When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
2020 S560 Sedan, 2019 SL450, 2019 E450 Luxury Trim Wagon, '24 BMW I7 on order...
Originally Posted by WCampbellAZ
Yes, and just becomes exponentially more noticeable at higher speeds. The Portofino handles it a little better than the California did, but it's still not ideal for a sports car. Don't get me wrong I still understand the creature comforts of a hard top, but if I was the one designing the car and handling was a focus, I would have made the change to a soft top as well.
Well, my 2019 SL450 drives like an absolute dream! Of course, it has ABC, forged wheels, ceramic composite brakes and conventional tires, but it “handles” beautifully. And, I don’t mean to boast, but I have owned 60 brand new cars, along with 40 used cars, over my lifetime, many of which have been high line convertibles, and this SL takes the cake when it comes to ride quality and handling. That said, I drive in a relaxed, unhurried manner and don’t push the car, as I outgrew the need to play Michael Schumacher every time I make a run to the grocery store, decades ago. There was nothing wrong with the retractable hardtop. That feature was an absolute winner. If they needed to make it lighter, they certainly could have. MB made a huge mistake in dropping it.
Last edited by Streamliner; 10-31-2021 at 10:46 PM.
These threads are starting to feel like the new W223 S-class forum where W222 owners are posting just of how much better the prior models are.
While I sympathize over some lost features on the new SL, they are gone and are not coming back. Time to get used to that.
For those you can’t live without the hard top, stay with your current car. It won’t make it the better car but it will make it the better choice.
From what I have seen, we likely stick with our current ride but am eager to test drive the new SL63. But I will judge the car for what it is an not what it isn’t.
I believe we are in reasonable agreement, don’t you think?
Yes always. You're one of my favorite members here actually. I can't wait to read your take on the new SL when you see it and don't act like you're not going to go see it when it arrives please lol.
2020 S560 Sedan, 2019 SL450, 2019 E450 Luxury Trim Wagon, '24 BMW I7 on order...
Originally Posted by Wolfman
These threads are starting to feel like the new W223 S-class forum where W222 owners are posting just of how much better the prior models are.
While I sympathize over some lost features on the new SL, they are gone and are not coming back. Time to get used to that.
For those you can’t live without the hard top, stay with your current car. It won’t make it the better car but it will make it the better choice.
From what I have seen, we likely stick with our current ride but am eager to test drive the new SL63. But I will judge the car for what it is an not what it isn’t.
I suppose under this logic, a coupe with a fixed roof is not the best configuration for a sports car.
I test drove the Portofino M and it offers all the handling a person could ask for in a practical convertible. It’s a sports car, and it will surely out-handle this new R232 behemoth.
I mean, what are we doing here. What are we talking about with fixed roof vs soft top. Does anyone see the logic in an obese person giving a speech about why he/she always eats Quinoa cereal for breakfast with skim milk?
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way my SL63 handles - it absolutely crushed the canyons of North Carolina and Tennessee. I’ve lived it. I also hit 150mph multiple times in a controlled environment and the car drives effortlessly at that speed. Without excessive noise. Thank you, hard top. (Ever drive in Germany? The SL63 is an autobahn crusher. Thank you, hard top.)
I highly doubt the 185,” 4500lbs R232 without ABC (with a wheelbase 5” longer than the outgoing car) is going to out-handle my smaller, lighter SL63. My SL63 can do just about everything a 911 can do on canyon roads. Not quite, but it’s darn close. It’s a car that doesn’t receive enough credit.
I'll take you up on that bet. I'm 100% willing to bet the R232 with it's lower center of gravity and more aggressive suspension setup is going to outhandle the R231 SL63. With AMG leading the development and it's platform also meant for the AMG GT it's going to be more dedicated towards handling and agility than the previous model, which was already great (I've got plenty of seat time in a SL63). ABC isn't some magic cure-all suspension solution- the breadth it provides is notable but it's best capability isn't actually in aiding responsiveness. There's a reason AMG's most hardcore, best handling vehicles don't have ABC. The AMG GT 63 S is north of 4500lbs too and many reviewers have noted it's razor sharp handling. This will come out the expense of ride, sure, but the GT capabilities in early reviews of the SL have already been noted. Yes this newest SL is heading in a more sporting direction and I think that's appropriate given the cruiser crowd is dwindling in existence. Mercedes themselves admitted even when the R231 was in production that the average SL owner age was trending too high and they needed to appeal to a younger clientele.
The Portofino is of course great and I loved my time in one. I wonder if the SL's starting price was $215,000 if they could've found more room to lightweight the platform. Alas, it's going to start about $100k under that and Mercedes has margins to mind.
I'll take you up on that bet. I'm 100% willing to bet the R232 with it's lower center of gravity and more aggressive suspension setup is going to outhandle the R231 SL63. With AMG leading the development and it's platform also meant for the AMG GT it's going to be more dedicated towards handling and agility than the previous model, which was already great (I've got plenty of seat time in a SL63). ABC isn't some magic cure-all suspension solution- the breadth it provides is notable but it's best capability isn't actually in aiding responsiveness. There's a reason AMG's most hardcore, best handling vehicles don't have ABC. The AMG GT 63 S is north of 4500lbs too and many reviewers have noted it's razor sharp handling. This will come out the expense of ride, sure, but the GT capabilities in early reviews of the SL have already been noted. Yes this newest SL is heading in a more sporting direction and I think that's appropriate given the cruiser crowd is dwindling in existence. Mercedes themselves admitted even when the R231 was in production that the average SL owner age was trending too high and they needed to appeal to a younger clientele.
The Portofino is of course great and I loved my time in one. I wonder if the SL's starting price was $215,000 if they could've found more room to lightweight the platform. Alas, it's going to start about $100k under that and Mercedes has margins to mind.
Bingo. I'm not sure why anyone would think Mercedes would introduce a SL that handles worse than the one before it. That has never happened before. Welcome to the board that creates problems where none exists.
Anent the hard-top vs. soft-top convertible debate: I've had both, a 2013 SL63 (hard-top) and a 2017 S63 cabriolet (soft-top). I found the fabric top on the S63 to be every bit as quiet as the SL63, with respect to road noise, wind noise, and rain. The only disadvantage with the fabric roof is the lack of the "Magic Sky" sunroof, which is a trivial matter. The fabric roof saves a bit of weight (thus lowering the car's center of gravity, improving the handling a bit in theory), and takes less trunk space when it's down (though trunk space is down due to the addition of the midget back seats). I approve of the switch to fabric on the new SL, and I've placed an order for one.
Different subject: Some of the videos I've seen of the new SL show that the rear turn signals are amber, and sequential. I'm guessing that this is the Euro spec. Anyone know?
Anent the hard-top vs. soft-top convertible debate: I've had both, a 2013 SL63 (hard-top) and a 2017 S63 cabriolet (soft-top). I found the fabric top on the S63 to be every bit as quiet as the SL63, with respect to road noise, wind noise, and rain. The only disadvantage with the fabric roof is the lack of the "Magic Sky" sunroof, which is a trivial matter. The fabric roof saves a bit of weight (thus lowering the car's center of gravity, improving the handling a bit in theory), and takes less trunk space when it's down (though trunk space is down due to the addition of the midget back seats). I approve of the switch to fabric on the new SL, and I've placed an order for one.
Different subject: Some of the videos I've seen of the new SL show that the rear turn signals are amber, and sequential. I'm guessing that this is the Euro spec. Anyone know?
If its anything like the new W223 they are amber but only sequential when unlocking and locking. For some reason when activating the turn signals on the new S-Class they are not sequential, probably related to some stupid US regulation.
For those you can’t live without the hard top, stay with your current car. It won’t make it the better car but it will make it the better choice.
Sorry to disagree but ----For those of us who want, need, appreciate and love our retractable hardtop, the new SL will not be the better choice. Our current R231models ARE and WILL BE the better car....for us. Personally, I think my '19 SL550 is beautiful. And I don't understand why the SL53 would not have the same M256 mild hybrid 48-volt system that is in my CLS53 and GLE53 which is on it's way from the VPC in Baltimore. 450hp and 568lb-ft with a 0-60 under 4 seconds would be .... go ahead -- you fill in the word. (My word is "adequate").
Sorry to disagree but ----For those of us who want, need, appreciate and love our retractable hardtop, the new SL will not be the better choice. Our current R231models ARE and WILL BE the better car....for us. Personally, I think my '19 SL550 is beautiful. And I don't understand why the SL53 would not have the same M256 mild hybrid 48-volt system that is in my CLS53 and GLE53 which is on it's way from the VPC in Baltimore. 450hp and 568lb-ft with a 0-60 under 4 seconds would be .... go ahead -- you fill in the word. (My word is "adequate").
This is exactly what I said. For those who want the hard top, the old SL will be the better choice. I could have phrased it better though
I'll take you up on that bet. I'm 100% willing to bet the R232 with it's lower center of gravity and more aggressive suspension setup is going to outhandle the R231 SL63. With AMG leading the development and it's platform also meant for the AMG GT it's going to be more dedicated towards handling and agility than the previous model, which was already great (I've got plenty of seat time in a SL63). ABC isn't some magic cure-all suspension solution- the breadth it provides is notable but it's best capability isn't actually in aiding responsiveness. There's a reason AMG's most hardcore, best handling vehicles don't have ABC. The AMG GT 63 S is north of 4500lbs too and many reviewers have noted it's razor sharp handling. This will come out the expense of ride, sure, but the GT capabilities in early reviews of the SL have already been noted. Yes this newest SL is heading in a more sporting direction and I think that's appropriate given the cruiser crowd is dwindling in existence. Mercedes themselves admitted even when the R231 was in production that the average SL owner age was trending too high and they needed to appeal to a younger clientele.
The Portofino is of course great and I loved my time in one. I wonder if the SL's starting price was $215,000 if they could've found more room to lightweight the platform. Alas, it's going to start about $100k under that and Mercedes has margins to mind.
AMG's approach to suspensions on their AWD cars had been Airmatic pumped up to the max, at least on our E63s. It performed well but ride quality suffered. ABC is/was definitely a better approach but MB decided years ago to keep it solely for RWD cars. So the new AMG Active Ride Control with Air suspension and hydraulic anti-roll stabilization sounds like an interesting approach to provide a smoother ride while offering better handling dynamics...
AMG's approach to suspensions on their AWD cars had been Airmatic pumped up to the max, at least on our E63s. It performed well but ride quality suffered. ABC is/was definitely a better approach but MB decided years ago to keep it solely for RWD cars. So the new AMG Active Ride Control with Air suspension and hydraulic unit-roll stabilization sounds like an interesting approach to provide a smoother ride while offering better handling dynamics...
I think AMG has learned (hopefully) from the complaints on the Pre-Facelift W213. The Post-Facelift E63 rides so much better now thanks to the revised suspension tuning/damping.
AMG's approach to suspensions on their AWD cars had been Airmatic pumped up to the max, at least on our E63s. It performed well but ride quality suffered. ABC is/was definitely a better approach but MB decided years ago to keep it solely for RWD cars. So the new AMG Active Ride Control with Air suspension and hydraulic unit-roll stabilization sounds like an interesting approach to provide a smoother ride while offering better handling dynamics...
They seem to have solved their packaging issues with ABC/MBC and AWD as the Maybach S680 has both. Also note that the current gen AMG SUVs don’t use ABC, only the GLE/GLS 450 and 580 models use it. Clearly AMG has made a choice.
They seem to have solved their packaging issues with ABC/MBC and AWD as the Maybach S680 has both. Also note that the current gen AMG SUVs don’t use ABC, only the GLE/GLS 450 and 580 models use it. Clearly AMG has made a choice.
I have seen the same about the S680 but not any details about the tech/setup on the car. Be interesting as the W223 offers no ABC option.
Neither GLE or GLS is using ABC. eABC is different tech…
I highly doubt the 185,” 4500lbs R232 without ABC (with a wheelbase 5” longer than the outgoing car) is going to out-handle my smaller, lighter SL63. My SL63 can do just about everything a 911 can do on canyon roads. Not quite, but it’s darn close. It’s a car that doesn’t receive enough credit.
The R232 SL63 is 4300 lbs, while the R231 SL63 is 4100 lbs. The lack of anti-roll bars and hydraulic cross linking of struts with variable roll stiffness should achieve an effect similar to ABC in allowing fully independent suspension operation going straight, while greatly reducing body roll while cornering; the lower centre of gravity should help too. The rear wheel steering allows achieving an effectively variable wheelbase, providing more sharp turning ability at low speeds and more stability at high speeds. The longer wheelbase, lower centre of gravity, and better anti-dive geometry achievable with a new front multi link suspension should also help reduce squat and dive in acceleration and braking, reducing/eliminating the need for ABC in that role.
I have no doubt this car will handle well, though I want to see how comfortable the suspension tune is in softer modes.
I have seen the same about the S680 but not any details about the tech/setup on the car. Be interesting as the W223 offers no ABC option.
Neither GLE or GLS is using ABC. eABC is different tech…
eABC still uses hydraulic pumps, they're just now driven by 48v motors. A continued modernization of the suspension setup. Upon further review I must agree with you, the Maybach S680 4-matic doesn't seem to have eABC but the Maybach S580 4-Matic does. https://media.mbusa.com/releases/202...ishedAscending
I posted something similar in the R231 forum, but I see the conversation is more lively here
Coming from an R230 SL65, in which it was one of my dream cars, here's my opinion in regards to some of the things posted here in this thread:
1) Yes, the weight is shockingly heavy. But we all need to realize that (at least in the US market) Mercedes is a luxury brand first, performance brand second. This car was meant to combine 6 vehicles as stated earlier. When you have something like a C63S Cab that can blow the doors off of a R231 in regards to performance, design, luxury, etc, this new SL needed to wear many hats. Those hats include the luxury buyer desire to want "stuff". Want the latest tech? That's stuff. Want the latest 5-star crash ratings from 48 different angles (or however many they're trying to infinitely predict)? That's stuff. And guess what, "stuff" is heavy. So I attribute the surprising weight increase to "stuff". All vehicles, will get heavier in the future. Always have and will continue. The days of a sub-3000 lb car are gone; and it was gone more than a decade ago.
2) The R231 appears to be a great a car, although I've never driven one. The problem with it was the exterior design. It was hideous. As for the interior, unfortunately the SL was caught in a weird time in Mercedes design. The hard-angled 08-14ish designs did not mesh well with the future softer luxurious designs of the 15+ models being released (W205, W222, etc). You can see how MB tried to mesh the designs together with the mid-cycle refreshes of the W212, CLS, etc - a rounded front bumper tacked onto a squared off body. They tried to make it work and hide it, but the obvious design differences were there. At least, they knew those vehicles were being replaced soon so they got by. The SL was one of those that they did a refresh (especially to the front end), but you can tell that the design is not cohesive at all between the front end, side profile, and rear end. Another flaw though was the R231 interior, as it needed a drastic refresh (such as what they did on the W204), but they weren't either willing to make the investment or there was some other issue that they decided to leave the interior with the past design language, making it significantly look out of place from anything in 2015-18 that matched the latest A, C, E, S, or GT offerings.
3) In regards to ABC, we don't know what it truly cost Mercedes, especially in the early cars. The amount of warranty work that was paid out was probably significant. At the same time, we all know it only takes one bad experience to turn off a customer for at least 1 generation of vehicle. ABC was great, but what did it truly cost, given how many issues and downed cars the systems caused?
So in the end, to consolidate a line of convertibles and sell a modern car, I think MB has put together a fantastic offering. I love it. Does it mean to me what my R230 V12 AMG meant? No, but that's on me. And we all need to accept that the future will bring different things, and there are consequences of wanting "more" (like the weight). I hope this new SL does well, because I personally think it appears to be a fantastic vehicle.
Last edited by Viper98912; 11-02-2021 at 11:35 AM.
eABC still uses hydraulic pumps, they're just now driven by 48v motors. A continued modernization of the suspension setup. Upon further review I must agree with you, the Maybach S680 4-matic doesn't seem to have eABC but the Maybach S580 4-Matic does. https://media.mbusa.com/releases/202...ishedAscending
E-ACTIVE BODY CONTROL in the GLE supplements the air suspension with semi-supporting hydropneumatics. The air springs bear the base load of the vehicle body and gradually regulate the level. The hydropneumatics generate dynamic forces that overlay the air suspension forces, and actively support and dampen the vehicle body.
E-ACTIVE BODY CONTROL in the GLE supplements the air suspension with semi-supporting hydropneumatics. The air springs bear the base load of the vehicle body and gradually regulate the level. The hydropneumatics generate dynamic forces that overlay the air suspension forces, and actively support and dampen the vehicle body.
Yes, exactly. Previously the hydraulic servos were mounted on a spring strut. In effect, the ABC system overlaid a conventional suspension that consisted of a spring and shock absorber but added a hydraulically adjusted cylinder. Now with eABC hydraulic lines are connected to the dampers to overlay Airmatic and require much less energy. You could've just posted the rest of the press release:At each wheel, a damper is installed within the axle whose two working chambers have an adjustable damping valve and a hydraulic pressure reservoir. The damper is connected to an intelligent motor/pump unit in the 48 V network by hydraulic lines. Actuation of the motor/pump unit enables the hydraulic fluid to be displaced to create a difference in pressure within the damper, allowing an active force to be generated.
The motor/pump units at all four wheels are coordinated by a central control unit which also actuates the valves and the compressor for the air spring, and therefore always controls the entire suspension system. It was developed according to the safety standard ISO 26262.
Yes, exactly. Previously the hydraulic servos were mounted on a spring strut. In effect, the ABC system overlaid a conventional suspension that consisted of a spring and shock absorber but added a hydraulically adjusted cylinder. Now with eABC hydraulic lines are connected to the dampers to overlay Airmatic and require much less energy. You could've just posted the rest of the press release:At each wheel, a damper is installed within the axle whose two working chambers have an adjustable damping valve and a hydraulic pressure reservoir. The damper is connected to an intelligent motor/pump unit in the 48 V network by hydraulic lines. Actuation of the motor/pump unit enables the hydraulic fluid to be displaced to create a difference in pressure within the damper, allowing an active force to be generated.
The motor/pump units at all four wheels are coordinated by a central control unit which also actuates the valves and the compressor for the air spring, and therefore always controls the entire suspension system. It was developed according to the safety standard ISO 26262.
In other words, ABC got modernized.
The point I was making that it is not just ABC anymore. It's not ABC modernized, eABC is its own system with it's own software, just like the Active Ride Control.
My understanding is that ABC hydraulics were in series with the spring, while eABC hydraulics are in parallel with the (air) spring. The R232 Active Ride Control suspension has hydraulic struts in parallel to springs similar to eABC, but paired with steel springs instead of air springs, and it passively resists roll up to an adjustable pressure difference, rather than actively counteracting roll.
I'll take you up on that bet. I'm 100% willing to bet the R232 with it's lower center of gravity and more aggressive suspension setup is going to outhandle the R231 SL63. With AMG leading the development and it's platform also meant for the AMG GT it's going to be more dedicated towards handling and agility than the previous model, which was already great (I've got plenty of seat time in a SL63). ABC isn't some magic cure-all suspension solution- the breadth it provides is notable but it's best capability isn't actually in aiding responsiveness. There's a reason AMG's most hardcore, best handling vehicles don't have ABC. The AMG GT 63 S is north of 4500lbs too and many reviewers have noted it's razor sharp handling. This will come out the expense of ride, sure, but the GT capabilities in early reviews of the SL have already been noted. Yes this newest SL is heading in a more sporting direction and I think that's appropriate given the cruiser crowd is dwindling in existence. Mercedes themselves admitted even when the R231 was in production that the average SL owner age was trending too high and they needed to appeal to a younger clientele.
The Portofino is of course great and I loved my time in one. I wonder if the SL's starting price was $215,000 if they could've found more room to lightweight the platform. Alas, it's going to start about $100k under that and Mercedes has margins to mind.
I am confident that the new SL 63 is not going to be 100K below $215,000. My 2019 63 was $174K with options. I bet your are going to see $200-210K for well optioned ones and all of them will be that. The 55 would be around $165-175K. And then the marks ups...
10-31-2021, 10:42 PM
There was nothing wrong with the retractable hardtop. That feature was an absolute winner. If they needed to make it lighter, they certainly could have. MB made a huge mistake in dropping it.
