david_101

i finally drove an SL55 at the dealership the other day. it was a blast!

some bozo was test-driving a volvo sedan. i decided to pass; he decided he wouldn't let me. um, wrong. i zipped ahead in the left, and passed with a lot of lane to spare. (good thing state troopers were preoccupied with a stop on the next block because they certainly would've nabbed me.) of course, that was hardly a kill. but it was wasan't exactly shooting a fish in a barrel, either.

anyway, i'm reluctant to part with $130k, especially when the SL63 is anticipated. and the SL63 probably would be a bit difficult to get during at least the first MY. so, $92k+ for a loaded, 15k mile, certified SL55 isn't unreasonable, is it? also, the dealer understands i won't accept an auction car. they have a MY2003 and MY2004, both loaded, coming in from long-term clients, and will let me know when they're at the store.

assuming the number is okay, is there any significant difference in MYs 2003 to 2006? i'm aware of the COMAND upgrade at MY2005. i'm wondering if my current motorola v60 (2002 CLK55) would be incompatible with the hands-free set-up in any of those MYs.

i'm looking forward to your advice.

thanks,
david

vraa

Lots of folks on the E55 forums are saying that the supercharged 55 engine is possibly one of the greatest engines ever made.

I'll have to agree

You can always wait a little longer and get the 'better' car, or you can bite the bullet and buy the car you want now. Seeing how you already have the CLK55, I'd personally say keep that car and wait for the 63 or even the next car after that.

I believe the v60 will work.

david_101

thanks.

i'd intended to keep the CLK55, but on thursday it took $8k of damage from a debris-loaded UNCOVERED dumper that threw HUNDREDS of stones while hitting ripples on I95N before and after the ft mchenry tunnel, at baltimore. (i got all the truck info, flipped out at the driver who sped away, reported it at the tolls, have lawyers in two states on it already. i'm DEFINITELY not paying this directly or through insurance, even though it's not a chargeable loss.) that's a good excuse to part from the car.

also, i'm likely to get an SUV for S FL weather emergencies. on that, i tried a new G55 before the SL55. it moved, but was intolerably noisy accelerating to 20 mph in the lot. i can only imagine how bad it would be on the highway, including what would be significant wind noise. everyone, including MBers, have been saying the rover sport sc is the way to go.

the $40k savings on the used SL55 would pay for at least half of the rover, which isn't such a bad thing.

do you think the SL63 -- or even the anticipated SL550 -- would be that much better than the MY2003 to MY2006 cars?

can you think of any reason not to get a particular MY of SL55?

sprins

The SL63 (if it ever gets made, which I doupt) will be cannon fodder for the SL55 (torque anyone?). "I'll have the supercharged version thank you".

vraa

My condolences on the stones on the CLK55. I know what it feels like to have something you love tainted by some idiots.

Have you taken a look at the X5? I have a X5 4.4i (2004, so it's a 4.5L engine) and it's absolutley wonderful. There is a reason why it's one of the best selling SUV/SAV's. Plus it's extremely sporty... or however much sporty something that big can be.

SL550 will eat the SL500. You're looking at around 80hp more. From what I hear it will also be either the same fuel economy or better! My dad has a MY2003 SL500. It has the 5sp, so the 550 mated with the 7sp would blow the pants off my dads SL500.

To me, there really is nothing big, except for the 7sp tranny from 2003 to 2006. There are some quality changes, but that's nothing big. Once you sort out the initial bugs of the MY2003 cars, they are pretty much the same as the 2006 cars.

Now that you've told me that you might be looking to get something a big bigger than a two seater, and that your CLK55 has had some damage that wants you to rid it, you might want to look at either an X5 (4.8is baby!) or even wait for the next-gen X5 to come out (which is soon).

Regardless, if you want a two seater, and you have the money for it, a SL55 is not a bad choice at all. It's got the looks. It's got the speed. What else does it need?

jmf003

There is no absolute right answer, of course, but I went through the same process in November, came to the same conclusion, and bought a CPO 2003 SL55 with 9,000 miles for $91K. I haven't regretted the choice for a second. It's been a fabulously fun car to own.

Kar don

I would at least get the 04, you get the 2nd year production and the new nano clearcoat which is light years ahead of the stuff they put on the 03s.

david_101

MY2004 was the first for the nano-coat?? i'd forgotten all about that.

you'd say it'd do better than the previous paint in sun and salt?

vraa

I totally forgot about the nano paint as well!
Get the 2004 or later if you can, the nano paint does make a world of a difference in scratch resistantcy (is that a word?)

david_101

thanks for the positive testimonial.

david_101

yes, i'd tried the X5 when it was first introduced, and didn't care for the accelerator or brake pedal mushiness.

i used the recent X5 of my GF's parents many times. i didn't care for it particularly. they finally traded it for a lexus RX330 (because the hybrid was still diifficult to get).

neither of those was the sport version, so admittedly i can't speak from experience. i should test the X sport.

when is the replacement X due?

i figured the SL550 would be a significantly better perfomer than the SL500. i even thought that i'd be happy enough with that over an AMG, either a 55 or 63. but as of now, there's no way to know.

the 7G tranny probably will eventually be mated with the 63s, although in a beefier verison. the new ML63 is supposed to have it, so it's rational to think the other 63s would have it. but the 55s all have the 5G tranny, right?

david_101

won't the 63 have nearly the same torque as the 55k?

even if it does, i guess the curve and the transmission intermediate the power to the spin.

and i guess the only way to guesstimate is to calculate out the effects. but that would require the transmission ratios and the torque numbers, right?

david_101

yup, MY2004 should probably be the starting point. before i know it, i'll sacrifice complimentary maintenance services to get the COMAND upgrade.

was MY2005 the first year for the 7G tranny?

vraa

Give the latest X5 a shot. In 2004 they had a face lift. The 4.4i got a new engine as well as a fantastic 6sp tranny.

I'm not really sure when the next X is due. I'm following www.x5world.com closely though.

david_101

i'm reviewing the x5world.com site now. thanks for the lead.

vraa

Anytime man. I have a 2004 X5 4.4i myself.

vraa

I don't think anything will be concrete until the car is out.
I'm surprised that the BMW X5 has better fording ability than the Mercedes G Wagon. That is a real shocker to me!

david_101

one of the SUV/SAV specifications i've been paying special attention to is wading/fording depth. there's enough flooding in weather emergencies to make it a priority consideration.

here are approximate depths i've found for a few vehicles:

MB G 18"
BMW X 20"
VW touareg 21"
ROVER sport 28"

i haven't yet found anything about the X replacement. any leads?

have you heard anything about the forthcoming MB "X" expected in 2008 by edmunds.com?

david_101

this is the best i could do on the X5 successor:
autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=4695&categoryId=1
autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=4367&categoryId=1
autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=4362&categoryId=1

and this on the rover sport:
autospies.com/article/index.asp?articleId=4437&categoryId=1

fellow posters and readers, i hope you'll excuse this limited off-topic indulgence.
thank you in advance.

vraa

Mercedes X is 2007.

ajf1

According to member Technician and others the SL 55 will be here in 2007 with a slight bump in horsepower to 517. The 63 engine will not go into the sl until maybe 2008 or later, possibly with twin turbos.

sprins

The 63 engine misses almost 100 torques in comparison to the 55 engine, and the torque curve is more 'comfortable' in the 55 as in the 63. The 55 delivers torque earlier (RPM wise) as the 63 engine. Perhaps they'd manage to make 0-60 sprints and other brochure-specs identical on paper (thanks to a.o. transmission), but I'm pretty sure the driving experience would be very different.

Anyway, its personal also, I like relaxed running engines with lots of torque in the low RPM range. Others may favour the high-revving.

david_101

the upcoming toyota FJ might be the answer for the SUV:

autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4023691&src=Home&pos=Edit1

"With an impressive 8.7 inches of wheel travel in front and 9.1 inches in the rear, the FJ Cruiser has ground clearance of 9.6 inches (8.7 inches for 2WD). For comparison, the Hummer H2 clears the ground by just 0.3 inches more. Approach angle for the FJ Cruiser is 34 degrees, departure angle is 30 degrees, and the FJ can traverse up to 27.5 inches of water."

approximately 1/2" less water depth spec than the new rover sport. and roughly 1/3 the cost, which would be welcome for a vehicle i hope to use very infrequently.

good enough?

david_101

i'm thinking as you. the SL55 probably is the way to go. thanks.