BI-TURBO-LOVER

Ok we all know the sl65 is the highway king, it even beats the R35 gtr on the highway lol. but the handling is terrible , the trans sucks with that out dated 5 speed, and it mabye has jus too much torque lol. Also the value drops to almost 70k in 1 year. The sl63 is far much better as a daily driver and holds its value better, handling is much greater, and that new transmison is awsome. Does anyone on here have a sl63 with almost the same hp/tq as the sl65, and it will it out accelerate the sl65 in the quartermile, and around the track.

E55AMGFan

Statistical/Theoretical Explanation:

An SL63 can't get the HP/TRQ ratings of a SL65.

It won't even come close to the SL65 even if the SL63 was modded, a simple ECU tune on the SL65 will put decimation on the SL63 concerning acceleration and 1/4 mile. The SL65 is rated at 604hp and 738ft-lbs (which many times as seen by the dyno is underated but we'll use that anyway), with that said a bone stock car using 18% drivetrain loss should dyno 495rwhp, 605rwtq, a stock SL63(518hp, 465 ft-lbs) won't even come close to dynoing those figures to the wheels especially the RWTQ figure. Even a well modded SL63 is outdone as quite a few things have to be on the car for it to hit 450+rwhp(550hp) as I've only seen highly done up C63s hit that figure and Evosport's CLK63 BS which did 500rwhp, Even if the SL63 did 500rwhp, it can never compete with the torque of the V12TT. I admit the 7 speed on the SL63 seems much more attractive but more low end torque of the SL65 should make it easier to drive and keep up in town.

Real World Numbers:

SL63 1/4 mile stock 12.4 from Road and Track, SL65 stock 11.7 Road and Track as well, already a huge advantage for the SL65. A tune on the SL65 would drop it even lower as the SL63 would need ECU Tune + Headers to go into the lower 12s while the SL65 goes into deeper 11s.

TMC M5

Are these things you have personal experience with?

The SL65 and the SL63 are only about 100lbs apart. The SL63 is a better handling car than an SL65...but it isn't a night and day comparison. But if handling is the main criterion then you should look for another vehicle (997TT, GT-R, AM V8).

You complain about the 5 speed auto in the 65...but have you ever driven one? I drive one (CL65) every day and I have never felt that I needed another gear. When you have as much torque as the 65 produces, it makes a 7 speed transmission superfluous. Now a higher reving..less torque endowed engine (relatively speaking), like the 6.2 V8, necessitates a gearbox that can provide greater torque multiplication in lower gears. The 65s don't need that....

Tom

sound 8

I am lucky enough to have had a SL55 a CL65 and now a SL63.
To me the 63 is the best car I have ever had, but if you just want out and out
speed and the status that goes with 65 then it's a better car.
But as an all round car, the SL63 is fast enough, handles well, has a superb
gearbox , but by far the thing you can't get enough of is the sound, particularly on the over run where it burbles and bangs , all together unlike
a Mercedes should be. I drove a SL65 before buying the 63 and found it
fast on the motorway, very comfortable and very quiet, a bit like driving my
S Class, in fact I preferred my SL55.

Marcus Frost

Are you 7 years old, lol?

-m

jcpca356

Having driven E55, SL55, SL63, and recently SL65, I vote for..... (see my sig)

As for prices....SL65's are now priced very similar to SL55's!!! time to get them is now! i just bought mine this week

alx

i dont think you managed to get a single correct negative statement in your post.

1. when you have 700 pounds of tq a beefy 5-speed is fine
2. a one year old sl65 is 120k, not 70k.
3. as a daily driver the sl65 is the better car as it got a lot of torque at the low rpm range and feels far more relaxed around town
4. i dont understand what the modded sl63 will outdo the sl65 statement's goal is...

*edit - i did not read the responses when i typed mine, but then i read marcus' response and.. i dont think there was a need for me to respond after that

alex

BRUTALLYHONEST

The trans "sucks"? "Outdated"? "Terrible" handling? Have you ever driven one?

E55AMGFan

What's funny is that you would think would his username he would favor the Sl65 over the SL63.... and even if your don't have a username like his, we all know which car most people will take. V12 BiTurbo all day.

BI-TURBO-LOVER

YAS YAS YAS i have driven the SL65 2006 model, its extremely fast and what i mean is it lost 70k in 1 year, i just now test drove the sl63 and it is much nicer compared to the 2006 model, i never drove the 09 sl65. And what i mean is the 5 speed in the sl65 would be much faster if it had the new trans in the sl63 but it doesnt and its not planning on it. i owned a stock cl600 and it was very quick for such a heavy carand it had the 5 speed tranny and thas why my name is bi-turbo lover. anyways i drove both of em so i can compare them and what im saying is if the sl63 came with 600hp or if somone has modded it to that range does it performer better and not if u chip the sl65 im not asking mod for mod

AMGfan

I did not think the 7 speed in the SL63 could handle the torque of the SL65 and that is why they stuck with the 5 speed auto? If you are saying that the SL63 performs better on a autocross track vs. a 1/4 or from a dig...you really wouldn't get too much argument from many of us.

However, I didn't buy this car for autocross. I wanted a GT that would have supreme passing ability and the cache of a solid covertible top. A stock car that would from the dig make 95 percent of the cars in the world cry...I live in a world where highway passing and quick jump from a dig is the norm whereas canyon racing is non-existent (Florida).

The SL63 is a fantastic piece of kit but you should be comparing it to the SL55. Both cars are great in their own way and a better comparison from stock to modded versions...

cal1

According to Road and Track Magazine, SL63 stock torque is 465 were as SL65 is 738. Both numbers are crank torque values. A tremendous difference. The 63 engine does not seem to be super mod friendly. Without major and probably unrealistic mods, I do not think the 63 is capable of near 65 torque values, not even with spray.

By comparison, my modded 55 put down about 530 RWTQ the last time it was dynoed. I am told the auto tranny loses about 20% so 530 RWTQ would equate to 636 at the crank. So a modded 55 which is mod friendly still falls way short of a stock 65 and apparently the 65 can easily be taken over 800 torques with a little ECU tuning. I just don't think you will ever see a SL63 capable of SL65 performance.

sound 8

You are all barking up the wrong tree. I think the 2 cars are quite different and made that way. I also drove a 07 SL65, and as someone said. it's great
to cruise in. It's a cruiser, the 63 is far more like a sports car, it needs the 7 speed mct box to get the best from the engine, with so much torque you only need 5 speed in a 65, although the 7 speed changes faster,responds to input better, and has race start which is not available with an auto box.
I found the 65 sedate, and preferd the SL55, but for fun IMO you can't beat the high tech 63, with it's fine handling, gearbox and soundtrack.
They are 2 different cars, trying to put the 63 bits on a 65 is like putting
dogs ***** on a cat.

sound 8

Everyone is just concerned about power, there is a far bigger picture to consider other than how much torque the 65 has, most of it gets wasted
trying to connect it to the road anyway.

bfnnrgn

Not if you know what you're doing.

m_berman

I think everyone wil be surprised when the SLS arrives. Then this thread would be mute.

cal1

On this side of the pond, it is all about torque.

sound 8

On your roads you might have a point, however you CAN have a torquee
car without loosing it to traction or wheelspin.

sound 8

Tell me then, a hot hatch has just gone by you, probably front wheel drive
with 250 bhp, and it's very wet. How do you blast past him in your 65.
Without just spinning the wheels or loosing it to traction control.

AMGfan

First thing...I don't see the point in blasting past another car in the wet. I don't care if you are driving a 600hp monster or a 250hp hot hatch...the laws of physics and hydroplaning still apply to both. Common sense always wins out when I deal with harsh weather...

Just to engage your point, I would not go WOT when trying to pass any car in the 65, esp in the rain. I'd make sure I'd get the necessary grip then ease into the throttle. Which is pretty much the same process when I go to the drag strip in either the E55 or SL65.

david_101

i drove the 55 before getting the 65. just didn't care for it.

the 63... never drove it. didn't care to consider it when it arrived because every MB SA with whom i spoke said it was less suited for DD than the 65.

i've been waiting for the SLS, but i think i'll just keep waiting to see the new SL. distant family guy, 80 years old, has a 300SL, which he shows and always gets offers on. he's on top of the SLS and said just the other night, "i'm not impressed with it."

well, i don't have a 300SL and i am impressed. but the regular old AMG SL should be quite enough for my boring little life.

sound 8

Why are YOU answering bfnnrgn post.
He's the one that said he could unleash all that torque without the need for traction or without it. " not if you know what your doing "
Let HIM answer.

bfnnrgn

Because your question is invalid. No one is stupid enough to race in the rain.

AMGfan

I didn't realize this was personal conversation between you two...just relax...its only my opinion and you can ignore it as you wish...

sound 8

Then your a wimp, and can't do what you say you can.