Scruffyone

Jeeze, I pulled 4 of the plug wires on my SL55 and still blew a m5(sorry, it don't deserv the caps) into the weeds. Driver got seriously injured because I went by him so fast that he thought his car stopped and opened the door and got out.

Addicted2Speed

You're not going to seriously argue that CLS55 is faster around a track than Porsche GT3, BMW M3 CSL, Porsche 997 Carrera S, 911 turbo, EVO 9, Lotus Exige, and even SRT10-Viper, are you? The only crazy lap time on that whole list is CLS55 at 1:26... all other times are realistic and the order is almost the same as other magz got (like EVO). Clearly that CLS55 time is wrong, any rational person will tell you that just by looking at the list. A freaking Lamborghini Gallardo only manages a 1.25.8, and you're telling me that CLS55 is almost as fast on a tight track. Please....

P.S. Here's the list BTW http://www.topgear.com/content/tgonb...ptimes/thestig

0700700

you did notice the CLS55 time was on a wet track?
all this talk about different conditions and then you suddenly
forget to mention that in your times

and besides they tested the CLS55's time around bedford autodrome
in the dry (mid 2006, details in the issue) and they got around 1:30
(i dont have the issue in front of me for the precise time)


summary
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/carg...es_cls_55.html

issue information
http://www.evo.co.uk/news/evonews/67...onths_evo.html

Addicted2Speed

That's true, CLS55 lapped 1.35.50 when the course was wet. Even if it did manage low 1.30 like you said, that's reasonable to expect considering the other cars in that range, I don't have any problem with Evo times. This still doesn't explain Top Gear CLS55 time, which is faster than track-ready cars like Porsche GT3 and SRT10 Viper. Evo times are right, its the Top Gear that has wrong times.

Murtaza

Nah, i'm with you on this one. That time does seem way off.

SL55 MKB

I'm interested in the new 997 turbo- BMW M5 - Audi RS4-...are they availalble? or top gear didnt race them around the track

termigni

Sorry for thread jacking but, how old are you? you think supplying liquor to some dumb under age girls and getting them half naked is something to brag about?

if you are like 19 then forget what i said.. you are the man.


go on with your posts everyone...

Scruffyone

I can hook you up with a 997TT. Dealer will even give you an EVO 650 hp kit, for free.

Murtaza

Unless he's 60, I don't see anything wrong with that

jeanmarc

Can we just close this thread already? We get it. A 2007 M5/M6 will beat a 2003 SL55, that's understandable.

Why not put up the best BMW engine against the best MB engine... or even a M5/M6 against an SL65?... Oh that's right, because it would be pointless and all the Bimmer fans would be crying about how unfair it is.

We all know the car is only as good as the driver.

BMW states 2007 M5/M6 0-60 times - 4.8 sec.
MB states 2007 SL55 0-60 times - 4.5 sec.

now.. I'm no genius but.... I think this is settled.

AlbertM

I have an 04 SL55 (stock) and tried racing M5 and M6 on the way to captree. Well, I can tell you guys for sure:
SL55 is faster then M5 at any speed, and about dead even with M6. Also, I had my hard top down. Anyway, I thought that M5 and M6 would beat me hands down. We raced from about 80/70mph to about 150+ several times and same results every time. I would end up about a car length ahead of M5 and about even with M6.

Whoever says that M6 or M5 would eat SL55 is just full of it plain and simple.

Albert.

S500Sport

Hogwash, they used good photoshop. Or the SL driver didn't want to abuse his engine.

jeanmarc

I have an '04 SL55... I'll have to take your word for it as I haven't had the opportunity to race either, but there are some questions about your post considering the M5/M6 have the same exact engine... so how could you beat the M5 and not the M6 -- I mean, I know the M6 is actually lighter but they limit the computer so performance wise it should be exactly on par with the M5.

M5 Weight - 4012 lbs.
M6 Weight - 3909 lbs.

Secondary to the fact that we always have to take in account the year car you are racing. A 2006 M5 posts a 0-60 time of 4.8 (.1 second slower than the 2004 SL55) -- but the 2007 M5 posts a 0-60 time of 4.5 (.2 second faster than a 2004 SL55)

This is getting highly complicated. I still think it all comes down to the driver in the end. If you stomp it and the wheel slips you lose your .3 second advantage right there. Every night before bed I pray to meet one of these at a red light though.

On another note I stomped the crap out of a WRX STi last night (if anyone cares). Those Suburu *****s always seem to talk a lot of trash, I'm glad I finally got to race one. (Suburu claims a 0-60 time of 4.2 seconds and they always talk about being faster than Ferrari's and all kinds of other trash talk) -- whoever I raced if you're reading this... learn to shift 'cause you got

ok, i'm done.

Zod

Guys if you are not happy with the times their is an actual video of the lap time on top gear search for it on youtupe.
Here the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sgpHdg1Fr0
As for the troll ( sorry i hate to use the word) the m5 is faster then the cls on the top gear track but only by .7 or .8 of a sec, if i remember. and this is meant to be the bimmers playing field the 'twists' ^_^
Bottom line both cars are not far off in performance each have their advantages disadvantages. It's down to preference

cntlaw

+1
He is a troll, same 16 year age guy. Oh, sht...he's back!

NSM

A little off topic, but I know of several STIs and Evos that I would be concerned about in my SL65. They do thing with those cars that defy belief (when done right). The third car I am always cautious with is the Supra. I've seen all three run 1/4 mile times that are hard to believe, then drive them home...

Of course, they probably say the same about the benz, and I never even come close to spilling my coffee while doing it...

Scott

jeanmarc

Yes, that's why I posted that on here. I know most of you don't give a damn about STi's & Evo's but they definately have the potential to give our AMG's a run (or beating for that matter) with the right mods/drivers. I thought it would be a good race but it wasn't but I'll still take them seriously everytime one wants to race.

All this talk about the M5/M6 beating my SL55 though has got me going for a test drive today. If it seems any faster at all I'll probably pick it up (the M6 coupe). I'll let you guys know how it goes.

CynCarvin32

The same goes for the CLS that is 250 lb more than an E-Class equivalent. I dont know why it is so much heavier but it most surely is!

Taking weight out of an AMG car is near impossible after some logical steps like wheels, brakes, and a lighter batt. You either have to get some custom body panels OR start yanking out equipment you dont NEED.

Some tuners have welded the top Shut on some SL's to pull a couple hundred pounds out of the car. But why drive an SL with a closed roof?

AlbertM

I can not explain why my SL beat M5 (BTW it was a 2007 M5), I talked to the owner at captree meet (very nice guy). He was surprised as well about the results. I know all the figures show that M5 and M6 should beat or at least be even with SL55. But the fact of the matter is that I raced M5 and M6 with my top down several times and same result every time. We can go on and on about what the published numbers are, all I can tell you is this: that 2007 M5 was slower then my SL and I dont know why.

Also I had several runs with other M5s before (not sure about the year) and my SL was faster. So go figure. Frankly I dont care why it is the case, all i know is what happened.

DamonAnthony

I drove an SL 55 today for the first time today and popped onto the SL forum to sus them out abit and came across this thread.
The SL55....wow what a car!!!
Firstly though, the M3 is a great car, as far as my "butt dyno" is concerned, it feels like a close competitor to a 355.
The M5 is too an awsome car but my but dyno felt that my mates Gransport felt quicker, this might be because the m5 is a big prestige car though.
That actually brings me to the reason I came to the SL thread.
It is REALLY hard to tell but is the 55 faster than a Gransport? The SL55 is a monster to drive but such a luxury coupe too where the Maserati is built just to go-FAST, and always feels fast!
Has anyone here raced a Gransport, I'm really interested to know, infact I've got $100 on it with a mate the SL is quicker.
Either way though if my butt dyno is correct, the M5 spanks the M3, and the SL55 spanks the M5, and the guy who started this thread, crapping on about his SL55, is just a tosser.

ItalianStallion

I'm almost positive you would beat any Maserati (besides MC12) with an SL55.

Benzito11

have any of you ran a 997S with a your stock sl55

RaFFi ///AMG

Benzito11

Says the guy driving the pontiac sunfire with rotting paint and occasional champanski

RaFFi ///AMG