SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: I must admit...I made a mistake
12-12-2008, 01:35 PM
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-12-2008, 03:23 PM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
12-12-2008, 11:56 PM
#29
Super Member
actually, dont be a sucker for the crank hp/tq numbers. they tell part of the story. the 63 has a faster gearbox, 2 extra gears, higher redline and shorter gearing overall. if you know something about torque multiplication you would know that the two cars are not that far apart in terms of straight-line acceleration. and the 63 sounds better imo too... 
alex
few cars
alex
few cars
Unfortunately for your example, the lower torque car, 63, also has lower horsepower, so it cannot convert nonexistent higher horsepower into higher torque.
A lose-lose situation
12-13-2008, 11:54 AM
#30
Former Vendor of MBWorld
An SL 65 would have to be heavily modified to beat your SL 55 since you have the fastest 55 in the world, jfm003. And I'm not sure the 65 would beat you in the quarter mile even then with the issues of hooking it up. That said I agree that stock the 65 is certainly faster than the 55. I have heard of one 65 in the high 10's, but you are getting close at 11.4, and no nitrous to boot! As you know I had a SL 600 for a short time and didn't like the turbo lag. I decided the SL 55 modified was more to my liking.
12-13-2008, 11:37 PM
#31
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Just read about an SL55 in southern Cal that ran an 11.38 with the same set up as yours. It's posted on the E55 site. I'm sure you've seen it posted from their day at the dragstrip. Still prefer the 55 engine over the 63, but the torque in the 65 is something else.
12-14-2008, 01:45 PM
#32
MBWorld Fanatic!
No, I had missed the 11.3 run. Thanks for pointing it out. I left him a congratulatory message over on that forum.
His setup is a bit stronger than mine, with long tube headers and primary cats removed while I'm running shorty headers through the OEM cats. He also has supplemental cooling.
I've decided to add the VRP heat exchanger but haven't decided whether to do any power-related mods beyond that.
How about you? Anything else in your future other than the VRP engine tune?
10-22-2011, 07:29 PM
#33
Bad example. Torque multiplication only comes into play on a comparative basis when horsepower of the lower torque car is equal to or greater than that of the higher torque car because...that higher horsepower can be converted into higher torque with gear multiplication.
Unfortunately for your example, the lower torque car, 63, also has lower horsepower, so it cannot convert nonexistent higher horsepower into higher torque.
A lose-lose situation
Unfortunately for your example, the lower torque car, 63, also has lower horsepower, so it cannot convert nonexistent higher horsepower into higher torque.
A lose-lose situation
You are wrong. Less crank tq, hp but shorter gearing can more than offset a higher tq/ hp longer gearing car. I will give you an example- the 65 at 150 has just gone into 5th which is 0.83:1. Rear end is 2.65. At 4500 rpms it is making say 550 tq at the crank which is 550 x 0.83x 2.65 = 1209 to the asphalt (ideal case, no losses, etc.)
The 63 motor at 150 is in 5th which is 1:1 and the rear end is 3.06. At 6000 rpms it is making say 400 tq at the crank which is 400 x 1.0 x 3.06 = 1224
add the fact that the 63 car is lighter and the 7g mct tranny has less losses (no tq converter) and things can go either way as the speeds climb
This is also precisely the reason why an sl65 cannot pull away from an e60 m5 at speeds... And the m5 has 100 less horses and 1/2 of it 65 tq (but has 7 short gears and 8250 redline).
you have to understand that all that matters is tq to the ground at any moment and the crank tq /hp numbers are good start, but are not representative of what happens during a long race
10-23-2011, 04:11 AM
#35
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 422
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2007 Väth SL65 AMG. 2007 BMW Alpina B5s. 2007 BMW M6.
Bad example. Torque multiplication only comes into play on a comparative basis when horsepower of the lower torque car is equal to or greater than that of the higher torque car because...that higher horsepower can be converted into higher torque with gear multiplication.
Unfortunately for your example, the lower torque car, 63, also has lower horsepower, so it cannot convert nonexistent higher horsepower into higher torque.
A lose-lose situation
Unfortunately for your example, the lower torque car, 63, also has lower horsepower, so it cannot convert nonexistent higher horsepower into higher torque.
A lose-lose situation
10-23-2011, 12:46 PM
#36
I think the real issue here is whether or not you want a more all around capable SL. The SL63 is just that IMO. Much better transmission and better handling. The SL65's only real advantage is a straight line. A Mercedes-Benz should be about more than that. The SL65 Black Series on the other hand is another animal. Less weight than the stock SL65, heavily revised body and suspension, faster transmission (though still based on the old 5-speeder). In short I can see why someone would quesiton the validity of the SL65 because really outside of a dragrace it doesn't have anything on the SL63. I'm amazed how hardly anyone on this entire site talks about the other aspects of these cars other than how fast they are from 0-60 and the 1/4 mile.
M
M
I really cant understand why do you compare SL63 and 65.....
63-for really fun drive and enjoyment....
65- Highway`s heavy pig with OLD tranny and engine...
+ If you will make 580hp in 63, it will be almost the same as 65.
All this crazy power for teens to proove something each other.
63-for really fun drive and enjoyment....
65- Highway`s heavy pig with OLD tranny and engine...
+ If you will make 580hp in 63, it will be almost the same as 65.
All this crazy power for teens to proove something each other.
