SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: SL55 vs SL600: Need help deciding
10-08-2008, 01:28 AM
#26
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Toronto Ontario Canada
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
SL 55 AMG
cant afford ??? LMAO u must be kidding me , Im actually known for my money.STAK Gz ..... YES 35 is actually pretty old compare to me my friend .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
10-08-2008, 02:43 AM
#27
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63S coupe, X5M
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
Lots of other cars and boats huh, I guess thats why you had to settle for an 03 SL55? I've always known it but now you're making it very apparent just how pathetic you are.
Why do you even post on these forums, all you seem to know how to do is brag about how great your SL55 is and how great your knockoff rims are; I have yet to read one usefull thing you have written.
Your a fighter or something right? Try not to take too many more knocks to the head, it's not helping...
10-08-2008, 04:09 AM
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
cant afford ??? LMAO u must be kidding me , Im actually known for my money.STAK Gz ..... YES 35 is actually pretty old compare to me my friend .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
We have the exact SAME R230 MODEL W/AMG BODY AMG QUAD EXHAUST minus your CHEAP UGLY REPLICA CHROME EBAY WHEELS ect... I guess you think your DADS old beat up 2003 POS buyback lemon flood recovery dumper is ugly too
I'll do you 1 better, I'll get video of me racing stock or modded E55k, they'll beat your SL55 badly but a normal well looked after 06' like Murtza has they have a good race w/slight edge going to E55k due to weight. Infact Murtza & I will race for giggles including video too..
(If you don't know it? I'm certain you don't because you type/post like a WATERHEAD, but both SL55 & E55k share the exact same engine & powerrating's MB mis quotes the E55k lower due to marketing)
But all of us OG's know the E55k's are the most widely owned & have lots of mods/track time... So I'll run a modded 1 to prove my point and have video ready for your 19 yr old WATERHEAD
Keep stackin' those imaginary G's wanna B gangster, did you learn to speak english by watching countless hrs of "Yo MTV RAP'S"
Seriously if you are in the fight game consider waiting tables while attending a local Community College, as Murtza said you've taken to many blows to your dome you are exhibiting mental signs of being punch-drunk aka like Muhammad Ali in his twilight years...
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame
but...Ohh well.. I could've bought NEARLY (2) of your old beaten 2003 SL55's they fell hard ESPECIALLY W/high mileage AND ZERO WARRANTY easy $40k or less..I test drove both & realized I wanted the FASTER CAR ie 600 Biturbo model that was EZ to turn into a MONSTER w/ONLY ECU/TCU you could add NOS & still be slower, Kleemann/RENNtech gets 715+ RWTO outt've the 600 TT that = 870+ Crank Torque low 11's all day long some have even dipped into the 10's w/cooling mods
in the 1/4 I bought my 05' 8 months ago for $74k after Ext 100k warranty all taxes DMV registration etc...
So why did you get the 2003 SL55 again mr. baller
Ohh I know it was the CHEAPEST YOU COULD AFFORD..
Last edited by Thericker; 10-08-2008 at 02:28 PM.
10-08-2008, 04:44 AM
#30
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Nahh that still wouldnt explain the WATERHEAD contents in his pathetic posts...lol
10-08-2008, 02:11 PM
#31
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Your lack of knowledge on anything MB related is truely pathetic..
cant afford ??? LMAO u must be kidding me , Im actually known for my money.STAK Gz ..... YES 35 is actually pretty old compare to me my friend .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
These (2) posts from the thread link above pretty much some it all up junior..
and can hands down say that even though I love my own car, the 600 is smoother faster and more powerful despite the numbers. the powerband is very well distributed vs the AMG which is somewhat jerky as with the supercharger engage and so forth. the turbos in the V12 spool quickly and hammer you but don't jerk like the supercharger clutch. Hands down 600 over 55 and I own it. Anybody who tells you different is selling them.
Over a 100 ft lbs more torque in stock trim etc.. STOCK vs STOCK you loose MODDED vs MODDED you loose.
Last edited by Thericker; 10-08-2008 at 02:22 PM.
10-11-2008, 12:09 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NYC-NJ
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SL600
Owned both
Sorry this thread has gone so far off but to the point I owned an 04 SL55 and currently own an 06 SL600:
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
10-11-2008, 12:29 PM
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Sorry this thread has gone so far off but to the point I owned an 04 SL55 and currently own an 06 SL600:
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
I've heard so many arguments on weight, good to know it's only 160 lbs, hell if I remove the 50+lb spare tire/whl 5-10lbs of Merc tools, that would improve significantly to about 100lbs deficit
I'm loving the massive mercedes depreciation, that 65 AMG is getting closer-n-closer to my garage in a couple yrs they will be in the 50's the CL65 05' are in the high 40's as we speak. I love the SL though but a good point of reference.
10-11-2008, 04:28 PM
#39
MBWorld Fanatic!
Sorry this thread has gone so far off but to the point I owned an 04 SL55 and currently own an 06 SL600:
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
The brakes are the same, identical.
The SL600 does weigh more but not 200 lbs. more like 160 i think. The SL55 handles slightly better but seems to handle significantly better (the feel) and is the sportier of the two. The AMG's transmission is faster shifting. Acceleration wise, the SL600 is a monster that is noticeably faster than the SL55 (both stock). It is also the smoothest car I have driven. In the 55 I felt like i had to drive hard most of the time while the 600 isn't always trying to get me to floor it. I drive hard and fast but sometimes I don't want to be looking for police like a hawk.
Bottom line, i sometimes miss the criper handling of the SL55 but love the torque and smoothness of the TT V12. Around where i live i don't have many twisty roads, virtually none.
My experience is that the SL600 is much harder to find and both (used) cost about the same. Both are fast & comfortable. if you are going to go on track, want sportier handling and a louder exhaust take the 55. If you want faster acceleration, straighline speed and smoothness the 600. BTW, the exhaust note on the 55 is great until you get to high revs. Then it sounds like a marine outboard.
I know they make the SL65 but that's beaucoup bucks. I wish i could have an SL55 with the the SL600 engine despite the weight penalty.
Good luck and let us know what you did. You can't go wrong with either.
Regarding the vehicle weights, I recall calculating the 200 lb difference a few years back so I went back and rechecked the numbers. They weren't quite what I was expecting.
The official MB reported weights for the SL55 were:
- 4,235 lbs for 2003, 2004, and 2005
- 4,280 lbs for 2006
- 4,365 for 2007 and 2008
- 4,429 lbs for 2004, 2005, and 2006
- 4,465 lbs for 2007, 2008, and 2009
- 194 lbs for 2004 and 2005
- 149 lbs for 2006
- 90 lbs for 2007 and 2008
10-11-2008, 05:27 PM
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Pablo, your comments were probably among the most helpful and responsive to the OP's questions.
Regarding the vehicle weights, I recall calculating the 200 lb difference a few years back so I went back and rechecked the numbers. They weren't quite what I was expecting.
The official MB reported weights for the SL55 were:
Regarding the vehicle weights, I recall calculating the 200 lb difference a few years back so I went back and rechecked the numbers. They weren't quite what I was expecting.
The official MB reported weights for the SL55 were:
- 4,235 lbs for 2003, 2004, and 2005
- 4,280 lbs for 2006
- 4,365 for 2007 and 2008
- 4,429 lbs for 2004, 2005, and 2006
- 4,465 lbs for 2007, 2008, and 2009
- 194 lbs for 2004 and 2005
- 149 lbs for 2006
- 90 lbs for 2007 and 2008
Yes this is the review where they tested a TUNED SL600 while reporting it was stock, but since there virtually the same thru 2004-2007 I tend to think this part of there article is correct.
the Mercedes SL600 can hurl its 4501-pound
Yet another contrast: The SL600 trumps the SL55 AMG, even though the AMG edition weighs in a tad lighter (4411 pounds)
10-11-2008, 06:17 PM
#41
Super Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 992
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
8 Posts
GL550, C55, 335i Coupe, vintage Mustang
cant afford ??? LMAO u must be kidding me , Im actually known for my money.STAK Gz ..... YES 35 is actually pretty old compare to me my friend .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
100 + miles ?? LOL where are u getting these faulse specs .... ur just mentally ill. i know the health care isnt free in the states but dont be cheap on ur health man . u have brain damage or maybe its the sign of Alzheimer.
like i said , u have no idea wats under my hood and i could care less if my rims are replicas . its the look i went for . heavy ??? I can barely even feel a difference . when u got crazy HP, xtra weight on a wheel aint gonna slow it down.
ur talking to a guy that runs things . i have lots of other cars and boats that i love to toy with . NOW..... u think ur ugly 600 is gonna beat my car . how about we post some youtube videos or track times and see whos the real deal ???
im calling u out .... u old poor geek . im gonna put u too shame .
Nick
10-11-2008, 06:38 PM
#42
MBWorld Fanatic!
Not arguing w/ya but C&D reviewed/weighed BOTH 2004/05 SL600 & SL55 here are direct quotes from the mag, I think the reality is the 90lbs
Yes this is the review where they tested a TUNED SL600 while reporting it was stock, but since there virtually the same thru 2004-2007 I tend to think this part of there article is correct.
Yes this is the review where they tested a TUNED SL600 while reporting it was stock, but since there virtually the same thru 2004-2007 I tend to think this part of there article is correct.
I pulled my numbers from the MBUSA website (Google search site:www.mbusa.com SL55 weight) cross checked against www.theautochannel.com to fill in the gaps.
Car and Driver would necessarily be measuring wet weights (i.e. fluid in the radiator, gas in the tank, etc) so their numbers should be higher than the dry weights from the factory.
The 176 lb spread between the wet and dry SL55 weights looks about right (gasoline weighs ~6 lbs per gallons; a full 21 gallon gas tank = ~126) but the 72 lb spread between the SL600 weights doesn't even allow for a full tank of gas.
So maybe the SL600's factory dry weight is wrong, or the SL600 didn't have a full tank of gas when tested by C&D, or the scale(s) used by C&D had a glitch when testing the SL600. It's hard to say for certain without more data but, again, your conclusion could be the correct one.
10-11-2008, 06:51 PM
#43
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
Well, you and I pretty much agree on all the other data. It's certainly possible that you are right and I am wrong on this set of data.
I pulled my numbers from the MBUSA website (Google search site:www.mbusa.com SL55 weight) cross checked against www.theautochannel.com to fill in the gaps.
Car and Driver would necessarily be measuring wet weights (i.e. fluid in the radiator, gas in the tank, etc) so their numbers should be higher than the dry weights from the factory.
The 176 lb spread between the wet and dry SL55 weights looks about right (gasoline weighs ~6 lbs per gallons; a full 21 gallon gas tank = ~126) but the 72 lb spread between the SL600 weights doesn't even allow for a full tank of gas.
So maybe the SL600's factory dry weight is wrong, or the SL600 didn't have a full tank of gas when tested by C&D, or the scale(s) used by C&D had a glitch when testing the SL600. It's hard to say for certain without more data but, again, your conclusion could be the correct one.
I pulled my numbers from the MBUSA website (Google search site:www.mbusa.com SL55 weight) cross checked against www.theautochannel.com to fill in the gaps.
Car and Driver would necessarily be measuring wet weights (i.e. fluid in the radiator, gas in the tank, etc) so their numbers should be higher than the dry weights from the factory.
The 176 lb spread between the wet and dry SL55 weights looks about right (gasoline weighs ~6 lbs per gallons; a full 21 gallon gas tank = ~126) but the 72 lb spread between the SL600 weights doesn't even allow for a full tank of gas.
So maybe the SL600's factory dry weight is wrong, or the SL600 didn't have a full tank of gas when tested by C&D, or the scale(s) used by C&D had a glitch when testing the SL600. It's hard to say for certain without more data but, again, your conclusion could be the correct one.
Funny thing is they added the Auto Trunk closer option in 2007 yet it shows to be least difference yet?? I think it would make plenty of sense for the 2003-2006 55 & 2004-06 600 to be seperated by the 90 odd lbs, since the AMG has the tighter lower suspension settings plus less weight would account for the owners reporting the noticable heavier nose feeling
If I was really a 1/4 mile demon, I could easily put this car on a diet that Jared from Subway would be envious of......replace both frnt seats w/light CF racing seats (EZ 100+lbs ea.) then rip out all the convertible motors/actuators/parts (another 150lbs guess?) spare tire/whl/tools 60+ lbs & slap on some CF Dynamag whls - 40-50lbs then a light weigt battery -40-50lbs (they have 1 that weighs 20 oddlbs)
using the 4500 lb quote I'd have her in @ 3990 she'd be in the low 10's high 9's w/ECU/TCU NO doubt
Hell w/it! I'm going to see if I can get her weighed @ 18 whler scale station or recycling place..
Last edited by Thericker; 10-11-2008 at 07:44 PM.
10-12-2008, 12:01 PM
#44
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NYC-NJ
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SL600
Thx for posting those #'s. Very interesting how the difference changed yr to yr. Must be something with adding as standard, euipment that was previously optional on the 55 and standard on the 600. My car is black and it was hard finding it without the panoroof. Did not want the heat or the weight. My 600 feel heavier in the nose than my 55 but the torque!
Pablo, your comments were probably among the most helpful and responsive to the OP's questions.
Regarding the vehicle weights, I recall calculating the 200 lb difference a few years back so I went back and rechecked the numbers. They weren't quite what I was expecting.
The official MB reported weights for the SL55 were:
Regarding the vehicle weights, I recall calculating the 200 lb difference a few years back so I went back and rechecked the numbers. They weren't quite what I was expecting.
The official MB reported weights for the SL55 were:
- 4,235 lbs for 2003, 2004, and 2005
- 4,280 lbs for 2006
- 4,365 for 2007 and 2008
- 4,429 lbs for 2004, 2005, and 2006
- 4,465 lbs for 2007, 2008, and 2009
- 194 lbs for 2004 and 2005
- 149 lbs for 2006
- 90 lbs for 2007 and 2008
10-12-2008, 03:14 PM
#45
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63S coupe, X5M
Why do people keep saying the SL600 is significantly faster, it's just not the case. The 2 ones I have encountered and raced on the street were a tad faster but just barely.
Video comparing SL55 to SL600, perfect for this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAL-5idpM1k
0 - 100km/h | SL55: 4.6s SL600: 4.6s
0-200km/h | SL55 14.3s SL600: 13.9s
200-0 km/h | SL55: 145.6m SL600: 146.2m
Slalom 18m | SL55: 62.7km/h SL600: 61km/h
PS. Does the 600 have a full manual mode?
Video comparing SL55 to SL600, perfect for this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAL-5idpM1k
0 - 100km/h | SL55: 4.6s SL600: 4.6s
0-200km/h | SL55 14.3s SL600: 13.9s
200-0 km/h | SL55: 145.6m SL600: 146.2m
Slalom 18m | SL55: 62.7km/h SL600: 61km/h
PS. Does the 600 have a full manual mode?
10-12-2008, 03:45 PM
#46
MBWorld Fanatic!
Why do people keep saying the SL600 is significantly faster, it's just not the case. The 2 ones I have encountered and raced on the street were a tad faster but just barely.
Video comparing SL55 to SL600, perfect for this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAL-5idpM1k
0 - 100km/h | SL55: 4.6s SL600: 4.6s
0-200km/h | SL55 14.3s SL600: 13.9s
200-0 km/h | SL55: 145.6m SL600: 146.2m
Slalom 18m | SL55: 62.7km/h SL600: 61km/h
PS. Does the 600 have a full manual mode?
Video comparing SL55 to SL600, perfect for this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAL-5idpM1k
0 - 100km/h | SL55: 4.6s SL600: 4.6s
0-200km/h | SL55 14.3s SL600: 13.9s
200-0 km/h | SL55: 145.6m SL600: 146.2m
Slalom 18m | SL55: 62.7km/h SL600: 61km/h
PS. Does the 600 have a full manual mode?
Well, it's partly the data and partly a matter of semantics, Murtaza.
Using your data the cars are dead even at 100 km/h (62 mph) but the SL600 pulls away by about two bus lengths (72 feet) at 200 km/h (124 mph). I'll add that the SL600 will continue to pull further and further away from the SL55 the longer the two cars run.
Does two bus lengths at 200 km/h mean the SL600 is "significantly faster?"
I probably tend to use the phrase "noticeably faster" but would have no qualms if someone wanted to call it "significantly faster" or someone else wanted to call it "somewhat faster but not significantly faster." That's the semantics part.
10-12-2008, 04:17 PM
#47
MBWorld Fanatic!
All depends on what you mean by "sporty handling". If you simply want to out-drag anything from a stop-light and prove you are an idiot, then the SL600 is your choice.
If, instead, you want a car which provides you with sharp responses and lucid feedback to you as the driver on what the car is doing, the SL is not an ideal choice in any guise. The SL steering is soggy, the brakes are worse and the throttle sometimes gives the impression of having a mind of its own.
Neither the SL600 nor the SL55 will disappoint, though the SL55 provides a slighter rawer, more animal experience. The SL600 by comparison is a little too safe, a little too staid, a little too old man.
The fact that the SL600 is depreciating faster than the SL55 simply continues the trend that V12s - wherever they come from and whatever badge they wear - hold their value less well.
If you spend your life on typical suburban US divided highways, it doesn't much matter, either will do. If, on the other hand, you have access to the twisties, the laws of physics say the lighter the car, the better.
If, instead, you want a car which provides you with sharp responses and lucid feedback to you as the driver on what the car is doing, the SL is not an ideal choice in any guise. The SL steering is soggy, the brakes are worse and the throttle sometimes gives the impression of having a mind of its own.
Neither the SL600 nor the SL55 will disappoint, though the SL55 provides a slighter rawer, more animal experience. The SL600 by comparison is a little too safe, a little too staid, a little too old man.
The fact that the SL600 is depreciating faster than the SL55 simply continues the trend that V12s - wherever they come from and whatever badge they wear - hold their value less well.
If you spend your life on typical suburban US divided highways, it doesn't much matter, either will do. If, on the other hand, you have access to the twisties, the laws of physics say the lighter the car, the better.
Last edited by blueSL; 10-12-2008 at 04:24 PM.
10-12-2008, 05:04 PM
#48
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
All depends on what you mean by "sporty handling". If you simply want to out-drag anything from a stop-light and prove you are an idiot, then the SL600 is your choice.
If, instead, you want a car which provides you with sharp responses and lucid feedback to you as the driver on what the car is doing, the SL is not an ideal choice in any guise. The SL steering is soggy, the brakes are worse and the throttle sometimes gives the impression of having a mind of its own.
Neither the SL600 nor the SL55 will disappoint, though the SL55 provides a slighter rawer, more animal experience. The SL600 by comparison is a little too safe, a little too staid, a little too old man.
The fact that the SL600 is depreciating faster than the SL55 simply continues the trend that V12s - wherever they come from and whatever badge they wear - hold their value less well.
If you spend your life on typical suburban US divided highways, it doesn't much matter, either will do. If, on the other hand, you have access to the twisties, the laws of physics say the lighter the car, the better.
If, instead, you want a car which provides you with sharp responses and lucid feedback to you as the driver on what the car is doing, the SL is not an ideal choice in any guise. The SL steering is soggy, the brakes are worse and the throttle sometimes gives the impression of having a mind of its own.
Neither the SL600 nor the SL55 will disappoint, though the SL55 provides a slighter rawer, more animal experience. The SL600 by comparison is a little too safe, a little too staid, a little too old man.
The fact that the SL600 is depreciating faster than the SL55 simply continues the trend that V12s - wherever they come from and whatever badge they wear - hold their value less well.
If you spend your life on typical suburban US divided highways, it doesn't much matter, either will do. If, on the other hand, you have access to the twisties, the laws of physics say the lighter the car, the better.
Last I looked "TODAY" all vehicles had between 30k-55k mileage & barring ANY LEMON/SALVAGE Branding
(Autotrader.com) you can pick up an 2003 SL55 for $34,900-$40,500 2004 SL55 $39,900-$49,900
SL600 came out in 2004 so 2004 SL600 $39,500-51,900
Looks like you don't know the 55/600 market do you?
The CL600 & the 2003 SL55 are the models that's showing some real depreciation NOT the SL600..
You are slightly confused on this comment
The SL600 by comparison is a little too safe, a little too staid, a little too old man.
Last edited by Thericker; 10-13-2008 at 02:11 AM.
10-12-2008, 05:17 PM
#49
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Southern, CA.
Posts: 9,155
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
17 Posts
V12-Biturbo
1 of the most even handed impartial owners...
Well, it's partly the data and partly a matter of semantics, Murtaza.
Using your data the cars are dead even at 100 km/h (62 mph) but the SL600 pulls away by about two bus lengths (72 feet) at 200 km/h (124 mph). I'll add that the SL600 will continue to pull further and further away from the SL55 the longer the two cars run.
Does two bus lengths at 200 km/h mean the SL600 is "significantly faster?"
I probably tend to use the phrase "noticeably faster" but would have no qualms if someone wanted to call it "significantly faster" or someone else wanted to call it "somewhat faster but not significantly faster." That's the semantics part.
Using your data the cars are dead even at 100 km/h (62 mph) but the SL600 pulls away by about two bus lengths (72 feet) at 200 km/h (124 mph). I'll add that the SL600 will continue to pull further and further away from the SL55 the longer the two cars run.
Does two bus lengths at 200 km/h mean the SL600 is "significantly faster?"
I probably tend to use the phrase "noticeably faster" but would have no qualms if someone wanted to call it "significantly faster" or someone else wanted to call it "somewhat faster but not significantly faster." That's the semantics part.
10-12-2008, 05:21 PM
#50
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
C63S coupe, X5M
Well, it's partly the data and partly a matter of semantics, Murtaza.
Using your data the cars are dead even at 100 km/h (62 mph) but the SL600 pulls away by about two bus lengths (72 feet) at 200 km/h (124 mph). I'll add that the SL600 will continue to pull further and further away from the SL55 the longer the two cars run.
Does two bus lengths at 200 km/h mean the SL600 is "significantly faster?"
I probably tend to use the phrase "noticeably faster" but would have no qualms if someone wanted to call it "significantly faster" or someone else wanted to call it "somewhat faster but not significantly faster." That's the semantics part.
Using your data the cars are dead even at 100 km/h (62 mph) but the SL600 pulls away by about two bus lengths (72 feet) at 200 km/h (124 mph). I'll add that the SL600 will continue to pull further and further away from the SL55 the longer the two cars run.
Does two bus lengths at 200 km/h mean the SL600 is "significantly faster?"
I probably tend to use the phrase "noticeably faster" but would have no qualms if someone wanted to call it "significantly faster" or someone else wanted to call it "somewhat faster but not significantly faster." That's the semantics part.
