Behike

Hi guys,

I am about to pull the trigger on a SL63 with 030 performance package. Before doing so, I wanted to get your thoughts about the new SL65.

I might consider it instead of the 63; especially that it's got the 5 speed auto.

What do you think? Cons? Pros? Anything in general to know?

Thanks!

AMGfan

If you want a more balanced car and overall performer then I'd recommend the SL63. If you want the cache of a 65 and the addictive torque that brings the hammer of Thor to mind...SL65.

PS. A simple ECU/TCU tune of the 65 brings another level of ridiculous torque to the table.

Behike

Though one ...

smess

bought a 63 put 150 miles on it, sold it and bought a 65. the 63 does handle better but the power in the 65 is the real deal. once you own a 65 you wont be able to drive anything else so be prepared.

Marcus Frost

This quesiton gets asked often. IMO, SL65 > SL55 > SL63... yes, the MCT and facelift are appealing... but modability 500+ lb/ft of torque is even more appealing... and the 63 just doesn't have it...

-m

Xeron

a few, not all, of the people who have a SL63 have been having significant problems with the tranny. Some people think it may be involving the 08 build dates. Do some research

transferred

Get the 65 if you can afford it. SL is too heavy of a car to be sporty so the 63 is caught between two poles while the 65 is the ultimate grand tourer.

bfnnrgn

65; not even a contest.

MJ50

65 hands down...

sharvay

I was going to buy the 63. Walked into the dealer, saw the 65. Jaw dropped. Drove both, back to back, the 65 first. Honestly, the 63 felt weak after being in the 65. Fell in love with the 65, hence I bought it. Plus, it is the top of the range (excluding the black series)!

GO for the 65

sound 8

63 with an aftermarket upgrade, believe it's not far off the 65, with the benifit
of gearbox and exhaust note.

jmf003

This is another "well, no, not exactly."

Stock SL65s have run the 1/4 mile as fast as 11.27 seconds with a trap speed of 123 MPH. The best 1/4 mile time anyone has claimed for an SL63 is 12.5 trapping at 115 MPH.

The difference between those two results is about the length of six city buses. Now that wasn't the same driver on the same track on the same day but the SL65 is always going to be several bus lengths ahead of an SL63 in a 1/4 mile race.

Circle track times are a different story. Fastestlaps.com says the two cars have comparable times around Hockenheim with the SL63 being slightly faster. That comparison also suffers from the not being the same driver on the same day issue but the SL63 is going to be much closer to an SL65 on a circle track.

FWIW....

carcommander

If you want a sports car buy a 911 Turbo. If you want a screaming GT car buy an SL65. I own both.

Yacht Master

SL65 la cosa real

"The real thing"

photonut

my 63 has over 3K miles on it. i have had no problems with the car or the tranny. i drive it in manual mode exclusively. i have heard that the tranny problems tend to occur primarily when the car is used in the automatic mode. I LOVE THE VEHICLE!! i had an sl55 and find the new vehicle to be much more fun to drive.

charles pearson

Buy both and let your wife drive the 63, No for real though I like the 65. Check AMGfan's 65 out she clearly is a beast to be reckoned with. My day will come soooon, so 65 here I come.
Green= 63/ Red= 65

sound 8

Well to be " well no not exactly "
I will do some quarter mile tests with my Race Logic box and see what times
I get now it's been upgraded.

TMC M5

The one thing to consider with using a GPS based data logger (I have a Race Logic performance box myself) is that the 1/4 mile speed is going to be higher than the trap speed at a drag strip. The drag strip averages the last 66ft of the run whereas the GPS based datalogger is going to give you the "exact" speed at 1,320'. What mods have you done? Have you made any runs?

Tom

sound 8

Hi Tom,
I tried on Monday amid rain clouds,holiday traffic you name it, trouble
is you catch everything up so fast and although you may not think it, you are
probably easing off. Might try tonite. The best I got was 12.7, 111 mph.
Are you saying on a strip this would be slower or faster. There is a tuning company opposite who re-mapped it, I believe they put the Black edition
mapping in. Amazingly I can feel more torque, and the traction light comes on more often, but disappointed with the time, but I haven't used Race start
yet, and it's probably worth turning off the a/c, let's face it, feels more like
winter here.

TMC M5

Black edition? Of the CLK63 BS?

What I am saying is that the trap speed using the Race Logic pbox/vbox will be higher than it would be at the track. Fro example my drag strip runs trapped 123.7mph. But when I looked at my pbox, the trap speed was 125.6mph. Also, the 1 ft roll out doesn't exactly match up so the elapsed times will be off by that amount.

Tom

AMGfan

I'd have to assume that too...You could probably get the average stock CLK63 1/4 drag times and see what that would get you but you would still mathematically factor in the weight difference of the two cars, which I would think is considerable.

CLK63 (approx. 3880lbs)
SL63 (approx. 4274lbs)

The fastest dragtimes.com time I saw for a stock CLK63 is 11.958 (116.6mph)with the slowest being 12.410 (116.03). For the SL63, I only saw one time...12.510 (115.02mph).

Caveat: There are probably various other significant factors that go into the times. The only way to really determine if your tune is working for you is do before and after runs at the same track during similar weather conditions...My seat of the pantsometer sucks and only the hard facts are from the track and will back up the money you spent on the tune. G/L.

sound 8

Sorry to confuse, but my box is Race Technology, I think it works of gravity.
i.e. the minute you move the ball starts running.
Any way, tried again tonite with no sucess. Race start just lights up the tyres. In sport plus with traction on it bogs down, so I could not better my original time, even though it felt good!
I think quarter mile is more for drag strips as quarter mile means your travelling at a terminated speeed of over 120, an that's not good on the highways where being caught doing over 100 in the uk, means you loose
your licence. I think 0-100 is better where I got 10.1 secs, and 10.4 in my
S600. I must admit I do miss the torque, but I still love the 63.
The mapping was from a CLK black I think, definately worth having, particularly when it's free.
Does any one have the s/q and 0-100 for stock SL55,SL65 and 911 Turbo.
Looks like the figure of 12.5 for the 63 is very generous.

TMC M5

Actually, your data logger appears to be GPS based too:

http://www.race-technology.com/data_loggers_2_11.html

I kind of doubt that they would use the CLK63 BS map, you do realize that the SL63 has a higher HP rating compared to the CLK63 BS and the CLK63 BS didn't have the throttle blipping software (as the SL63 does). Honestly, it would be a down grade going to the BS software..given the 2+ years advantage in the SL63's development.

If you want magazine times (which most now use the RaceLogic vbox and use a 1ft roll out) here they are:

Porsche 997 Turbo Tiptronic: 0-100 7.8s
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2

Porsche 997 Turbo Manual: 0-100 8.0s
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...a2db2b0d5d.pdf

SL55: 0-100 10.9 (seems to be a lot slower than a
Motor Trend test which got 9.7s(?), but wanted I to remain consistent with using the same magazine)
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...0ff0da8169.pdf

SL65: 0-100 8.2s
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2

SL63 030: 0-100 9.7s
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezfl...7fa5713c17.pdf

Tom

sound 8

Thanks for the info, my box is very old, long before sat nav, around 1989.
Sorry, long before most cars had sat nav.My car still blips the throttle so
I guess not Black . I heard that's what they do so just presumed it was that.
I was VERY pessimistic about giving a nat *** engine more power without
big engine changes , but was pleasantly surprised just how much extra you can feel, backed up with more traction lights, almost non existent before.
That aside I expected to better 12.5 quarter and was pissed off when all I
could achieve 12.7. I expect on a clear drag strip with a qualified tester it
may beat 12.5. I do miss the Turbo so when I do I take the S600 out for a
thrash, on the down side you get so used the the g/box on the 63 I find the
600 frustrating. When you kick it down, often there's a hesitation and then down 2 or 1 then back to 2, or nothing just flat, perhaps it needs re setting.
I have got so used to being in the right gear at the right time and the instant
kickdown you get on the 63, makes up a little for the missing torque.
Having said that I still think the 63 is the best compromise, and if it had 65
torque, unbeatable!

TMC M5

Those older 'accelerometer" based data loggers can be really inaccurate. They measure g forces...but a car's "pitch" can be different from vehicle to vehicle. Your S600 probably has a much softer suspension...and will probably transfer weight from front to rear faster than your SL63. Your times on the SL63 can be significantly off. Spring for a GPS based data logger or take the SL63 to Santa Pod to get a more accurate measure of your car's performance.

Tom