SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: SL65 Specs from Inside Line
04-21-2008, 08:10 PM
#26
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something on 4 wheels..
My bad, 11.694, thats Schiznick's SL65, pretty sure it's stock and he posts here so hope he chimes in
*edit*
He ran 11.5 stock...
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...564&highlight=
*edit*
He ran 11.5 stock...
https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...564&highlight=
But again, I don't see a reason why the Porsche couldn't match or beat the Edmunds-time as well...
Obviously, they didn't push the SL to its limit - so why should they only max-out the Porsche? I guess we have to wait for more real-life times of the 911 turbo since it's still quite new. Right now, I wouldn't bet on a clear winner - especially not on a "98% tail-light-quote"...
04-21-2008, 08:32 PM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Very impressive time - and as I said before: I never doubted that the SL65 would be capable of that time and that the Edmunds-time wouldn't be the best it could do.
But again, I don't see a reason why the Porsche couldn't match or beat the Edmunds-time as well...
Obviously, they didn't push the SL to its limit - so why should they only max-out the Porsche? I guess we have to wait for more real-life times of the 911 turbo since it's still quite new. Right now, I wouldn't bet on a clear winner - especially not on a "98% tail-light-quote"...
But again, I don't see a reason why the Porsche couldn't match or beat the Edmunds-time as well...
Obviously, they didn't push the SL to its limit - so why should they only max-out the Porsche? I guess we have to wait for more real-life times of the 911 turbo since it's still quite new. Right now, I wouldn't bet on a clear winner - especially not on a "98% tail-light-quote"...
Unless you are running these cars on the same track on the same day with very similar drivers, you really can't compare them. Unless you are only racing these cars to 60 it is not even a contest.
Having owned a couple of SL65's and being the Porsche lover that I am (911TT X50, GT3, GT3 RS) all I can tell you is what I have personally experienced.
No stock 997 911 Turbo has ever beat me in any kind of straigh line run while in a SL65. They may have had a better 60' time by .10 to .12 at the drag strip but by 90 to 120 feet they were DONE. This is on stack rubber, on drag radials, it is even worse.
The 911 Turbo is a fantastic car and very fast but it is no where near the torque monster that the SL65 is for straight line running...... Period end of story.
I would be willing to declare a winner in the stock drag racing battle between the 911 Turbo and the SL65.
It is the SL65.
Now if you want to compare a real Porsche to a SL65, let's take a look at the 997 GT2. In the hands of the right driver, that would be a battle I would want to see.
Cheers!
04-21-2008, 08:45 PM
#28
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bethesda,Md.
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bentley Arnage Red Label
There you have it. From the man who had both!
Whats up Schiz? How's the black treating you? Any interest in the SL65 black? Depreciation aside it should be one bad *****!
Whats up Schiz? How's the black treating you? Any interest in the SL65 black? Depreciation aside it should be one bad *****!
04-21-2008, 09:31 PM
#29
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something on 4 wheels..
BTW, my E60 M5 is faster than the E39 M5..
04-21-2008, 09:55 PM
#30
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something on 4 wheels..
The 911 Turbo has been out for quite a while. I used to run into them on the street all the time and on ocasion at the drag strip.
Unless you are running these cars on the same track on the same day with very similar drivers, you really can't compare them. Unless you are only racing these cars to 60 it is not even a contest.
Having owned a couple of SL65's and being the Porsche lover that I am (911TT X50, GT3, GT3 RS) all I can tell you is what I have personally experienced.
No stock 997 911 Turbo has ever beat me in any kind of straigh line run while in a SL65. They may have had a better 60' time by .10 to .12 at the drag strip but by 90 to 120 feet they were DONE. This is on stack rubber, on drag radials, it is even worse.
The 911 Turbo is a fantastic car and very fast but it is no where near the torque monster that the SL65 is for straight line running...... Period end of story.
I would be willing to declare a winner in the stock drag racing battle between the 911 Turbo and the SL65.
It is the SL65.
Now if you want to compare a real Porsche to a SL65, let's take a look at the 997 GT2. In the hands of the right driver, that would be a battle I would want to see.
Cheers!
Unless you are running these cars on the same track on the same day with very similar drivers, you really can't compare them. Unless you are only racing these cars to 60 it is not even a contest.
Having owned a couple of SL65's and being the Porsche lover that I am (911TT X50, GT3, GT3 RS) all I can tell you is what I have personally experienced.
No stock 997 911 Turbo has ever beat me in any kind of straigh line run while in a SL65. They may have had a better 60' time by .10 to .12 at the drag strip but by 90 to 120 feet they were DONE. This is on stack rubber, on drag radials, it is even worse.
The 911 Turbo is a fantastic car and very fast but it is no where near the torque monster that the SL65 is for straight line running...... Period end of story.
I would be willing to declare a winner in the stock drag racing battle between the 911 Turbo and the SL65.
It is the SL65.
Now if you want to compare a real Porsche to a SL65, let's take a look at the 997 GT2. In the hands of the right driver, that would be a battle I would want to see.
Cheers!
The 997 GT2 - a nice car as well, but overpriced. You really have to get over 60mph to take advantage of that car - up to 60, the GT2 isn't faster than the turbo either. It has 50hp more, but neither tip nor AWD, so you have to get it rollin' before it's getting REALLY quick....
Now what do you think? Which one would be quicker on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife? The Turbo or the SL65?
When we are talking about differences in drag-times (1/4-mile), I'm convinced both cars are in the same 0.3-second-range. Talking about such a huge difference that "it isn't even a contest anymore" might be a bit too much, right? And in real life, how many factors can alter this difference?
My favorite combo would be the SL63 030 AND the 911 turbo..
04-22-2008, 09:27 AM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Mabe you are just a much better driver than the other guys in their 911s?
The 997 GT2 - a nice car as well, but overpriced. You really have to get over 60mph to take advantage of that car - up to 60, the GT2 isn't faster than the turbo either. It has 50hp more, but neither tip nor AWD, so you have to get it rollin' before it's getting REALLY quick....
Now what do you think? Which one would be quicker on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife? The Turbo or the SL65?
When we are talking about differences in drag-times (1/4-mile), I'm convinced both cars are in the same 0.3-second-range. Talking about such a huge difference that "it isn't even a contest anymore" might be a bit too much, right? And in real life, how many factors can alter this difference?
My favorite combo would be the SL63 030 AND the 911 turbo..
The 997 GT2 - a nice car as well, but overpriced. You really have to get over 60mph to take advantage of that car - up to 60, the GT2 isn't faster than the turbo either. It has 50hp more, but neither tip nor AWD, so you have to get it rollin' before it's getting REALLY quick....
Now what do you think? Which one would be quicker on the Nuerburgring Nordschleife? The Turbo or the SL65?
When we are talking about differences in drag-times (1/4-mile), I'm convinced both cars are in the same 0.3-second-range. Talking about such a huge difference that "it isn't even a contest anymore" might be a bit too much, right? And in real life, how many factors can alter this difference?
My favorite combo would be the SL63 030 AND the 911 turbo..
Have you ever driven either of these two cars? Or are we just comparing numbers again?
As a driver, just as much skill is required to launch the SL65 as it take to launch the 911 Turbo.
Why is the GT2 overpriced? Oh and who cares? It is an incredible performer that is raw and nasty compared to other 911's. I would personally take a GT2 over the Carrera GT. The problem with a car like the GT2 is that it is WAY too much car for any normal or even experienced driver. I didn't buy one because I thought a GT3 Cup car was more what I was looking for as I don't need that car on the street.
You seem to be overly caught up in 0-60 numbers. If that is what you are looking for then you need to get a motorcycle. A nice extended swing arm turbo busa should suit you just fine.
Now you want to switch to the road racing questions.... Other than the Black Series cars, I don't look at AMG's as dedicated track cars.
As for your north loop question. I think it really depends. First, who is driving? The Turbo should be faster on the North Loop than a SL65. The SL65 is not a road racing monster. In fact, either is the Turbo. I would take a GT3 or GT3 RS on the North Loop over a Turbo any day.
As for your drag racing thoughts, you are misplaced again. .3 at the strip is a world of difference. In real life many factors can incluence the outcome of a drag strip run. All I am saying is that my experience has the SL65 on top of the Turbo every time in the 1/4 mile as long as no one oiled down the lane before.
I hate the fact that I am beating up on the Turbo here since I really do consider Porsche one of my favorite brands. It is a fantastic overall car that I really like. It is just that in drag racing against an SL65 it is in another league. If I could only have one car, it may be a Turbo. I don't have one because I have other cars thay do what I am looking for better than having one overall car.
04-22-2008, 09:30 AM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
Love the CLK Black. It is a total blast..... Depending on what the final numbers are of the SL Black, I may pick one up but I have no rush to **** away 100K again either. It does look like one hell of a ride!
What are you driving these days. I am celebrating earth day by driving my G55 slower today.....
04-22-2008, 02:49 PM
#33
Super Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Bethesda,Md.
Posts: 746
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bentley Arnage Red Label
Just to keep everyone honest, I had a 996 TT but I have driven 4 or 5 997 Turbos.
Love the CLK Black. It is a total blast..... Depending on what the final numbers are of the SL Black, I may pick one up but I have no rush to **** away 100K again either. It does look like one hell of a ride!
What are you driving these days. I am celebrating earth day by driving my G55 slower today.....
Love the CLK Black. It is a total blast..... Depending on what the final numbers are of the SL Black, I may pick one up but I have no rush to **** away 100K again either. It does look like one hell of a ride!
What are you driving these days. I am celebrating earth day by driving my G55 slower today.....
The black series sounds cool. I just sold the GTC and am down to an Arnage and a couple motorcycles and an SUV. On the hunt for some new stuff. Not sure what but am thinking about a G55 for a new daily but am waiting for confirmation on the possible G63. I personally like the 55 engine better but know what will happen the minute I buy the 55 and the 63 info is released. The GTC was actually fairly kind in that regard 20k for a year and a half. Thats depreciation I can live with. Great car but not too exciting. A carrera GT may be fun for a while and the Scuderia would be great if I was high enough on the totem pole to get one. Anyway, the SL65 black will be a hell of a car and I am anxious to see the finished product!
04-22-2008, 03:37 PM
#34
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something on 4 wheels..
Oh yes, I do. I just don't see proof of any kind that shows I'm wrong. However, statements like "The PREVIOUS model was slower than the SL65 so the current one has to be slower as well" are really difficult to "get", aren't they?
No, I haven't driven them before and NO, I'm not just comparing numbers. To find out which one is quicker, it's not important if the NUMBER shows 60 secs. or 6 secs. - I always thought that the car that has the lower number is considered faster on a 1/4-mile run or 0-x acceleration. Obviously not if that's NOT the SL65.
Oh really? Maybe you should read a post one other member posted before. It's about TRACTION and it is just logical that it's easier to get the power to the road if you have AWD instead of RWD - what did the poster say before? the ASC lights up like a Christmas-tree. But since we are already within 0.1 or 0.2 seconds when it comes to 0-60 between these two cars, you might even manage to make the SL faster in that contest as well.
Even if you put 2000 HP and 1500 torque into that car - there are still some physical limitations the SL65 will suffer from. Everybody on this board heard of the traction-issues this car suffered from - the stock tires and wheels aren't a perfect match either. A lot of crucial power and potential performance turns virtually into smoke when you pull the trigger. THAT's where a part of the torque-advantage goes. And you think that car wouldn't be easier to handle WITH AWD?
I think Murtaza pointed it out correctly: The launch is crutial!
Indeed, it is way too much car - and that's why I consider it to be overpriced. Maybe it's worth the money for a professional race-driver (although I don't know what purpose that car would have), I don't consider it that much "better" than the turbo (especially not with the upcoming 500 HP turbo).
I HATE motorcycles..
This is the part you don't seem to understand: I only pointed out that I consider the 911 to be the faster car. Now what defines "faster"? According to you, ONLY the 1/4-mile, right? That's the only competition the SL65 has a CHANCE against the 911. I could point out now that a decent motorcyle would smoke the $200K-SL65 on the 1/4-mile but I stay away from that nonsense.
Why shouldn't I switch to road racing? Isn't that crucial to answer the question which is the "faster car"? So the 911 wins. If you would take a different model or if the SL65 or turbo are built for that is not relevant.
So the 911 wins the Loop, has the quicker acceleration and the higher top-speed. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the SL and say it wins the quarter-mile. So why is it wrong to consider he 911 to be the faster car?
You also didn't understand my input about the 0.3 secs. Yes, it is a lot at the finish-line, but there are so many factors (road-surface, climate, tire-temp, driver etc.) that are crucial to get a perfect launch, that a 0.3 second difference in the car's performance potential itself might be altered by these factors. I guess you agree that an experienced driver could easily win a 1/4-mile race against an amateur although his car is potentially 0.3 seconds slower. You see what I mean? This fact alone already voids the "98% winning-quote".
It might beat the 911 on the 1/4-mile. A different league? Certainly not.
If I would put up a "collection" of cars, I would pick the 911 turbo, the SL63 030 and the CL65. Now THAT'S what I like!
Even if you put 2000 HP and 1500 torque into that car - there are still some physical limitations the SL65 will suffer from. Everybody on this board heard of the traction-issues this car suffered from - the stock tires and wheels aren't a perfect match either. A lot of crucial power and potential performance turns virtually into smoke when you pull the trigger. THAT's where a part of the torque-advantage goes. And you think that car wouldn't be easier to handle WITH AWD?
I think Murtaza pointed it out correctly: The launch is crutial!
Why is the GT2 overpriced? Oh and who cares? It is an incredible performer that is raw and nasty compared to other 911's. I would personally take a GT2 over the Carrera GT. The problem with a car like the GT2 is that it is WAY too much car for any normal or even experienced driver. I didn't buy one because I thought a GT3 Cup car was more what I was looking for as I don't need that car on the street.
This is the part you don't seem to understand: I only pointed out that I consider the 911 to be the faster car. Now what defines "faster"? According to you, ONLY the 1/4-mile, right? That's the only competition the SL65 has a CHANCE against the 911. I could point out now that a decent motorcyle would smoke the $200K-SL65 on the 1/4-mile but I stay away from that nonsense.
Now you want to switch to the road racing questions.... Other than the Black Series cars, I don't look at AMG's as dedicated track cars.
As for your north loop question. I think it really depends. First, who is driving? The Turbo should be faster on the North Loop than a SL65. The SL65 is not a road racing monster. In fact, either is the Turbo. I would take a GT3 or GT3 RS on the North Loop over a Turbo any day.
As for your drag racing thoughts, you are misplaced again. .3 at the strip is a world of difference. In real life many factors can incluence the outcome of a drag strip run. All I am saying is that my experience has the SL65 on top of the Turbo every time in the 1/4 mile as long as no one oiled down the lane before...
As for your north loop question. I think it really depends. First, who is driving? The Turbo should be faster on the North Loop than a SL65. The SL65 is not a road racing monster. In fact, either is the Turbo. I would take a GT3 or GT3 RS on the North Loop over a Turbo any day.
As for your drag racing thoughts, you are misplaced again. .3 at the strip is a world of difference. In real life many factors can incluence the outcome of a drag strip run. All I am saying is that my experience has the SL65 on top of the Turbo every time in the 1/4 mile as long as no one oiled down the lane before...
So the 911 wins the Loop, has the quicker acceleration and the higher top-speed. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the SL and say it wins the quarter-mile. So why is it wrong to consider he 911 to be the faster car?
You also didn't understand my input about the 0.3 secs. Yes, it is a lot at the finish-line, but there are so many factors (road-surface, climate, tire-temp, driver etc.) that are crucial to get a perfect launch, that a 0.3 second difference in the car's performance potential itself might be altered by these factors. I guess you agree that an experienced driver could easily win a 1/4-mile race against an amateur although his car is potentially 0.3 seconds slower. You see what I mean? This fact alone already voids the "98% winning-quote".
I hate the fact that I am beating up on the Turbo here since I really do consider Porsche one of my favorite brands. It is a fantastic overall car that I really like. It is just that in drag racing against an SL65 it is in another league. If I could only have one car, it may be a Turbo. I don't have one because I have other cars thay do what I am looking for better than having one overall car.
If I would put up a "collection" of cars, I would pick the 911 turbo, the SL63 030 and the CL65. Now THAT'S what I like!
Last edited by FloridaE55; 04-22-2008 at 04:01 PM.
04-22-2008, 08:52 PM
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Oh yes, I do. I just don't see proof of any kind that shows I'm wrong. However, statements like "The PREVIOUS model was slower than the SL65 so the current one has to be slower as well" are really difficult to "get", aren't they?
The only proof that I am offering is my own personal experience, nothing more. Your assumption that I read any of this posts before the drag racing comment about my 11.50 run is sadly mistaken.
No, I haven't driven them before and NO, I'm not just comparing numbers. To find out which one is quicker, it's not important if the NUMBER shows 60 secs. or 6 secs. - I always thought that the car that has the lower number is considered faster on a 1/4-mile run or 0-x acceleration. Obviously not if that's NOT the SL65.
If you have never driven the cars then you are just comparing numbers.
Oh really? Maybe you should read a post one other member posted before. It's about TRACTION and it is just logical that it's easier to get the power to the road if you have AWD instead of RWD - what did the poster say before? the ASC lights up like a Christmas-tree. But since we are already within 0.1 or 0.2 seconds when it comes to 0-60 between these two cars, you might even manage to make the SL faster in that contest as well.
Sure it's about traction and guess who is in controll of that? Sure, AWD should be quicker from a dig but I prefer the chrs of a rear wheel drive car. It's more about driving the rather than letting the car drive you.
Even if you put 2000 HP and 1500 torque into that car - there are still some physical limitations the SL65 will suffer from. Everybody on this board heard of the traction-issues this car suffered from - the stock tires and wheels aren't a perfect match either. A lot of crucial power and potential performance turns virtually into smoke when you pull the trigger. THAT's where a part of the torque-advantage goes. And you think that car wouldn't be easier to handle WITH AWD?
I never said the car wouldn't be easier to launch if it had AWD.... The stock wheels actually do really well if you don't just stomp on the gas. I have been able to log some incredible 60' times on stock tires.
I think Murtaza pointed it out correctly: The launch is crutial!
No, you think?
Indeed, it is way too much car - and that's why I consider it to be overpriced. Maybe it's worth the money for a professional race-driver (although I don't know what purpose that car would have), I don't consider it that much "better" than the turbo (especially not with the upcoming 500 HP turbo).
So, I see, if a car is too much for you to handle then it is over priced? Got it, let's move on.....
I HATE motorcycles..
This is the part you don't seem to understand: I only pointed out that I consider the 911 to be the faster car. Now what defines "faster"? According to you, ONLY the 1/4-mile, right? That's the only competition the SL65 has a CHANCE against the 911. I could point out now that a decent motorcyle would smoke the $200K-SL65 on the 1/4-mile but I stay away from that nonsense.
My bad on this one..... I really didn't bother to read your other posts. I thought we were talking about drag racing.
Why shouldn't I switch to road racing? Isn't that crucial to answer the question which is the "faster car"? So the 911 wins. If you would take a different model or if the SL65 or turbo are built for that is not relevant.
Bla bla bla
So the 911 wins the Loop, has the quicker acceleration and the higher top-speed. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the SL and say it wins the quarter-mile. So why is it wrong to consider he 911 to be the faster car?
Because all of your numbers are hypothetical. You are bench racing.
You also didn't understand my input about the 0.3 secs. Yes, it is a lot at the finish-line, but there are so many factors (road-surface, climate, tire-temp, driver etc.) that are crucial to get a perfect launch, that a 0.3 second difference in the car's performance potential itself might be altered by these factors. I guess you agree that an experienced driver could easily win a 1/4-mile race against an amateur although his car is potentially 0.3 seconds slower. You see what I mean? This fact alone already voids the "98% winning-quote".
But again, you are just making things up here. All I am doing is giving my personal experience with vehicles that I have owned and driven. Sure, if the wheel falls off my car, chances are I am going to get smoked in the quarter mile.
It might beat the 911 on the 1/4-mile. A different league? Certainly not.
If I would put up a "collection" of cars, I would pick the 911 turbo, the SL63 030 and the CL65. Now THAT'S what I like!
In straight line performance the Turbo is in a different league. As I said before, the Turbo is a great all around car. Other Porsches just do many things so much better that it would never find its way into my garage.
One piece of advice, if you ever meet up with an SL65 at the drag strip, a Turbo is going to be like showing up to a gunfight with a knife. Just walk away.
I am out, I have grown bored with this......
The only proof that I am offering is my own personal experience, nothing more. Your assumption that I read any of this posts before the drag racing comment about my 11.50 run is sadly mistaken.
No, I haven't driven them before and NO, I'm not just comparing numbers. To find out which one is quicker, it's not important if the NUMBER shows 60 secs. or 6 secs. - I always thought that the car that has the lower number is considered faster on a 1/4-mile run or 0-x acceleration. Obviously not if that's NOT the SL65.
If you have never driven the cars then you are just comparing numbers.
Oh really? Maybe you should read a post one other member posted before. It's about TRACTION and it is just logical that it's easier to get the power to the road if you have AWD instead of RWD - what did the poster say before? the ASC lights up like a Christmas-tree. But since we are already within 0.1 or 0.2 seconds when it comes to 0-60 between these two cars, you might even manage to make the SL faster in that contest as well.
Sure it's about traction and guess who is in controll of that? Sure, AWD should be quicker from a dig but I prefer the chrs of a rear wheel drive car. It's more about driving the rather than letting the car drive you.
Even if you put 2000 HP and 1500 torque into that car - there are still some physical limitations the SL65 will suffer from. Everybody on this board heard of the traction-issues this car suffered from - the stock tires and wheels aren't a perfect match either. A lot of crucial power and potential performance turns virtually into smoke when you pull the trigger. THAT's where a part of the torque-advantage goes. And you think that car wouldn't be easier to handle WITH AWD?
I never said the car wouldn't be easier to launch if it had AWD.... The stock wheels actually do really well if you don't just stomp on the gas. I have been able to log some incredible 60' times on stock tires.
I think Murtaza pointed it out correctly: The launch is crutial!
No, you think?
Indeed, it is way too much car - and that's why I consider it to be overpriced. Maybe it's worth the money for a professional race-driver (although I don't know what purpose that car would have), I don't consider it that much "better" than the turbo (especially not with the upcoming 500 HP turbo).
So, I see, if a car is too much for you to handle then it is over priced? Got it, let's move on.....
I HATE motorcycles..
This is the part you don't seem to understand: I only pointed out that I consider the 911 to be the faster car. Now what defines "faster"? According to you, ONLY the 1/4-mile, right? That's the only competition the SL65 has a CHANCE against the 911. I could point out now that a decent motorcyle would smoke the $200K-SL65 on the 1/4-mile but I stay away from that nonsense.
My bad on this one..... I really didn't bother to read your other posts. I thought we were talking about drag racing.
Why shouldn't I switch to road racing? Isn't that crucial to answer the question which is the "faster car"? So the 911 wins. If you would take a different model or if the SL65 or turbo are built for that is not relevant.
Bla bla bla
So the 911 wins the Loop, has the quicker acceleration and the higher top-speed. Let's give the benefit of the doubt to the SL and say it wins the quarter-mile. So why is it wrong to consider he 911 to be the faster car?
Because all of your numbers are hypothetical. You are bench racing.
You also didn't understand my input about the 0.3 secs. Yes, it is a lot at the finish-line, but there are so many factors (road-surface, climate, tire-temp, driver etc.) that are crucial to get a perfect launch, that a 0.3 second difference in the car's performance potential itself might be altered by these factors. I guess you agree that an experienced driver could easily win a 1/4-mile race against an amateur although his car is potentially 0.3 seconds slower. You see what I mean? This fact alone already voids the "98% winning-quote".
But again, you are just making things up here. All I am doing is giving my personal experience with vehicles that I have owned and driven. Sure, if the wheel falls off my car, chances are I am going to get smoked in the quarter mile.
It might beat the 911 on the 1/4-mile. A different league? Certainly not.
If I would put up a "collection" of cars, I would pick the 911 turbo, the SL63 030 and the CL65. Now THAT'S what I like!
In straight line performance the Turbo is in a different league. As I said before, the Turbo is a great all around car. Other Porsches just do many things so much better that it would never find its way into my garage.
One piece of advice, if you ever meet up with an SL65 at the drag strip, a Turbo is going to be like showing up to a gunfight with a knife. Just walk away.
I am out, I have grown bored with this......
04-22-2008, 11:47 PM
#36
Super Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Tampa Bay, FL
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something on 4 wheels..
