V12Godspeed

Saw this on M5Board as they are boasting how bad the SL got left behind. Seems the SL63 got dusted pretty bad...M5 pulls hard on it. Many are saying it's the weight difference, that could be a factor I guess...

Was it anyone in here? Owner is from NJ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkEngTylIJk

Cylinder Head

iTrader: (1)

Weight difference and engine performance, and the relative lack of torque in the 63 lump vs. the 55 really makes a difference with the weight of the SL. Guess that new transmission didn't really count for a whole lot either.

transferred

Considering the M5 easily out traps the SL55...and the SL55 is faster than the SL63...well it's hardly a surprise the M5 whoops the SL63.

1.2 liters extra capacity wasted...

-Rob

JAYCL600

Damn that 63 got walked hard, but that M5 wasnt stock "carbon delete, rpi scoops, and rpi stage 3 exhaust"

Fantasm

thats pretty stock though honestly. rpi scoops - just a plastic pieces to direct air a little better; and a new exhaust. if thats all it takes to walk the SL63 so hard then have mercy on me please.

CA_E55

Perfect gearing and lower drivetrain losses in the M5 vs. the slush-box SL. Still, the outcome is disappointing I hate to say this, but kudos to M-power.

Fantasm

The SL63 does not have a slushbox. It is better than any manual driver could do, period. No human driver could keep up with how well the SL63 transmission performs. It does a great job, when its actually working.

Karl G

Maybe if he wore his seatbelt, he'd win next time. Why do people still not wear seatbelts? (Indicator lights on cluster at 00:28)

CA_E55

Well, the gear box itself is a slushbox, all MB did was replacing the TQ with a multiplate clutch. The problem with this design is that one of the biggest inherent inefficiencies of a slushbox is still there, namely there is only one shaft, and gear reduction is done via planetary gear sets = less efficient than dual shaft gear box. Particularly the high reduction or multiplication gear selections with multiple planetary gear sets engaged are power hugging beasts.
BTW, that is why running the best power on a dyno is done in a 1:1 gear selection which eliminates the above mentioned planetary gear engagement

The best gear box design, without any doubt, is a dual clutch automated gear box - as in DSG from VW/Audi. The BMW SMG is close behind, but not as fast as the DSG.

Babilonian

This is just a stupid street race and nothing more. Both cars are very close in terms of power. the m5 has a bigger engine, but less torque thna the sl63 and less horse power too.

as for the official figures, m5 says 0-60 in 4.7sec
Sl63 0-60 in 4.6.

This means that the guy who was driving the SL didn't know how to drive that beast.

Engine



Engine typeDOHC V10 40VDisplacement (ccm)4,999Stroke/bore in mm75.2/92.0Power (SAE hp @ rpm)500 @ 7,750Torque (lb-ft @ rpm)383 @ 6,100


ENGINE AND DRIVETRAINEngine typeDOHC 32-valve V-8Net power518 hp @ 6,800 rpmNet torque465 lb-ft @ 5,200 rpm

transferred

The only stupid thing in this thread is you. Every man and his dog know manufacturers 0-60 are hardly worth a dime...even SL owners are chiming in with level heads....sheeesh

And for the hard of math (YOU), 6.2 is a bigger number than 5.0...

Babilonian

The only one stupid is you. v10 is bigger than v8. And now you are suppose to be as smart as those engineers who work for BMW and Benz? You know numbers more than them?

People like you complain about coffee if its too hot or too cold and you'll buy a car worth over $100k from a manufacturer that claims something on paper and you "don't believe them".

You think that they just put that number there for fun? They will get sued by dumb people like you. Those numbers are tested by professionals not by amateurs on the street.

Get a life.

nlpamg

+1, the carbon filters can also be removed from the 63's with no problem.

haha

as for the 0-60 times, Babilonian, BMW states that the M5 goes from 0-60 in 4.5.

Babilonian, it's common knowledge that many manufacturers do not state correct 0-60 times. quite a few of them underrate their times. do you think people would sue a manufacturer for having a faster car than advertised?

you do realize that the M5's V10 isn't bigger in terms of displacement do you? last time I checked, to put it in a way you can understand, 6.2 was a bigger number than 5.0. the M5 has a 5.0L V10 and the SL63 has a 6.2L V8. just because the engine has 2 more cylinders doesn't mean that it's bigger.

stop arguing here, you have no place--from what I can see, you just joined a couple weeks ago and have a GS300. you're arguing with some long time and respected members who have cars that are significantly faster than your Camry.

p.s. keep the insults to yourself.

percykwong

So how does the M5 do against a 65? Just wondering..

Fantasm

it loses

LZH

LOL - what a retard...
The M5 is a great car no doubt - but for everyday driving the SL63 is a much better car. You really have to wind the crap out of the M5 to get any sort of performance...on the street that can get very old. Sure, it's faster than the SL63, but that's just the M guys trying hard to beat anything AMG

SL65amg

Even more interesting is gonna be in 2 years when the next M5/M6 comes out with the new M-Division's 4.4 liter Direct Injection twin-turbo 32-Valve DOHC V-8 (And will most likely also have a DSG transmission)... it'll most likely be rated around 580 or so HP (so as to stay tied with the Audi RS6's power output) but will most likely be underrated for sure just like the standard 750i's engine is...

And these will compete with AMG's all-new 6.2 or 6.3 liter twin-turbo DI V-8's....

A Kleemann or Renntech or VRP lightly modified 65 will have not too much problems against these in the straights but the naturally-aspirated 63's V-8 is just not enough against the next twin-turbo M5/M6's... and don't forget BMW might decide to send its new twin-turbo V-12 to M for an even faster car....

The horsepower wars are not only not over, but also getting more and more interesting....

And isnt the RS6 sedan coming to the U.S. any day now? Isn't it true that just ECU/exhaust/filters tuning on this yields over 730 HP?

MockbaBenz

Hey guys I was the one that ran the SL63. All I have on my car is Mufflers, RPI scoops, and delete the carbon filter which comes stock on euro m5's. We both had 1 passanger in the car and my passanger evened out that I had half a tank less gas than the sl63. My passanger weighed 225 and his passanger weight 160. I walked on a sl55 just as bad or worse just so you know.

transferred

Tough to look that far into the future as re engine outputs...wait until they're confirmed then discuss. Same for tuning the RS, the tranny would need tq limiting/beefing up as stock it only puts out 480lbs iirc due to tranny limitations

As re the RS6...I *think* member carl lasiter was set to get one but was told they weren't coming...but this more than a yr ago so I dunno...shoot him a pm it may have been vic55 tho as he seems to always get the latest rides...

Mockabenz- thx for posting, confirmed what we know about the M5 being something not to mess with on the freeway...