http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=125568

Why need an SLR, right?

Sorry...I didn't see this until after I posted the link to the same article. I didn't check it out before because I thought from the title that it was the "regular" SL65.

Tom

Holy shat!! Price is gonna be holy shat as well!

Will be interested to see what is NBR of SL65 Blk vs SL63 030....

Am rather disappointed in these 65 Blk specs and apparent lack of tech innovation...

Not sure how the heavy 65 motor (?250 lbs heavier than 63 motor) will work in terms of chassis/wt balance, steering precision for a 4000lb track-oriented car...

And the gearbox sounds boring vs MCT...

Perhaps a fixed-roof SL63 030 would have provided a more dynamically interesting 4000lb car at far less cost and w/greater daily-useability....

Have doubts about SL65 traction on public roads; ground clearance issues of 65 Blk for daily urban use (esp as it lacks ABC and ability to raise car for pkg garage ramps, etc)....and greater width of 65 Blk makes it a less nimble/more bulky car for tight mtn twisties....

Where did you read that? 250lbs heavier, that sounds a bit much

It will own, just as all the other blks have. They got rid of the suspension so that it could corner better.

also i find all the tech talk funny because the way some make it out to be, you would think the car is a 1990 model presafe/ night vision and what not are funky things and hardly musts now.

Some will argue but SAFTY! with regard to pre-safe.

yes its nice, but the safety on these cars is pretty high to start with, so your not really going to die because you do not have it, but it can help

7g tranny? has not really shined now has it, and it has been having its fair share of issues. MTC sounds wicked but will just have to wait and see SMG any one? that was suposse to be the tech of all tech and gasp they are changing it to DSG

It will eat the rest of the MB line up pretty bad if they make a good job of it. Put the SL where it belongs Sport Luxury

for the traction doubts..it has 325/30ZR20 rears

OK, now I can get a $250K+-SL (hmm, can't be opened any more so should it still be considered an SL?)...

But why should I get that car over the Porsche 911 Turbo Coupe? The Porsche has the better handling, the better acceleration and I can almost configurate every single screw to suit my personal taste. I don't want to add the price-advantage because there are several people out there who believe that doesn't matter...

The SL65 Blk. should be considered a nice collector's car but I prefer a SL63 030 where I can still open the top.

..........the 63 owners seem to be a tad bit defensive.

Ted

I dont see how a porsche turbo is faster or can out handle the sl65 blk, since we have no clue what the black can do. I know for a fact that my sl65 stock was faster then any 997tt tip or 6spd. As far as curves went all 997tt no doubt. My car runs with 500whp c6 z06's and evoms stg 4 turbos so I am sure with more power and 500lbs less it would be a very fast car. Add the real suspension and less flex with the hard top and that will be the fastest car in that price range. I know some will say the zr1 or gt2 but as far as I know the gt2's are going for 50-75k over msrp (250-275k?)and I am sure the vett will be 20k over (125-135k for the vett?)and we still need to see what it can really do. I wish the sl65 blk had the new mct tranny but it is not a deal breaker and I cant wait to buy an sl65 blk.

Sure, we don't know the numbers yet. The statement 'under 4 seconds' could have many meanings: 3.9, 3.8 etc.

I've yet to see a stock SL65 that was faster than a 997tt - especially tip. 0-60 of a 997 tip is 3.5 sec. the 65 has the power to deliver such a time but can't get that much poer on the pavement. as far as I know, the Porsche is lighter and has AWD. If I recall correctly, Mercedes is rating the SL65 4.2 sec from 0-60. Maybe it can break the 4 sec barrier, but 3.5? No way..

The 65 is just too heavy and doesn't have the traction a 997 turbo has.
And you're right: The 997 tt is in a different price-class, no matter if compared to a stock SL65 or the SL65 Blk.

SL 65 Black Series will crack 0-60mph in 3.2 to 3.4 seconds in my reckoning. Less weight, more power (though same torque), stickier and wider rear tires. It will probably also at least break SLR times at the 'Ring, around 7min 30 sec or so. It will have at least 1.01g withstance to lateral acceleration. As a sum of its parts, its an unbeatable combination, though taken individually, a 5 speed and older V12 may not sound much. I am excited about this vehicle, though not in the market for it, for sure.

I had the privilege today of driving an AMG for the first time in my life.
It was an SL 65AMG. It should be called an SL65 OMG (ohmygod) , the power was outrageous.
If you guys are talking about something more powerful than the current SL65, then we are talking some serious torque. I can't imagine the Porsche is even faster! Wow. I guess I'll have to test drive one of those bad boys one day.
BTW, the 2005 SL65 I test drove today is for sale at $100K, 14000 miles on it, and is silver with red leather just in case anyone is interested. Seemed like a good deal to me considering it was approaching $200K new. PM me if you are interested. I'm not the one selling it but I can get you in touch with the independent seller. He sells exotics.
I also drove a Maybach 57S today and it only had 6000 miles on it and is for sale just under $200K !!!

That sounds quite realistic, putting the SL65 BLK. slightly ahead of the 997 Turbo tip. However, considering these numbers, I can't see a stock SL65 even close to the Porsche's 0-60 3.5 secs...

The 65 is about $30k to high. In case you didn't hear, these cars are tanking out and have a terrrible resale, except for the P cars.

since you are quoting 0-60 times then its awd all the way my friend. Only way you can get as good a times as an awd car can get on normal roads is if u run glue for tires and they are like 300+ width with these cars i feel, or else it ESP blinking heaven (am talking 65/ modded 55) here, even stock 55 have trouble on normal roads unless they are fitted with good tires.

If history serves us correctly, the Black series cars will make great bargains in a couple of years! That's when it will go on my list.

The Porsche is faster because the 0-60 is a tick faster because of the awd? Finish the 1/4 mile and the Porsche will be looking at the 65's tail lights everytime. Tip or 6 speed.

I am with you. No more 75k in a year and a half hit for me! Actually I say that now but I am sure it will happen again!

Really? Every time? Well, at least NOT when Edmunds tested these 2 cars:

1/4 mile 2007 SL65 : 12.1 sec. @ 119.4mph
1/4 mile 2007 911TT : 11.6 sec. @ 118.5 mph

Here are the two links where Edmunds.com listed all important numbers of these 2 cars. I don't see any number where the SL is outperforming the 911. Both cars are VERY close.

Porsche:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=119535

SL65:

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do.../pageId=119176

Ok, maybe not every time, just 98%! Even as a novice my SL would run 11.6-11.7 @123 consistently and those numbers are more consistent with what other owners are getting. The 911 TT Tip is a quick car though.

I really don't think Edmunds should be the place to go for what the SL65 can do. It's a RWD monster with nearly 738 lb ft of torque, launching makes a huge difference on how it will do on the track.

Check dragtimes.com... I see 11.664 for a stock SL65.

E55's can do 12.1 stock (and lower), no way the 65 is slower.

I checked the site and as far as I can see, the 11.664 is from a 2005 SL65 KLEEMAN. Even that time would just equal the posted 11.6 seconds by Edmunds.com. BTW, why should the times (for a COMPARISON) be more accurate on dragtimes.com? There are so many different times for identical cars, you can actually pick what you like.

The SL65 has def. more power - but as I said, it tends to be quite difficult to get the best performance from the engine to the road - especially with the somewhat narrow stock-tires and RWD only. A stock-car is only as good as its weakest link.

My comparison was not based on NUMBERS - I wanted to see which car tends to be quicker. The question was: Can a STOCK 911 TT hold up to a STOCK SL65's 1/4 mile time - and IMO, it can, even after checking dragtimes.com.

I'm not saying that 12.1 is the best time the SL65 can do, BUT, to be fair - who tells us that the 911 TT can't do better than 11.6? That's why I was comparing apples to apples, a test performed under the same circumstances by the same company. Comparing times from different sources is always questionable.

Getting the optimum out of the SL65 depends very much on the driver and the raod-conditions. You need a perfect launch to have a chance. IMO, it's easier to push the Porsche to its limit. That's why I still doubt the Porsche will only see the SL's backlights in 98% of the races.

Oh, BTW, if I would only had one car and I would have to decide between the 911 and the SL65, I would pick the Mercedes (hard-top, technical-gadgets, options more 'every-day'-friendly etc.). The Porsche is just the winner to fullfill your pure "need for speed"...

Looking at dragtimes.com their isn't one 911 turbo that does the 1/4 in 11.6 except for the modded ones. Most are in the low 12's. Even Treynor who has some of the faster SL65 times has a modded Promotive 911 turbo time on there at 11.4 which is one of the quickest ones. 11.6 may be a factory ringer sent to the journalists.

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=

Most are in the low 12s? Where did you look at? Def. not at dragtimes.com..

Here's the problem with dragtimes.com: You have a bunch of tested 65s - but only one tested 911 - so saying that this number is the best the car can do is just wrong - since every time depends on many circumstances...In addition, does the tested car have the optional Sport-Chrono-Package? This "torque-booster" might have an influence as well...

Keep in mind: We are talking about the CURRENT 911 turbo. In addition, the one listed at 12.2 is not a tip and the other two - identical cars - are listed at 11.7. The quickest modded 911 I found was 10.990 - but again, I'm not looking at the modded ones.

But anyway, talking about the "quicker" car by simply comparing drag-times that are almost identical makes no sense to me. As soon as you exit the first curve, the Porsche has the advantage. And even when you are driving 3 miles straight on - the Porsche is faster as well - simply due to its top-speed of 193mph compared to the SL's 155mph. Keep in mind - we are comparing STOCK...