SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: ***SL 63 vs SL 55***
12-28-2006, 12:24 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
***SL 63 vs SL 55***
Ive been driving an 98 S420 for some time now..it is a very reliable car as my daily driver. Ive got almost 140,000miles on her. She is lowered with 20 inch lexani and rides like a champion. I have no complaints whatsoever. Now last week, i drove by a local dealership and saw something that i cant stop thinking about
The SL 55 in the color Grey and a big red sign that says SALE SALE!!
Its such a nice vehicle with awesome reviews from all over. My neighbor always raps about how unbelievable his car is and so ... and so. I drove it a few times before and it was very amazing. But should i wait for the SL 63? Do you guys think it is worth it? To be honest, its not about the money factor, IT IS about the reliability and daily driveability. What do yall think? SL 55 or SL 63??
What kind of numbers are SL 63 putting out ? THanks .
The SL 55 in the color Grey and a big red sign that says SALE SALE!! Its such a nice vehicle with awesome reviews from all over. My neighbor always raps about how unbelievable his car is and so ... and so. I drove it a few times before and it was very amazing. But should i wait for the SL 63? Do you guys think it is worth it? To be honest, its not about the money factor, IT IS about the reliability and daily driveability. What do yall think? SL 55 or SL 63??
What kind of numbers are SL 63 putting out ? THanks .
12-28-2006, 12:35 PM
#2
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Was the 55 a recent model year? If so, it probably has all problems sorted out unlike first year models usually do...
The 63 engine is atmospheric, i.e. it does not have force induction such as a kompressor (supercharger) or a turbo (the 55 has a kompressor).
The power numbers on the 55 versus 63 show that the 55 with a kompressor has a bit more torque then the 63, but the 63 engine is simpler, is rev happy (some people like this), and is also lighter then the 55 engine (supposedly 20lbs lighter then a 55 without a kompressor... and the kompressor definitely adds another 20lbs I think).
Also, the recent vehicles that have received the 63 engine, have benefited from the 7G gearbox resulting in better launches and faster shifting. So it seems like the new AMG's equipped with the 63 engines, even if they have a little less torque, do actually perform better then the 55's...
So ultimately, you'd be looking at a car which performs just as well if not better (faster shifts and a lighter car on the front end), but it would also be more reliable thanks to a simpler designed engine (but the gearbox however might be a bit heavier then the earlier one, and with a little more complexity as well... but it works fine in my SLK 55 AMG).
However, a cheap and simple pulley upgrade on a 55 will give you an extra 50 or so hp and more torque (at the expense of lost warranty and possibly less reliability).
If you can get the 55 for a very good deal, I'd say might as well go for it. The "extras" from the 63 might not be worth it (but the 63 badge instead of a 55 is always nice to have I guess).
That's my two cents.
*edit* Whilst the 63 engine is simpler because it has no kompressor, the 63 engine however has two oil pumps and is dual overhead cam, versus the single one on the 55... so it's a bit of a moot point I guess... but in general, you don't really hear that often of problems with AMG engines now do you. Most problems with MB's have been due to electronics as of late.
The 63 engine is atmospheric, i.e. it does not have force induction such as a kompressor (supercharger) or a turbo (the 55 has a kompressor).
The power numbers on the 55 versus 63 show that the 55 with a kompressor has a bit more torque then the 63, but the 63 engine is simpler, is rev happy (some people like this), and is also lighter then the 55 engine (supposedly 20lbs lighter then a 55 without a kompressor... and the kompressor definitely adds another 20lbs I think).
Also, the recent vehicles that have received the 63 engine, have benefited from the 7G gearbox resulting in better launches and faster shifting. So it seems like the new AMG's equipped with the 63 engines, even if they have a little less torque, do actually perform better then the 55's...
So ultimately, you'd be looking at a car which performs just as well if not better (faster shifts and a lighter car on the front end), but it would also be more reliable thanks to a simpler designed engine (but the gearbox however might be a bit heavier then the earlier one, and with a little more complexity as well... but it works fine in my SLK 55 AMG).
However, a cheap and simple pulley upgrade on a 55 will give you an extra 50 or so hp and more torque (at the expense of lost warranty and possibly less reliability).
If you can get the 55 for a very good deal, I'd say might as well go for it. The "extras" from the 63 might not be worth it (but the 63 badge instead of a 55 is always nice to have I guess).
That's my two cents.
*edit* Whilst the 63 engine is simpler because it has no kompressor, the 63 engine however has two oil pumps and is dual overhead cam, versus the single one on the 55... so it's a bit of a moot point I guess... but in general, you don't really hear that often of problems with AMG engines now do you. Most problems with MB's have been due to electronics as of late.
Last edited by Shinigami; 12-28-2006 at 12:37 PM.
12-28-2006, 12:51 PM
#3
I'd go for a slightly used SL65 right now.
V12 bi-turbo.
You can find one (from what I've heard and read) for around 140k$.
Other then that, I'd go for the SL55 next (assuming you really want AMG)
and then SL600 for the sole reason that it responds VERY well to a simple ECU modification.
We're talking numbers in a straight line that make pure-bred sports cars tremble!
V12 bi-turbo.
You can find one (from what I've heard and read) for around 140k$.
Other then that, I'd go for the SL55 next (assuming you really want AMG)
and then SL600 for the sole reason that it responds VERY well to a simple ECU modification.
We're talking numbers in a straight line that make pure-bred sports cars tremble!
12-28-2006, 01:33 PM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
I'd go for a slightly used SL65 right now.
V12 bi-turbo.
You can find one (from what I've heard and read) for around 140k$.
Other then that, I'd go for the SL55 next (assuming you really want AMG)
and then SL600 for the sole reason that it responds VERY well to a simple ECU modification.
We're talking numbers in a straight line that make pure-bred sports cars tremble!
V12 bi-turbo.
You can find one (from what I've heard and read) for around 140k$.
Other then that, I'd go for the SL55 next (assuming you really want AMG)
and then SL600 for the sole reason that it responds VERY well to a simple ECU modification.
We're talking numbers in a straight line that make pure-bred sports cars tremble!
12-28-2006, 01:44 PM
#5
There you go, even cheaper cars with exotic power. Not to mention the ability of having two cars in one (top up or top down).
I just can't stress enough though how crucial it is to get the latest model year you can and if you can get warranty DO IT not to mention extended warranty as well if you plan on keeping the car for a while.
12-28-2006, 01:56 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thanks for the clarification!
There you go, even cheaper cars with exotic power. Not to mention the ability of having two cars in one (top up or top down).
I just can't stress enough though how crucial it is to get the latest model year you can and if you can get warranty DO IT not to mention extended warranty as well if you plan on keeping the car for a while.
There you go, even cheaper cars with exotic power. Not to mention the ability of having two cars in one (top up or top down).
I just can't stress enough though how crucial it is to get the latest model year you can and if you can get warranty DO IT not to mention extended warranty as well if you plan on keeping the car for a while.
Trending Topics
12-28-2006, 07:57 PM
#8
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 SL 55 AMG, 01 Turbusa/8.43 @ 183..1/4 mi.
It is advisable to install the upgraded IC pump and 2nd Intercooler available from Renntech to bleed off excess heat created with the additional power..........especially when the warmer summer months are here and the car is driven "hard".
I now have the pump kit (Courtesy of Adam at EuroeElites) and it will go on the car this next week, although in my heart, I feel it is almost "Overkill" to run two intercoolers.........but I trust my sources.........."insurance" is nice....and a more consistent intake temperature has got to translate into a positive benefit.
Dave
12-28-2006, 08:10 PM
#9
Super Member
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 637
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL55, ML500, GT3 RS, 997C2S
I would not wait for an SL63 as it may never come. The 55, 600, and the 65 all can be easily modded and the 5 speed tranny can take the additional torque if you do choose to mod it. Trying to get more power from the 63 will be very very $$$$$$. If you wait for the next big thing you will always be waiting.
12-29-2006, 12:09 AM
#10
MBWorld Fanatic!
The 63 engine is a very powerful engine, intended for a twin turbo setup. However, if you are looking to modify your car with as little as possible (in terms of cash) for more power/torque, then the 55 k is the only way to go.
12-29-2006, 06:40 AM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
However, my local dealer was selling a 55 with a pulley kit (550hp) and they said the warranty would stay intact.
I guess it depends a bit with who you speak.
12-29-2006, 09:51 AM
#13
However, my local dealer was selling a 55 with a pulley kit (550hp) and they said the warranty would stay intact.
I don't remember the exact spelling, but the Magnuss Moss Act states that a dealer cannot invalidate your warranty unless they can prove the modification was the cause of the problem. That means if your headers for some reason snap / crack, they can't blame your HRE's. But if you chip your car and you blow a piston -- well you're SOL.
Anyways, I haven't read a significant (statistically speaking) amount of stories where modded Mercedes have met their fates in an adverse manner, so mod away!
01-04-2007, 01:23 PM
#15
Member
SL600 is faster than SL55 and SL65
I hope you have not made your decision yet because 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:
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 this huge secret of Mercedes. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Dont waste your money on the SL55. The dealer wants you to buy it because they make more money off of it. It's a slow car, doesnt have a leather dash, and is way overpriced for what you get. Ask ANY Mercedes salesperson the performance difference between the SL55 AMG and the SL600 and they will tell you they are about the same and this is 100% false. So dont listen to them and do NOT buy the SL550 either. Read the Car and Driver article link and you will see what I mean.
Good luck!
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:
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 this huge secret of Mercedes. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Dont waste your money on the SL55. The dealer wants you to buy it because they make more money off of it. It's a slow car, doesnt have a leather dash, and is way overpriced for what you get. Ask ANY Mercedes salesperson the performance difference between the SL55 AMG and the SL600 and they will tell you they are about the same and this is 100% false. So dont listen to them and do NOT buy the SL550 either. Read the Car and Driver article link and you will see what I mean.
Good luck!
01-04-2007, 02:53 PM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
I hope you have not made your decision yet because 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:
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 this huge secret of Mercedes. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Dont waste your money on the SL55. The dealer wants you to buy it because they make more money off of it. It's a slow car, doesnt have a leather dash, and is way overpriced for what you get. Ask ANY Mercedes salesperson the performance difference between the SL55 AMG and the SL600 and they will tell you they are about the same and this is 100% false. So dont listen to them and do NOT buy the SL550 either. Read the Car and Driver article link and you will see what I mean.
Good luck!
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:
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 this huge secret of Mercedes. But with a little investigation it is clear that the SL600 is the best SL out there. EVER.
Dont waste your money on the SL55. The dealer wants you to buy it because they make more money off of it. It's a slow car, doesnt have a leather dash, and is way overpriced for what you get. Ask ANY Mercedes salesperson the performance difference between the SL55 AMG and the SL600 and they will tell you they are about the same and this is 100% false. So dont listen to them and do NOT buy the SL550 either. Read the Car and Driver article link and you will see what I mean.
Good luck!
https://mbworld.org/forums/sl55-amg-sl63-amg-sl65-amg-r230/173409-sl600-vs-sl65.html
If you actually believe this, you are gullible..... Your SL600 is not a 3.6 0-60 car.
Never has been stock, never will be. Check every other data point for a stock SL600 and you will see.
Don't believe everything you read.
01-04-2007, 07:47 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05 SL 55 AMG, 01 Turbusa/8.43 @ 183..1/4 mi.
As I said in my other post, you are nuts.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173409
If you actually believe this, you are gullible..... Your SL600 is not a 3.6 0-60 car.
Never has been stock, never will be. Check every other data point for a stock SL600 and you will see.
Don't believe everything you read.
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=173409
If you actually believe this, you are gullible..... Your SL600 is not a 3.6 0-60 car.
Never has been stock, never will be. Check every other data point for a stock SL600 and you will see.
Don't believe everything you read.
01-04-2007, 08:29 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irvine, CA.
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 SL55, 2000 CL500
The good old SL55 vs SL600 thread again.
It says SL63 Vs SL55 and this is the AMG section.
And now we have the SL600 "party line" once again.
Nothing wrong with a 600. But it is not a AMG SL55.
Driven both.
Own the AMG
SL55 keeps its resale better.
SL55 handles way better in the curves.
SL55 Sounds meaner.
Waiting for a SL63 may take longer than Jesus for sure.
Get the 55 !
And now we have the SL600 "party line" once again.
Nothing wrong with a 600. But it is not a AMG SL55.
Driven both.
Own the AMG
SL55 keeps its resale better.
SL55 handles way better in the curves.
SL55 Sounds meaner.
Waiting for a SL63 may take longer than Jesus for sure.
Get the 55 !
01-05-2007, 02:42 PM
#19
Member
SL55 does NOT outperform the SL600
1/4 mile for SL600 is 11.9 seconds. I will definitely believe a trusted magazine like Car and Driver that has many years of experience and training behind it. I owned a Porsche 996 Turbo which is 0-60 in 3.8 to 3.9 seconds and the SL600 is definitely faster.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
01-05-2007, 04:19 PM
#20
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irvine, CA.
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 SL55, 2000 CL500
Do you own said car ?
Quoting Car and Driver and owning one are some big differences.
Owning a high end SL car is more than just the quarter mile.
The AMG package in a SL55 is very different than a SL600
as far as handling. Drive both cars and find out for yourself.
Wasting money is what happens when you have a V12
and little things call depreciation and maintenance
overcome your cost of ownership.
I am sooooo glad I wasted my money on my SL55 !
Owning a high end SL car is more than just the quarter mile.
The AMG package in a SL55 is very different than a SL600
as far as handling. Drive both cars and find out for yourself.
Wasting money is what happens when you have a V12
and little things call depreciation and maintenance
overcome your cost of ownership.
I am sooooo glad I wasted my money on my SL55 !
01-05-2007, 04:52 PM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: back in Jersey
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
360 Spider
I think all R230s drop this time of the year:
https://mbworld.org/forums/classifieds/170747-fs-2005-sl55-131-010-orig-msrp-now-96-000-pictures.html
That car is beautiful & is on eBay for a $82K BIN!!!
https://mbworld.org/forums/classifieds/170747-fs-2005-sl55-131-010-orig-msrp-now-96-000-pictures.html
That car is beautiful & is on eBay for a $82K BIN!!!
01-05-2007, 05:42 PM
#23
MBWorld Fanatic!
1/4 mile for SL600 is 11.9 seconds. I will definitely believe a trusted magazine like Car and Driver that has many years of experience and training behind it. I owned a Porsche 996 Turbo which is 0-60 in 3.8 to 3.9 seconds and the SL600 is definitely faster.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
My advice in the other thread was for anyone planning to purchase an SL600 in hopes of getting a genuine 3.6 second 0-60 should make a trial run first. S/he is likely to be disappointed.
Make no mistake: the SL600 is a terrific car, but it will take many $ thousands in mods to turn it into a 3.6 second pavement ripper.
01-05-2007, 06:02 PM
#24
MBWorld Fanatic!
1/4 mile for SL600 is 11.9 seconds. I will definitely believe a trusted magazine like Car and Driver that has many years of experience and training behind it. I owned a Porsche 996 Turbo which is 0-60 in 3.8 to 3.9 seconds and the SL600 is definitely faster.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
As far as the Sl55 is concerned I'm sure my SL65 fans will even agree that it does not even come close to the performance of the SL600. The SL600 outperforms the SL55 in every category. Period. The SL55 just does not have enough torque. But I agree that it does sound meaner. And if you are into exhaust noise, spend $2500 on a Brabus exhaust and get the Sl600...don't waste your money on an SL55.
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!
Cheers!
Schiz
