////AMG

After a few months with the SL63, I wish I had checked the 65 box. Race start is getting boring and seems to fade more and more every time I use it. The car is quick but it leaves much to be desired. I met another SL63 owner at a gas station he too had a 65 prior, however he is very pleased he opted for the 63. I leased mine so I would face a large penalty if I were to sell it back and order a 65. So, if you can, get the 65!

Dean62

As a potential buyer over the next several months I am keenly interested in what more it could have or do that would make it more desirable?

I have heard that the 65 is not that much faster nor does it handle better especially in light of the 2009 modifications to the sl63. And therfore the additional 50K is not well spent. Especially in light of AMG's famous depreciation. I haven't come by my money from inheritance or the lottery and look for some value from what I am purchasing.

I am looking at the DB9, DBS and Turbo Porsche so its not the amount of the SL65 that I find objectionable but I just heard that its not really better than the 63. I would be very interested in hearing from other 63 or 65 owners as to their experiences.

I test drove the 63 two days ago and it seemed like a nice ride. The new transmission with the down shifting and all was impressive. The engine sound wasn't too bad either. I've been in an E55 for the last 3 years and the 63 didn't seem quite as fast or nimble as my E55 but not that much slower. My current car is chipped and with a modified pulley so that would explain much of the difference. Anyway others experiences would be appreciated.

russjr

being a former TT owner, and given the current choices in the porsche price spread, i can't imagine again choosing any form of 911; in addition, their build-quality and excessive use of cheap plastic is very disappointing.
speaking to the choice between a 65 and a 63, i can say that both are exceptional engines, but on a daily driving basis i much prefer my sl63 to the cl65, nice as it is- the 63 has the best transmission available today, crisper handling ( especially with 030 option), better sound and all the performance you can use.

Addicted2Speed

You heard wrong. SL65 is on a totally different level than SL63, you can't even compare the two in terms of power. SL65 has 100hp and 300lb-ft torque more than SL63. Even from a common sense perspective without knowing any figures, its clear that the difference in power between a NA V8 and a twin-turbo V12 will be staggering.

EUROTEK//AMG

+ 2 65 owns ALL !

W211 BEAST

The 65 is on another level of amazingness.

Its ike the difference between getting a b***j** from the school sl** and getting it from Jenna Jameson. The school sl** has had a lot of practice, but Jenna is on another level.

Get it?

Dean62

the 65 is nearly 400 pounds heavier. I know its faster just not by enough to make a big enough of a noticeable difference to me. Between the weight and the ability to transfer that extra power to traction the 0-60 times are maybe a couple tenths quicker. If the SL65 was TT fast (3.4 to 3.7) there wouldn't be any doubt what I would get. But when the 63 is 4.4ish and the 65 is 4.2ish it makes for a more difficult choice.

I was a TT owner in 1996 and that was a really nice car. The newer one is not as impressive to me for some reason. I did drive the newest 911s with the pdk trans and that was really a nice ride.

W211 BEAST

The difference between the 63 and the 65 is like the difference between the 550 and the 63. If you need to ask you're probably better off saving the money and getting the normal one.

russjr

strange that you haven't tired of the m5 or the esclade and you already regret the 63! it seems you need to refine exactly what you want in your car; those you've mentioned all have very different attributes.

Imahobo

It has been written about before here on the board, you can't really compare the performance of these two cars looking at 0-60 times. Because they are rear wheel drive, the extra horsepower on the 65 isn't going to be as noticeable off the line as it is when the cars are already moving. If you punch both vehicles at 30 mph you will notice a more significant difference.

If you are factoring in the cost of the vehicle, you are correct that the SL55/SL63 is 95% of the car for a much cheaper price, especially if you look at total cost of ownership w/depreciation.

speed6

It is common sense- the same manufacturer is not going to be able to charge 50K more for a car if it isn't better. You are telling me if you had a billion dollars you would rather have the SL63 over the SL65?

Dean62

If I had a billion dollars I wouldn't be on this forum. I'd have 30 of my favorite cars and none of his would mean anything. I don't, so making intelligent decisions is still important. I think I started by saying that i didn't get my money from an inheritance or the lottery so I was still looking for value. I may be wrong but I still don't think that the difference between a 63 and a 65 is as great as the difference between say a 550 and an AMG version of that model.

Does the 09 65 have the same clutchless transmission as the 09 63?

NY_SG

Torn apart with the 63 and 65. Lets just say F*** it and get a porsche TT. LOL its faster than a 65 it's cheaper than a 65 it just looks well not so good.

If you want an sl get the 63 daily driver fun awesome looking not to expensive. Hardly ever use the 65 power my friend has a cl65. Or just save up and get the SL BLACK IT LOOKS SICK!

Addicted2Speed

0-60 means very little with 500hp+ cars and is almost always traction limited. The only reason 997TT can do 0-60 in 3.7 seconds is because of AWD and rear-engined layout. If you put drag radials on SL65, it will do 0-60 in 3 seconds flat. With stock tires, SL65 will actually be slower to 60mph than SL63 in most cases because its much harder to launch it due to massive torque (730lb-ft @ 2k RPM). However, if you race them from a roll (as most street races are), SL65 will pretty much make the SL63 look like its standing still. Even SL600 will easily walk the SL63 from a roll.

P.S. And let's not forget that you can easily tune these bi-turbo V12's for 100hp+ gains. It would be a crime to drive around with a stock 600hp SL65 when you can have a 700hp SL65 for about $3,000 more

Germancar1

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

jmf003

I agree with you in the main, Germancar, but a big part of the delight in owning an AMG or a V12 Mercedes is the incredible acceleration. At the risk of stating the obvious, the SL65 has more of that incredible acceleration than its lower powered siblings.

The SL65's acceleration can, of course, be used on any straight section of road; it's not limited to dragstrips and stoplight-to-stoplight runs. So I can understand why some people would find the SL65 to be more fun on the open road than the SL63, even if other reasonable people such as you and me came to a different conclusion.

////AMG

I have five kids do you suggest anything else that will fit seven people?

damian155

a minivan

NY_SG

Yeah i guess your right about thbe awd on Porsches.

But does it justify the extra 50kish +++ over the 63? Is just that the SL65 dont sound as good as the 63 too. My friend did do a muffler system on the CL65 just sound so awesome.

Confusing it comes down to what do you want in the end what you feel is right for ya.

MikeRPA

65 is on another level , maybe sl63 is a nice car for dd , but 65 will blow the doors off the 63 , and that would put a big smile on my face to see that my luxury , sporty Benz is on same level as z06 , Gallardo ,911t, etc , and to people who compares the power by 0-60 times SHAME ON YOU MO&**^ERS you don't deserve to drive an AMG or any nice car

yaroslav

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.

alx

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

Code3 Performance

LMAO! Fantastic, ever-so-eloquent analogy.

-Aaron

PS.. The 65 gets my vote.

UT_AMG

Couldn't have put it better myself. After have driven the 63, 65, and 911TT, I would have to say the 911TT(997 or 996). All out performance and handling. However, if it was down to comfort and neck snapping speed I would say 65. The 63 sounds ferocious.

SL2003driver

Anyone want to throw the CLK 63 AMG Black Series into this comparison?