demo (<1000km) and probably got thrashed a few times before I got it. I put 50,000k on it and reckon it was still running in.


However, I will follow the advise from MB and run my new one in. A trip up to the Scottish highlands for two nights will do the trick and give me time to settle with the car.

I couldn't agree more. I think modern engines run better if they aren't nursed for the first 1000 miles. I'm a keen biker and when I went to test-ride my last one (1200 Ducati) the test bike had only 70 miles on it. The shop owner told me to take it out and (aside from showing a little caution to the new tyres and brakes) spank the hell out of it! He said that every ex-demo bike they sold, which had been ridden hard from new, made more power and used less oil than the ones that had been nursed. I realise that's just anecdotal, but there are lots of very good explanations of why it's bad to "run a car in" on the net if you google.


On the original question, it's worth bearing in mind that the V8 is an older design engine than the V6, soon to be replaced by the smaller but more powerful 4.0L version currently in use in the AMG range. The engine in the SL450 is the same as the AMG C43 and the SL550 will be the same as the AMG C63.


I've since had a TDI remapping unit fitted to my V6 which now has 437 bhp and the power is addictive. That isn't a lot for a 3.0L V6 twin turbo either, the new Alfa with a 2.9L V6 twin has 510 bhp from the factory! Six months on I know the V6 was the right choice for me, I can see me keeping it a long while.

Wiz - so I guess MB don't really know what they are talking about.

I think that part of the "running in" thing is tradition, past manufacturing tolerances weren't what they are today so it was necessary, but it isn't any more. A good friend of mine works in the R&D department for Castrol, they bench-ran an engine for 300,000 miles equivalent testing their oils and there was no measurable wear.


MB leave in the advice because the tyres and brakes do need to bed in, but more importantly, the driver needs to. It's responsible to want the drive to get used to the car slowly.

we got our SL400 new in Spet 16............ and MB said NOTHING about taking it easy/running in etc

It is in the user manual - but then again, who reads them

Have a read here:


http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...-in-a-new-car/


It's a widely held opinion that nursing a car from new doesn't create enough pressure on the rings to make them properly hone the bores, but I suspect that on a modern engine, the tolerances are so good, the effect is small. I think MB are probably more worried about someone crashing an unfamiliar car and then finding a reason to sue them .

From my experience with motorcycles, the proper way to run in a motor is to get it up close to redline for short bursts to seat the rings in the first 100 miles or so and then continuously vary the RPM's during the rest of the break in period. You want to avoid running at the same RPM for extended periods. I think a conservative break in as indicated in most owner's manuals is a CYA from the lawyers.