SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: Got killed in my SL65...
08-13-2007, 12:17 PM
#26
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm I recall hearing that Ferrari was notorious for doing up their test cars, what exactly they did I am not sure... think I heard it on top gear.
Would not be surprised if other car manufacturers also did this, to gain publicity. Some engine tweaks, extra sport packages, tires etc.
One test is not enough some times and data collection needs to be from tracks, on roads, different cars and from a lot of sources etc to get an avg of all the numbers and compare, me thinks at least
.
In this case I think the Ferrari does have the edge on the stock sl65 , but tuned hmmm…
maybe if you wife drove it and it had pink interior color to go she would have creamed u
!
hehe just kiding have fun man and enjoy life
I would die if i had both, as i would not know which set of keys to take with me when i go out!! maybe both!!
Would not be surprised if other car manufacturers also did this, to gain publicity. Some engine tweaks, extra sport packages, tires etc.
One test is not enough some times and data collection needs to be from tracks, on roads, different cars and from a lot of sources etc to get an avg of all the numbers and compare, me thinks at least
. In this case I think the Ferrari does have the edge on the stock sl65 , but tuned hmmm…
maybe if you wife drove it and it had pink interior color to go she would have creamed u
!hehe just kiding have fun man and enjoy life
I would die if i had both, as i would not know which set of keys to take with me when i go out!! maybe both!!
In another documented instance, in the Quattroroute test of the F430, Gallardo SE, Z06 and 997Turbo. In stock form the 430 put down the WORST track time of all 4. That was until the Ferrari engineers onhand complained, took the 430, made suspension changes suited entirely for that track and came back to barely beat the Gallardo.
08-13-2007, 06:03 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
....did a high speed shootout at Nardo in '06 including, among others, the SLR and the 599.
Results:
SLR test results:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,5 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,9 s
599 test results:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 250 km/h 16,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 29,9 s
Now, if these test results were reversed, allanlambo would be quoting them. However, they show the 599 as faster, hence allanlambo will attack them, as he will attack me, for the unforgivable sin of posting scientific test results which don't suit his preconceived notions. This is what is defined as a "magazine racer" in the lexicon of allanlambo. A "true racer" would only post test results showing the car allanlambo is arguing to be faster as faster.
The response will be something like this:
Waitin' for it!
Results:
SLR test results:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,5 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,9 s
599 test results:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 250 km/h 16,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 29,9 s
Now, if these test results were reversed, allanlambo would be quoting them. However, they show the 599 as faster, hence allanlambo will attack them, as he will attack me, for the unforgivable sin of posting scientific test results which don't suit his preconceived notions. This is what is defined as a "magazine racer" in the lexicon of allanlambo. A "true racer" would only post test results showing the car allanlambo is arguing to be faster as faster.
The response will be something like this:
Originally Posted by allanlardass
You are a "magazine racer"! You can't afford any of the cars I own, not even the Mini! You can't even afford the tires!! I am sooo cool, and sooo rich, and even though it has zip to do with what we're talking about, I'm going to say it anyway!
You're just jealous because you're not Allanlambo, The Richest Man on the Internet! Feel my wealth! Stroke it!! ENVY IT!!! Muhhaaaaaa, I'm rich! Rich! RICH, I TELLS YA!! ALL YOUR POOR FOLK ARE BELONG TO US!!!
You're just jealous because you're not Allanlambo, The Richest Man on the Internet! Feel my wealth! Stroke it!! ENVY IT!!! Muhhaaaaaa, I'm rich! Rich! RICH, I TELLS YA!! ALL YOUR POOR FOLK ARE BELONG TO US!!!
Waitin' for it!
When you own any of the above mentioned cars, and can draw your own conclusions, come back to us.
But since you are such a good magazine racer, I happen to have the new Road and Track in front of me. The figures vary greatly from yours.
In the 1/4 the SLR beat the RUF RT12, actually tied in ET at 11.6 but the SLR traveling at 128.1, and the RUF at 127.2.
In 1/2 a mile at 17.9 sec the SLR was going 156.6mph. Thats slightly faster than going 250kmh, and already 6/10ths of a second faster.
Now 300kmh is 186mph, in your test it took the SLR 36.9sec to reach that speed. In the Road and track test, they reached 181.2mph in 28.4 sec. With your logic it only takes the SLR another 8 seconds to go 5mph faster.
Unlike you, I prefer to go into my garage, hop into one of these fantastic machines, and go for a ride. Since according to you, you pride yourself in being a millionaire in the Sam Walton form, you much prefer to sit at home reading about them for free on the internet. After all, why spend the money on a magazine.
But since you are such a good magazine racer, I happen to have the new Road and Track in front of me. The figures vary greatly from yours.
In the 1/4 the SLR beat the RUF RT12, actually tied in ET at 11.6 but the SLR traveling at 128.1, and the RUF at 127.2.
In 1/2 a mile at 17.9 sec the SLR was going 156.6mph. Thats slightly faster than going 250kmh, and already 6/10ths of a second faster.
Now 300kmh is 186mph, in your test it took the SLR 36.9sec to reach that speed. In the Road and track test, they reached 181.2mph in 28.4 sec. With your logic it only takes the SLR another 8 seconds to go 5mph faster.
Unlike you, I prefer to go into my garage, hop into one of these fantastic machines, and go for a ride. Since according to you, you pride yourself in being a millionaire in the Sam Walton form, you much prefer to sit at home reading about them for free on the internet. After all, why spend the money on a magazine.
"I'm richer than you!"
"You can't afford my cars!"
"You are a magazine racer!"
"I will now cite a magazine after calling you a magazine racer!"
Did I miss anything? Naw, that's it...
The funny thing is that even when it's pointed out to you, you still cannot do anything else but resort to the same, time-tested-and-failed tactics.
Now, a few points:
1. You cite a test of a Ruf. I did not cite a test of a Ruf. I cited a test of a Ferrari.
2. You claim that "by my logic", blah blah blah. I did not use logic. I cited a test done by a publication. These are the numbers they got, allan. The fact that another publication got different numbers does not prove the other publication's numbers to be false.
In fact, Autobild, another German publication, also tested the SLR to 300 km/h. Here are their results:
Test in Auto Bild sportscars 01/2007
Gewicht (1755) kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,3 s
Within 0.3 seconds of the results posted by AMS. Now *that* is consistency.
3. Again, after calling me a "magazine racer" as predicted, you cite a magazine.
4. Ignorant of high-speed physics, you write:
Originally Posted by allanlambo
In the Road and track test, they reached 181.2mph in 28.4 sec. With your logic it only takes the SLR another 8 seconds to go 5mph faster
And again, I used no "logic", I posted measured test results. These results were obtained with instruments, not "logic".
As to how long it takes these cars to add a certain number of mph at those high speeds where aerodynamic drag is huge, I'll defer to the magazine article that you cited:
SLR numbers from Road & Track:
0-1/2 mile time/speed, SLR: 17.9 seconds/156.6 mph.
0-3/4 mile time/speed, SLR: 23.3 seconds/172.1 mph.
0-1.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 28.4 seconds/181.2 mph.
0-2.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 47.2 seconds/199.5 mph
Note that from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph (a difference of 15.5 mph) took the car 5.4 seconds. Average: 2.87 mph/second.
To go from 172.1 mph to 181.2 mph (a difference of 9.1 mph) took the car 5.1 seconds. Average: 1.78 mph/second, a 48% reduction.
To go from 181.2 mph to 199.5 mph, a difference of 18.3 mph, took the car 18.8 seconds. Average: 0.97 mph/second, 55% reduction from what it took from 172 to 181. Note that adding this extra 18.3 mph took the car a full mile.
Why? Because the air resistance increases with the square of velocity (as the article points out). So from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph, (above) the air resistance increased by 21%. From 172.1 to 181.2, it increased yet again, by 11% (from what it was at 172.1). And from 181.2 to 186.4, it would increase by still another 6% from what it was at 181.2.
So yes, scientifically speaking, those extra 5.4 mph could (and did, as evidenced by the time and distance it took to hit 199.5) take it 5.4 more seconds, allan. You might do well to read the article in its entirety next time and grasp the concepts discussed therein, as they do discuss at length the huge toll drag extracts at high speeds.
Last edited by Improviz; 08-13-2007 at 06:12 PM.
08-13-2007, 06:25 PM
#28
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W221
I did.
CGT felt much more "hardcore",would be my choice over 599 for the track fun and games.
By the seat of pants "feel" it did not seem to be faster but apparently it is ,at least according to a lot of tests.
It definitely is more difficult to drive,599 is as docile as a Honda when compared to Porsche.
Ferrari was my choice because it was more livable and practical for my needs,with more accesible performance and not giving in (in real World) at all to Carrera.
Getting it at MSRP and being "safe" regarding resale value for at least a year was no brainer too.
I love the CGT but with my size the ergonomics did not work for me very well(unlike the Ferrari or SLR).
CGT felt much more "hardcore",would be my choice over 599 for the track fun and games.
By the seat of pants "feel" it did not seem to be faster but apparently it is ,at least according to a lot of tests.
It definitely is more difficult to drive,599 is as docile as a Honda when compared to Porsche.
Ferrari was my choice because it was more livable and practical for my needs,with more accesible performance and not giving in (in real World) at all to Carrera.
Getting it at MSRP and being "safe" regarding resale value for at least a year was no brainer too.
I love the CGT but with my size the ergonomics did not work for me very well(unlike the Ferrari or SLR).
One more thing, CGT, if I'm not mistaken, is mid engined car, what does it bring to driving dynamics?
08-13-2007, 06:42 PM
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: L.A., CA
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Actually, Mr. Science Whiz, 300 km/h is 186.4 mph, not 186. The delta is 5.4 mph.
And again, I used no "logic", I posted measured test results. These results were obtained with instruments, not "logic".
As to how long it takes these cars to add a certain number of mph at those high speeds where aerodynamic drag is huge, I'll defer to the magazine article that you cited:
SLR numbers from Road & Track:
0-1/2 mile time/speed, SLR: 17.9 seconds/156.6 mph.
0-3/4 mile time/speed, SLR: 23.3 seconds/172.1 mph.
0-1.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 28.4 seconds/181.2 mph.
0-2.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 47.2 seconds/199.5 mph
Note that from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph (a difference of 15.5 mph) took the car 5.4 seconds. Average: 2.87 mph/second.
To go from 172.1 mph to 181.2 mph (a difference of 9.1 mph) took the car 5.1 seconds. Average: 1.78 mph/second, a 48% reduction.
To go from 181.2 mph to 199.5 mph, a difference of 18.3 mph, took the car 18.8 seconds. Average: 0.97 mph/second, 55% reduction from what it took from 172 to 181. Note that adding this extra 18.3 mph took the car a full mile.
Why? Because the air resistance increases with the square of velocity (as the article points out). So from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph, (above) the air resistance increased by 21%. From 172.1 to 181.2, it increased yet again, by 11% (from what it was at 172.1). And from 181.2 to 186.4, it would increase by still another 6% from what it was at 181.2.
So yes, scientifically speaking, those extra 5.4 mph could (and did, as evidenced by the time and distance it took to hit 199.5) take it 5.4 more seconds, allan. You might do well to read the article in its entirety next time and grasp the concepts discussed therein, as they do discuss at length the huge toll drag extracts at high speeds.
And again, I used no "logic", I posted measured test results. These results were obtained with instruments, not "logic".
As to how long it takes these cars to add a certain number of mph at those high speeds where aerodynamic drag is huge, I'll defer to the magazine article that you cited:
SLR numbers from Road & Track:
0-1/2 mile time/speed, SLR: 17.9 seconds/156.6 mph.
0-3/4 mile time/speed, SLR: 23.3 seconds/172.1 mph.
0-1.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 28.4 seconds/181.2 mph.
0-2.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 47.2 seconds/199.5 mph
Note that from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph (a difference of 15.5 mph) took the car 5.4 seconds. Average: 2.87 mph/second.
To go from 172.1 mph to 181.2 mph (a difference of 9.1 mph) took the car 5.1 seconds. Average: 1.78 mph/second, a 48% reduction.
To go from 181.2 mph to 199.5 mph, a difference of 18.3 mph, took the car 18.8 seconds. Average: 0.97 mph/second, 55% reduction from what it took from 172 to 181. Note that adding this extra 18.3 mph took the car a full mile.
Why? Because the air resistance increases with the square of velocity (as the article points out). So from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph, (above) the air resistance increased by 21%. From 172.1 to 181.2, it increased yet again, by 11% (from what it was at 172.1). And from 181.2 to 186.4, it would increase by still another 6% from what it was at 181.2.
So yes, scientifically speaking, those extra 5.4 mph could (and did, as evidenced by the time and distance it took to hit 199.5) take it 5.4 more seconds, allan. You might do well to read the article in its entirety next time and grasp the concepts discussed therein, as they do discuss at length the huge toll drag extracts at high speeds.
08-13-2007, 08:07 PM
#30
Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To which allan, as predicted, 1) attacks me; 2) attacks the numbers 3) after calling me a "magazine racer", he cites a magazine:
Oh, allan...that was positively Pavlovian. My compliments....you're like a little wind-up doll: all we have to do is pull your little string, and out come the prepackaged quotes:
"I'm richer than you!"
"You can't afford my cars!"
"You are a magazine racer!"
"I will now cite a magazine after calling you a magazine racer!"
Did I miss anything? Naw, that's it...
The funny thing is that even when it's pointed out to you, you still cannot do anything else but resort to the same, time-tested-and-failed tactics.
Now, a few points:
1. You cite a test of a Ruf. I did not cite a test of a Ruf. I cited a test of a Ferrari.
2. You claim that "by my logic", blah blah blah. I did not use logic. I cited a test done by a publication. These are the numbers they got, allan. The fact that another publication got different numbers does not prove the other publication's numbers to be false.
In fact, Autobild, another German publication, also tested the SLR to 300 km/h. Here are their results:
Test in Auto Bild sportscars 01/2007
Gewicht (1755) kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,3 s
Within 0.3 seconds of the results posted by AMS. Now *that* is consistency.
3. Again, after calling me a "magazine racer" as predicted, you cite a magazine.
4. Ignorant of high-speed physics, you write:
Actually, Mr. Science Whiz, 300 km/h is 186.4 mph, not 186. The delta is 5.4 mph.
And again, I used no "logic", I posted measured test results. These results were obtained with instruments, not "logic".
As to how long it takes these cars to add a certain number of mph at those high speeds where aerodynamic drag is huge, I'll defer to the magazine article that you cited:
SLR numbers from Road & Track:
0-1/2 mile time/speed, SLR: 17.9 seconds/156.6 mph.
0-3/4 mile time/speed, SLR: 23.3 seconds/172.1 mph.
0-1.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 28.4 seconds/181.2 mph.
0-2.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 47.2 seconds/199.5 mph
Note that from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph (a difference of 15.5 mph) took the car 5.4 seconds. Average: 2.87 mph/second.
To go from 172.1 mph to 181.2 mph (a difference of 9.1 mph) took the car 5.1 seconds. Average: 1.78 mph/second, a 48% reduction.
To go from 181.2 mph to 199.5 mph, a difference of 18.3 mph, took the car 18.8 seconds. Average: 0.97 mph/second, 55% reduction from what it took from 172 to 181. Note that adding this extra 18.3 mph took the car a full mile.
Why? Because the air resistance increases with the square of velocity (as the article points out). So from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph, (above) the air resistance increased by 21%. From 172.1 to 181.2, it increased yet again, by 11% (from what it was at 172.1). And from 181.2 to 186.4, it would increase by still another 6% from what it was at 181.2.
So yes, scientifically speaking, those extra 5.4 mph could (and did, as evidenced by the time and distance it took to hit 199.5) take it 5.4 more seconds, allan. You might do well to read the article in its entirety next time and grasp the concepts discussed therein, as they do discuss at length the huge toll drag extracts at high speeds.
Oh, allan...that was positively Pavlovian. My compliments....you're like a little wind-up doll: all we have to do is pull your little string, and out come the prepackaged quotes:
"I'm richer than you!"
"You can't afford my cars!"
"You are a magazine racer!"
"I will now cite a magazine after calling you a magazine racer!"
Did I miss anything? Naw, that's it...
The funny thing is that even when it's pointed out to you, you still cannot do anything else but resort to the same, time-tested-and-failed tactics.
Now, a few points:
1. You cite a test of a Ruf. I did not cite a test of a Ruf. I cited a test of a Ferrari.
2. You claim that "by my logic", blah blah blah. I did not use logic. I cited a test done by a publication. These are the numbers they got, allan. The fact that another publication got different numbers does not prove the other publication's numbers to be false.
In fact, Autobild, another German publication, also tested the SLR to 300 km/h. Here are their results:
Test in Auto Bild sportscars 01/2007
Gewicht (1755) kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h 7,6 s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 250 km/h 18,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 36,3 s
Within 0.3 seconds of the results posted by AMS. Now *that* is consistency.
3. Again, after calling me a "magazine racer" as predicted, you cite a magazine.
4. Ignorant of high-speed physics, you write:
Actually, Mr. Science Whiz, 300 km/h is 186.4 mph, not 186. The delta is 5.4 mph.
And again, I used no "logic", I posted measured test results. These results were obtained with instruments, not "logic".
As to how long it takes these cars to add a certain number of mph at those high speeds where aerodynamic drag is huge, I'll defer to the magazine article that you cited:
SLR numbers from Road & Track:
0-1/2 mile time/speed, SLR: 17.9 seconds/156.6 mph.
0-3/4 mile time/speed, SLR: 23.3 seconds/172.1 mph.
0-1.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 28.4 seconds/181.2 mph.
0-2.0 mile time/speed, SLR: 47.2 seconds/199.5 mph
Note that from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph (a difference of 15.5 mph) took the car 5.4 seconds. Average: 2.87 mph/second.
To go from 172.1 mph to 181.2 mph (a difference of 9.1 mph) took the car 5.1 seconds. Average: 1.78 mph/second, a 48% reduction.
To go from 181.2 mph to 199.5 mph, a difference of 18.3 mph, took the car 18.8 seconds. Average: 0.97 mph/second, 55% reduction from what it took from 172 to 181. Note that adding this extra 18.3 mph took the car a full mile.
Why? Because the air resistance increases with the square of velocity (as the article points out). So from 156.6 mph to 172.1 mph, (above) the air resistance increased by 21%. From 172.1 to 181.2, it increased yet again, by 11% (from what it was at 172.1). And from 181.2 to 186.4, it would increase by still another 6% from what it was at 181.2.
So yes, scientifically speaking, those extra 5.4 mph could (and did, as evidenced by the time and distance it took to hit 199.5) take it 5.4 more seconds, allan. You might do well to read the article in its entirety next time and grasp the concepts discussed therein, as they do discuss at length the huge toll drag extracts at high speeds.
Its funny to watch the multi millionaire Sam Walton impersonator write books about cars he has never touched, driven, and kicked out of the dealer trying to take a peak at. If it wasnt for the fact that I despise the 599, Id buy one just so I can compare the 2 for you. Here you go, another set of results for you to ponder magazine boy..........
Test in ams 10/2004
Gewicht 1747 kg
0 - 80 km/h 2,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 300 km/h (30,6) s
400 m, stehender Start 11,6 s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 334 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 36 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 35 m
Nordschleife - min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs - min
Querbeschleunigung - g
Slalom 18 m 66,7 km/h
Slalom 36 m - km/h
ISO Ausweichtest 151,1 km/h
Testverbrauch 18,8 L/SP
Grundpreis 435.000 Euro
Testwagenpreis 455.300 Euro
08-13-2007, 08:55 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes
on
244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
Your description of 599 is spot on with several others I've seen so far - 'more livable and practical' for real world, which, as I'm learning myself, is 99% of our driving anyway. Funny, though, to see words 'livable', 'practical' and Ferrari in the same sentence.
One more thing, CGT, if I'm not mistaken, is mid engined car, what does it bring to driving dynamics?
One more thing, CGT, if I'm not mistaken, is mid engined car, what does it bring to driving dynamics?
I did send you a pm,you should see how far into the car the engine is mounted.
08-13-2007, 10:50 PM
#32
Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W221
08-13-2007, 10:54 PM
#33
Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09' Ferrari Scuderia 16M Spider, 11' Mercedes SL63 AMG, 09' Mercedes S550
Heeeeeee's back! It's the same allanlambo that we chased off FerrariChat. It seems that his manners have not improved much since our last encounter. The same old condescending, pontificating, egomaniacal know-it-all!
Tim
Tim
08-13-2007, 11:13 PM
#34
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: chicago burbs
Posts: 160
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
fast cars and faster motorcycles ..
the color is great..
i saw the red one at lfsc and yours is MUCH better looking..
life is good ..
i am happy to film your next run from one of my bikes...
08-13-2007, 11:20 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
What's truly sad about this comment is that it roundly demonstrates that you're basically too stupid to understand simple logic and allegory. I cited Sam Walton to illustrate the idiocy of one of your favorite, childish examples of "allanlogic": that "You drive car x, which is less expensive than my car, therefore I am wealthier than you and you cannot afford my car".
You see, allan, when I pointed out that Sam Walton and Ross Perot both drive old pickup trucks and said that using your "allanlogic", I must be wealthier than they because I drive a more expensive car than they, this was NOT meant to be a claim that I, personally, am more wealthy than they. Unlike you, I feel no urge to engage in some pathetic attempt at self-glorification by discussing my finances on the Internet, which imo is nothing more than a financial manifestation of small dick syndrome.
What it was was a simple (though obviously far too complex for you to grasp) way of showing the holes in, and stupidity of, your "allanlogic" and the conclusions you draw for it: that one cannot determine the net worth of an individual solely based upon the car that they drive.
Apparently, this example was far too difficult for you to understand. I'm sorry; next time I shall endeavor to keep it to your level, say, in simple sentences with monosyllabic words, with only periods and commas (oops).
Ah, another favorite allanlambo saw: in addition to demonstrating himself to be clairvoyant and able to divine what I have or have not touched, or driven, can or cannot afford, etc., allan thoughtfully provides us with yet another brilliant example of his "allanlogic": only those who own or drive a certain car are capable of looking at scientifically conducted tests and determining which car is faster.
So, allan, I guess only the players on the teams who participated "know" who won the Superbowl last year. Only the finalists "know" who won Wimbledon this year. Only soldiers who fought in WWII can tell us who won. In the Land of IQ Below Room Temperature, this constitutes "ironclad logic". In the Land of They Who Have Grey Matter Between Their Ears, this constitutes a joke.
What is truly amusing about this type of statment is that it is so blatantly stupid on its face that only an idiot would make it once, let alone multiple times, and actually think he's scoring points with it....but with allan, one can almost set one's watch by it.
Sure you would, sweetie....because you are oh so hugely wealthy that you can buy any car you want, any time, anywhere....which is why you bought a used SLR when there are plenty of new ones still available--right?
But frankly, to me it doesn't matter what you can or cannot buy, because as I've pointed out about fifty times, this "allanlogic" doesn't pass the muster either: whether you've got 1,000,000 or 100,000,000, it ain't gonna change the test results. In fact, it is utterly irrelevant and not germaine in any way to how fast a particular car is, which you already know, but it's one of only three items in your dodge-evade-and-insult toolbox; otherwise, you might actually have to debate based upon facts, and we can't have that, now can we?.
Ah, I see....again using his brilliant "allanlogic", allan, in the same sentence wherein he calls me "magazine boy" (an alternate way of phrasing his other silly phrase, "magazine racer", defined as "anyone who posts magazine test results that do not contain the results allanlambo wants to see") produces....drumroll please.....keep it going....I know, the suspense is killing you, isn't it?....one more rolll....shazam! A MAGAZINE TEST!
And even though the two tests I produced are virtually in lockstep, *and* are in virtual agreement with the Road & Track results that allan was touting until I showed his interpretation of them to be wrong, well, again we see "allanlogic" in action: only the test that allan cites is valid, and invalidates all others produced, no matter how many there are nor how well they correlate.
But wrt the article you cited, it would seem that your aim is (I presume, you being you) to show that the SLR is faster than the 599, yes? So solly Charlie, but you fail!! (apologies for the cheesy Charlie Chan reference to all except allan, because a) I don't like him, and b) as CC wasn't a character on Gilligan's Island, he won't even know who he was. )
So, we'll simply compare this one, the fastest SLR you've found on the site, to the Evil Ferraris you so love to hate. To keep it simple for you, I used a color scheme: red means the Ferrari was faster, silver means the Benz was faster, green means it's a tie, and blue means that one of the cars has no data to this speed.
First, here's your article:
Test in ams 10/2004
Gewicht 1747 kg
0 - 80 km/h 2,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 300 km/h (30,6) s
400 m, stehender Start 11,6 s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 334 km/h
Now let's look at the two 599 tests on the site you got from me:
One:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 250 km/h 16,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 29,9 s
Vmax 335 km/h
Two:
Test in ams 21/2006
Gewicht 1753 kg
0 - 80 km/h 2,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h - s
400 m, stehender Start 11,5 s
Vmax (333) km/h
Wow, look at all of the red!
Love and kisses, allan....nice toying with you again.
You see, allan, when I pointed out that Sam Walton and Ross Perot both drive old pickup trucks and said that using your "allanlogic", I must be wealthier than they because I drive a more expensive car than they, this was NOT meant to be a claim that I, personally, am more wealthy than they.
Unlike you, I feel no urge to engage in some pathetic attempt at self-glorification by discussing my finances on the Internet, which imo is nothing more than a financial manifestation of small dick syndrome.What it was was a simple (though obviously far too complex for you to grasp) way of showing the holes in, and stupidity of, your "allanlogic" and the conclusions you draw for it: that one cannot determine the net worth of an individual solely based upon the car that they drive.
Apparently, this example was far too difficult for you to understand.
I'm sorry; next time I shall endeavor to keep it to your level, say, in simple sentences with monosyllabic words, with only periods and commas (oops). So, allan, I guess only the players on the teams who participated "know" who won the Superbowl last year. Only the finalists "know" who won Wimbledon this year. Only soldiers who fought in WWII can tell us who won. In the Land of IQ Below Room Temperature, this constitutes "ironclad logic". In the Land of They Who Have Grey Matter Between Their Ears, this constitutes a joke.
What is truly amusing about this type of statment is that it is so blatantly stupid on its face that only an idiot would make it once, let alone multiple times, and actually think he's scoring points with it....but with allan, one can almost set one's watch by it.
But frankly, to me it doesn't matter what you can or cannot buy, because as I've pointed out about fifty times, this "allanlogic" doesn't pass the muster either: whether you've got 1,000,000 or 100,000,000, it ain't gonna change the test results. In fact, it is utterly irrelevant and not germaine in any way to how fast a particular car is, which you already know, but it's one of only three items in your dodge-evade-and-insult toolbox; otherwise, you might actually have to debate based upon facts, and we can't have that, now can we?.
And even though the two tests I produced are virtually in lockstep, *and* are in virtual agreement with the Road & Track results that allan was touting until I showed his interpretation of them to be wrong, well, again we see "allanlogic" in action: only the test that allan cites is valid, and invalidates all others produced, no matter how many there are nor how well they correlate.
But wrt the article you cited, it would seem that your aim is (I presume, you being you) to show that the SLR is faster than the 599, yes? So solly Charlie, but you fail!! (apologies for the cheesy Charlie Chan reference to all except allan, because a) I don't like him, and b) as CC wasn't a character on Gilligan's Island, he won't even know who he was.
)So, we'll simply compare this one, the fastest SLR you've found on the site, to the Evil Ferraris you so love to hate. To keep it simple for you, I used a color scheme: red means the Ferrari was faster, silver means the Benz was faster, green means it's a tie, and blue means that one of the cars has no data to this speed.
First, here's your article:
Test in ams 10/2004
Gewicht 1747 kg
0 - 80 km/h 2,9 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,2 s
0 - 160 km/h 7,7 s
0 - 180 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,3 s
0 - 300 km/h (30,6) s
400 m, stehender Start 11,6 s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 334 km/h
Now let's look at the two 599 tests on the site you got from me:
One:
Highspeed Test in ams 23/2006
Gewicht - kg
0 - 80 km/h - s
0 - 100 km/h 3,5 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h - s
0 - 160 km/h - s
0 - 180 km/h - s
0 - 200 km/h 10,3 s
0 - 250 km/h 16,6 s
0 - 300 km/h 29,9 s
Vmax 335 km/h
Two:
Test in ams 21/2006
Gewicht 1753 kg
0 - 80 km/h 2,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,7 s
0 - 120 km/h - s
0 - 130 km/h 5,4 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 7,4 s
0 - 180 km/h 9,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 11,2 s
0 - 250 km/h - s
400 m, stehender Start 11,5 s
Vmax (333) km/h
Wow, look at all of the red!
Love and kisses, allan....nice toying with you again.
Last edited by Improviz; 08-13-2007 at 11:35 PM.
08-14-2007, 04:51 AM
#37
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Santa Clarita/Northridge CA
Posts: 2,992
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
E350
Whats this arguement about? The SLR is video documented to be faster than the 599, and carrera gt, and more than likely is faster than an LP640. Im not sure whats with all the hate on the SLR, its an amazing car and to truely understand it you need to be inside one on the road.
08-14-2007, 04:53 AM
#38
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL has everything Kleemann offers for the 65 series and so far was untouchable in all impromptu street races.
My 599 is finally broken in ,as per dealer recomendation of staying below 6k rpm for the first 500 miles.
My wife drove it ,started on I-294 early Sunday(no traffic),said she redlined in every gear and definitely,no doubts,just decisevely walked away from SL.
She got it to about 180 before shutting down.
The Ferrari was screaming so loud I heard it over the rumble of the MB,the distance between our cars was not growing rapidly,rather slowly and not dramaticly but nevertheless ,unquestionably.
My 599 is finally broken in ,as per dealer recomendation of staying below 6k rpm for the first 500 miles.
My wife drove it ,started on I-294 early Sunday(no traffic),said she redlined in every gear and definitely,no doubts,just decisevely walked away from SL.
She got it to about 180 before shutting down.
The Ferrari was screaming so loud I heard it over the rumble of the MB,the distance between our cars was not growing rapidly,rather slowly and not dramaticly but nevertheless ,unquestionably.
08-14-2007, 09:10 AM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Whats this arguement about? The SLR is video documented to be faster than the 599, and carrera gt, and more than likely is faster than an LP640. Im not sure whats with all the hate on the SLR, its an amazing car and to truely understand it you need to be inside one on the road.
08-14-2007, 10:17 AM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kenilworth, il usa
Posts: 2,924
Received 378 Likes
on
244 Posts
'22 Alpina B7,'21 G63 Renntech obviously (wife), Wrangler(kids)
Whats this arguement about? The SLR is video documented to be faster than the 599, and carrera gt, and more than likely is faster than an LP640. Im not sure whats with all the hate on the SLR, its an amazing car and to truely understand it you need to be inside one on the road.
08-14-2007, 07:26 PM
#43
MBWorld Founder
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: SoCal
Posts: 2,593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ones too fast according to CHP!
Some differences:
599 is revving forever,
feels much, much lighter,
steering is incomparable not only to SL (which feels like an overweight pig ready for slaughter) but also on a absolutely higher level then SLR (have not driven 722),
way more stable at very high speeds,
fit and finish,workmanship on a different level,even better then my wife's F.Spur,
handling and response of the throttle not even comparable,
brakes more linear and easier to modulate then SLR's,
the sound!!! (never listened to the radio in that car yet!),
more comfortable seats,more interior room for my 6'5" frame,
much stiffer and noisier ride (comes with the territory).
As far as that one infamous youtube vid,I would not make any definite judgments regarding the true performance of these cars.
They are all virtually hand made,their performances sometimes vary in higher degree then regular production models,raced in April an SLR (friend's) and he could not get away from the SL ( I was even getting closer at speed).
I do believe though,that expertly driven (by someone who really knows how to shift that thing and is not afraid to abuse it) Carrera GT would beat the 599.
I chose the Ferrari........
599 is revving forever,
feels much, much lighter,
steering is incomparable not only to SL (which feels like an overweight pig ready for slaughter) but also on a absolutely higher level then SLR (have not driven 722),
way more stable at very high speeds,
fit and finish,workmanship on a different level,even better then my wife's F.Spur,
handling and response of the throttle not even comparable,
brakes more linear and easier to modulate then SLR's,
the sound!!! (never listened to the radio in that car yet!),
more comfortable seats,more interior room for my 6'5" frame,
much stiffer and noisier ride (comes with the territory).
As far as that one infamous youtube vid,I would not make any definite judgments regarding the true performance of these cars.
They are all virtually hand made,their performances sometimes vary in higher degree then regular production models,raced in April an SLR (friend's) and he could not get away from the SL ( I was even getting closer at speed).
I do believe though,that expertly driven (by someone who really knows how to shift that thing and is not afraid to abuse it) Carrera GT would beat the 599.
I chose the Ferrari........
We have a 550 and I agree with everything you have said about modern 5xx Ferrari's! Plus they are super reliable!
Here finally. Sorry for the thread hi-jack. Those users will be under our eye for a while.
Thanks
Brad
08-15-2007, 03:17 PM
#45
Banned
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL has everything Kleemann offers for the 65 series and so far was untouchable in all impromptu street races.
My 599 is finally broken in ,as per dealer recomendation of staying below 6k rpm for the first 500 miles.
My wife drove it ,started on I-294 early Sunday(no traffic),said she redlined in every gear and definitely,no doubts,just decisevely walked away from SL.
She got it to about 180 before shutting down.
The Ferrari was screaming so loud I heard it over the rumble of the MB,the distance between our cars was not growing rapidly,rather slowly and not dramaticly but nevertheless ,unquestionably.
My 599 is finally broken in ,as per dealer recomendation of staying below 6k rpm for the first 500 miles.
My wife drove it ,started on I-294 early Sunday(no traffic),said she redlined in every gear and definitely,no doubts,just decisevely walked away from SL.
She got it to about 180 before shutting down.
The Ferrari was screaming so loud I heard it over the rumble of the MB,the distance between our cars was not growing rapidly,rather slowly and not dramaticly but nevertheless ,unquestionably.
08-15-2007, 03:55 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: The Magic City
Posts: 5,107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63
08-28-2007, 01:27 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Absent:
Thanks for the driving comparison. I think too often people (high performance enthusiasts) get too hung up on outright speed and performance. As incredible of a car as the SLR is, I am sure the visceral stimulation of the 599 "outperforms" it. I would imagine that the 599 is a great compromise between all out track capabilities of a Carrera GT and the luxurious touring of the SLR.
Good luck with your beautiful stable!
Tom
Thanks for the driving comparison. I think too often people (high performance enthusiasts) get too hung up on outright speed and performance. As incredible of a car as the SLR is, I am sure the visceral stimulation of the 599 "outperforms" it. I would imagine that the 599 is a great compromise between all out track capabilities of a Carrera GT and the luxurious touring of the SLR.
Good luck with your beautiful stable!
Tom
0160, 2005, 599, acicchelli, dedushka748yahoocom, definition, ferrari, lakeforest, magazine, mph, murderd, racer, report, road, sl65, test, track
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
