SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: SL600 vs. SL65
12-07-2006 | 04:48 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL.
Supra Turbo
SL600 vs. SL65
Hey guys,
What are the major motor wise differences besides the engine displacement between the SL600 and SL65? Are the turbos different? Boost pressures? Exhaust manifolds? Exhausts? A more aggressive ECU?
I cannot find any other detailed information that may indicate a major difference between the two (besides displacement). Thank you for any replies and please do not flame.
Rodrigo.
What are the major motor wise differences besides the engine displacement between the SL600 and SL65? Are the turbos different? Boost pressures? Exhaust manifolds? Exhausts? A more aggressive ECU?
I cannot find any other detailed information that may indicate a major difference between the two (besides displacement). Thank you for any replies and please do not flame.
Rodrigo.
12-07-2006 | 11:53 PM
#3
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL.
Supra Turbo
Thank you, I read that but I can't get full details from that. What I want are details. What are the degrees of both intake/exhaust cams? And are they the same for both the SL600 and SL65? What about the pistons? Rods? Do they have oil squirters? Are the turbos the same? How about the exhaust manifolds? Boost pressures?
Anticipatory thanks to those who can help and for DFW01E55 for helping as well.
Anticipatory thanks to those who can help and for DFW01E55 for helping as well.
12-22-2006 | 10:59 PM
#5
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 568
Likes: 1
1988 535i 5 speed
Differences: Bigger turbos, MUCH bigger IC, oil squirters for each piston, forged pistons/cranks, bigger injectors, retuned ECU, 500 cc's more displacement. This is just the engine. It also has a much stronger tranny, much stronger half shafts, and an LSD. It also has better brakes, and of course, Speedshift. Oh, also quad exhausts, bigger wheels, stickier tires, and of course all the interior mods. Hope that helped.
01-04-2007 | 01:20 PM
#7
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 136
Likes: 16
From: California
AMG GTS, Bentley GT,SL600, Range Rover V8 5.0 Supercharged, Aston Martin Rapide S, S600
SL600 is faster than the SL65
The SL600 is the ONLY way to go, and here is why: 0-60 in 3.6 seconds same as the Mercedes SLR.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Trending Topics
01-04-2007 | 01:59 PM
#8
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
SL65 AMG
The SL600 is the ONLY way to go, and here is why: 0-60 in 3.6 seconds same as the Mercedes SLR.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
I have seen these articles as well and must admit I was with you when I was buying, but here is something to look at. Why is it that if you look at drag times the 600 is not faster then a 65 unless it has been tuned and once the 65 is tuned it is faster yet again. I am thinking that the 0-60 maybe faster but over that speed the extra hp and lbft just pull so much harder? Let me know what your thoughts are on why the 600 is not faster in the 1/4.
01-04-2007 | 02:04 PM
#9
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 2
SL65, E55T, Pending S65
You are nuts.
I will give you $1000 cash if you can prove your STOCK SL600 is faster than my STOCK SL65 at the drag strip.
Many stock SL600 have run at the drag strip. As a matter of fact one was there the last time I was at the strip and never ran faster than 13.0.
That article in C&D was BS. Everyone knows that.
Bring your stock SL600 and I will bring my $1000.
A non-tuned SL600 is not faster than a SL65 in 0-60 or the quarter.
Enjoy your SL600 but don't be fooled into believing that it is faster than a SL65.
Cheers!
Schiz
I will give you $1000 cash if you can prove your STOCK SL600 is faster than my STOCK SL65 at the drag strip.
Many stock SL600 have run at the drag strip. As a matter of fact one was there the last time I was at the strip and never ran faster than 13.0.
That article in C&D was BS. Everyone knows that.
Bring your stock SL600 and I will bring my $1000.
A non-tuned SL600 is not faster than a SL65 in 0-60 or the quarter.
Enjoy your SL600 but don't be fooled into believing that it is faster than a SL65.
Cheers!
Schiz
01-04-2007 | 04:12 PM
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 384
From: Kenilworth, il usa
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
The SL600 is the ONLY way to go, and here is why: 0-60 in 3.6 seconds same as the Mercedes SLR.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
01-05-2007 | 12:10 AM
#13
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Whatever I feel like
The SL600 is the ONLY way to go, and here is why: 0-60 in 3.6 seconds same as the Mercedes SLR.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Mercedes screwed up marketing wise with the SL600. They had to have a 600 car, and they had to have an AMG car, but what they ended up with was an engine that produced massive amounts of torque, which ended up being faster than both the SL55 and SL65. So what did they do? Well they misrepresented the true performance of the SL600 and advertised it as 4.7 seconds from 0-60 so they would marketingwise have a car that was on par with the SL55, when in fact it was much faster. Car and Driver tested it at 3.6 seconds and here is the article to prove it:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...enz-sl600.html
Do you know what a disaster it would be if people realized that the SL600 was as fast as the $500000 MacLaren SLR, tested at 0-60 in also 3.6 seconds? Well it was, and here is the Car and Driver article to prove that figure:
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...r-mclaren.html
So now the SL600 is just as fast as the SLR and even faster than even the SL65 which has even more torque (0-60 in 3.8). Why? Well because the SL65 has TOO much torque making the wheels spin, loosing traction and time. Here is the Car and Driver article to prove that the SL65 is slower than the SL600:
http://www.caranddriver.com/shortroa...-sl65-amg.html
So with the SL600 they made a true supercar but one that was not appealing to the AMG buyers because it did not have the AMG looks to it (who cares? buy the SL600 and add some wheels and a body kit and save money off the overpriced AMG kit anyways). The average SL600 buyer is a different part of the market. That's why so many people buy the SL55 because they are uneducated buyers who dont know about these true tests. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
01-05-2007 | 02:32 PM
#14
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 136
Likes: 16
From: California
AMG GTS, Bentley GT,SL600, Range Rover V8 5.0 Supercharged, Aston Martin Rapide S, S600
SL600 stats
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
01-05-2007 | 04:15 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,930
Likes: 384
From: Kenilworth, il usa
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
SL600 is faster then SL65 and is also equal to SLR...
01-05-2007 | 05:33 PM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 4
From: Ann Arbor
'03 SL55
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
That said, Car and Driver has the only drivers on earth to have clocked a 3.6 second 0-60 time in a supposedly stock SL600. Everyone else runs in the mid 4s. Clearly the C&D test car wasn't stock.
Anyone who plans on buying an SL600 in hopes of getting a 3.6 second car should make a trial acceleration run first. S/he is likely to be disappointed.
01-05-2007 | 05:39 PM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,837
Likes: 7
CLK63BS, SL55, G55, C43
Or it is just a typo. Think about it. 4.6s seems more plausible. And a typo is easily made.
01-05-2007 | 06:09 PM
#19
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,428
Likes: 2
SL65, E55T, Pending S65
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
Let me be clear, I don't think the SL65 is faster than a stock SL600, it is. The SL65 puts down the power much better than you would think. I have put down 1.8x 60' time running stock rubber on my SL65 on my way to 11.69's bone stock. With just drag radials I have run 11.5's.
I will raise the challenge to $5000. You bring the SL600 and I will bring my SL65 and we can settle this at the drag strip.
Your data is all screwed up. C&D never had the ***** to admit they were wrong.
No other stock SL600 has EVER EVER EVER run any where near an 11.9. As a matter of fact, I don't know a single one that has run under 12.4.
You keep spouting off around here like you know what you are talking about but you are racing magazines.
Take your car to the drag strip, on any given day it could possibly be beaten by an SL55. The performance of the two are much closer than what you would think. I hate to tell you, but the added weight of your SL600 plus the taller rear axle ratio really hurts the SL600 in a drag racing environment.
Stop quoting magazine articles and let's start talking about real world results.
Take your car to the drag strip and prepare to be disappointed if you think it is faster than a SL65 of a SLR.
I have seen SL600's run at the drag strip, they are NOT 11 second cars in stock trim.
Bring your money and let's go! You are living in never never land.
Cheers!
Schiz
01-05-2007 | 06:14 PM
#20
Super Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
From: Bethesda,Md.
Bentley Arnage Red Label
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
You must be joking. Look at all the actual stats from people that have these cars. Traction isn't an issue on every run so that is BS. Car and driver is your source for the most respected magazine? Why is this the only mag that has these times and why can no owners achieve these times? With your logic the SL500 should be faster than all of them because the 600 has wheelspin issues as well!
01-05-2007 | 06:27 PM
#21
Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
Whatever I feel like
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
Common sense is where I come up with these claims and real world data. I can only blame Car and Driver for putting these ideas in your head.
01-06-2007 | 01:15 AM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 3,436
Likes: 5
300ce
There is no evidence whatsoever that the SL600 C&D tested was ECU tuned. Where do you come up with these claims? In fact if it was ECU tuned it would run into the same problem that the SL65 has: TOO MUCH TORQUE!!...and be slower.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
I am giving you statistics from the most respected car magazine and it is in writing. You may think the SL65 is faster when you are in it because you obviously feel the extra torque, but the fact of the matter is only the mechanical instruments can prove that the SL600 is slightly faster, and it in fact is. The 1/4 mile tested are both 11.9 seconds. But it does make sense that because of the traction problem the SL65 is slightly slower than the SL600 in acceleration. You just can't put 285/30/19 tires on a car with 738 lb ft of torque. What Mercedes should have done is flared out the rear fenders so the car could take an 11 or 11.5 inch rear wheel and a 315 or 325 size tire.
No need to get upset here, we are just talking engineering and facts which are backed up by Car and Driver magazine. The SL65 is an amazing car, no question, but the fact is that the SL600 is just faster.
............What you need to understand is that ven if one accepts the 11.9 secs in the 1/4 mile your are pushing, the SL600 is still slower than an SL65. I have seen stock SL65's including Schiznik car run 11.5 in the 1/4 mile.
Ted
01-06-2007 | 11:09 AM
#25
Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 211
Likes: 0
From: Upstate NY, Ponte Vedra FL
SL55, Cayenne S, Tundra, 360 spider
