SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: Jaguar vs SL65
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
Jaguar vs SL65
A friend who works in a Jaguar dealership phoned to day. He asked if I still
had my SL55. He said I should go for a test drive in the new aluminum
XKR with a new engine giving out over 500 hp and weighing very little.
He said it would make mincemeat out of my SL and said another branch
had sold one to a guy with a SL65, he said it made mincemeat of that too.
Anybody in the States seen or driven one. I intend to find out just how quick it is.
had my SL55. He said I should go for a test drive in the new aluminum
XKR with a new engine giving out over 500 hp and weighing very little.
He said it would make mincemeat out of my SL and said another branch
had sold one to a guy with a SL65, he said it made mincemeat of that too.
Anybody in the States seen or driven one. I intend to find out just how quick it is.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 2,934
Likes: 387
From: Kenilworth, il usa
GT63S ePerformance 4dr, '25 Bentayga Black Ed.(wife), Wrangler and 250 MLB(kids)
A friend who works in a Jaguar dealership phoned to day. He asked if I still
had my SL55. He said I should go for a test drive in the new aluminum
XKR with a new engine giving out over 500 hp and weighing very little.
He said it would make mincemeat out of my SL and said another branch
had sold one to a guy with a SL65, he said it made mincemeat of that too.
Anybody in the States seen or driven one. I intend to find out just how quick it is.
had my SL55. He said I should go for a test drive in the new aluminum
XKR with a new engine giving out over 500 hp and weighing very little.
He said it would make mincemeat out of my SL and said another branch
had sold one to a guy with a SL65, he said it made mincemeat of that too.
Anybody in the States seen or driven one. I intend to find out just how quick it is.
Not much lighter then XFR (same engine) which in turn is slightly slower then SL63.
Nothing really to worry about....
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 5
From: Ann Arbor
'03 SL55
Glad to see Jag has finally put a 500 HP engine in the XK. But at 4,100 lbs with 461 ft lbs of torque and reported 1/4 mile times of 12.6 to 13.1 seconds (http://www.fastestlaps.com/car_Jaguar_XKR_510_bhp.html) it's safe to say it won't be spanking any SL65s.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
Hang on, don't just dismiss it. 500 bhp with a weight of 2 tons makes it power
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 5
From: Ann Arbor
'03 SL55
Looking forward to reading your report. I think you'll outrun him.
Hang on, don't just dismiss it. 500 bhp with a weight of 2 tons makes it power
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
Last edited by jmf003; Nov 14, 2009 at 06:43 PM.
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,146
Likes: 1
From: L.A., CA
'08 M5, '10 Land Cruiser
Hang on, don't just dismiss it. 500 bhp with a weight of 2 tons makes it power
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
to weight 250, a SL65 with 600 bhp at about 2.5 tons gives 240 bhp power to weight. I realise the torque is down but driving is believing.It should slaughter my 63 at 214 power to weight. It's booked for Tuesday, rain permitting.
The SL65 does not weigh "about 2.5 tons" it weighs a hair over 2. Power to weight is right at 300bhp/ton. Off the top of my head your SL63 is just under two tons so has a power to weight of about 270bhp/ton, just below the M5.
Jag XKR should move well (probably close to 300bhp/ton like the Sl65)and be very comparable to your SL63, however, I'd guess the SL65 would best it fairly handily as outright power and aerodynamics become much more important than power/weight ratio as speeds climb.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
Not trying to be rude but your posts are inaccurate with alarming consistency.
The SL65 does not weigh "about 2.5 tons" it weighs a hair over 2. Power to weight is right at 300bhp/ton. Off the top of my head your SL63 is just under two tons so has a power to weight of about 270bhp/ton, just below the M5.
Jag XKR should move well (probably close to 300bhp/ton like the Sl65)and be very comparable to your SL63, however, I'd guess the SL65 would best it fairly handily as outright power and aerodynamics become much more important than power/weight ratio as speeds climb.
The SL65 does not weigh "about 2.5 tons" it weighs a hair over 2. Power to weight is right at 300bhp/ton. Off the top of my head your SL63 is just under two tons so has a power to weight of about 270bhp/ton, just below the M5.
Jag XKR should move well (probably close to 300bhp/ton like the Sl65)and be very comparable to your SL63, however, I'd guess the SL65 would best it fairly handily as outright power and aerodynamics become much more important than power/weight ratio as speeds climb.
it all
The weight of my 63 is on a plaque on the door frame. It states my car
is 2225 kilos in otherwords 2.225 tons, I know a 65 is at least 100k heavier
so 2325kilos in other words, that's 258 bhp per ton.
How do you know that the aerodynamics are better on the 65 than the Jaguar, something you saw sometime maybe
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 4,268
Likes: 253
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
There seems to be so many different specs all different so I guess an about figure is best, after all somebody has to drive the car and there may be a
passenger and fuel all adding to the weight.
I just get so annoyed by people who poo poo any car that's not a MB.
They are narrow minded, I personally will never sell my SL63, even if the
Jag IS faster, they don't do a convertible with solid roof for a start,
but I always like to try the opposition, that's why I drove the 911 Turbo.
Unfortunately there are too many people waiting to jump on you at the first mistake you make, they get more out of correcting you than talking about the subject. The more cars you drive the more knowledge you have, that's the way I see it!
passenger and fuel all adding to the weight.
I just get so annoyed by people who poo poo any car that's not a MB.
They are narrow minded, I personally will never sell my SL63, even if the
Jag IS faster, they don't do a convertible with solid roof for a start,
but I always like to try the opposition, that's why I drove the 911 Turbo.
Unfortunately there are too many people waiting to jump on you at the first mistake you make, they get more out of correcting you than talking about the subject. The more cars you drive the more knowledge you have, that's the way I see it!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,318
Likes: 0
From: OC, SoCal
08 S65, 06 M3 CS(stick), 02 BMW X5 4.6iS, 07 R1 Raven, 08 F-450 4x4, 08 CooperS JCW
Sound8,
You insult people who know more than you.... You can never learn that way. People correct you as you are wrong. Everyone has been "on topic."
Ever noticed that no one likes you around here?
-Rob
You insult people who know more than you.... You can never learn that way. People correct you as you are wrong. Everyone has been "on topic."
Ever noticed that no one likes you around here?
-Rob
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
If you are going to reply to one of my posts, why not keep to the subject
instead of getting personal. I realise that my Britishness is different from what is 90% USA members, and there are a few members like yourself who
always make it personal, but I am big enough to take it, because there are members who reply to my threads. Whereas you and your gang will always
pick on anything I say!!
You see what's happened, we are suppose to be disgussing whether anyone
in the States has seen or driven the new XKR and you have turned it into a slanging match.
Ever noticed that no one likes you.....my god playground talk.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
New Jaguar XKR:
0-60 mph: 4.0s
0-100 mph: 8.8s
0-130 mph: 14.8s
1/4 mile: 12.3s @ 119 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.92g
wt: 4,085lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2
SL65:
0-60: 3.8s
0-100: 8.2s
0-130: 13.4s
1/4 mile: 11.9 @ 123 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.93g
wt: 4,494lbs
The new XKR is a great car... I personally like it a lot. But the SL65 out performs it easily in a straight line. You can tell above 100mph there is a huge advantage for the SL65. The SL65 runs from 60-130 mph in 9.6s, while the XKR does that same interval 10.8s. What I find amazing is that with 400+ more pounds the SL65 stops in the same distance as the XKR from 70mph ....and displays higher grip around the skidpad. And the best part .... push a button and your coupe becomes a convertible...
Tom
New Jaguar XKR:
0-60 mph: 4.0s
0-100 mph: 8.8s
0-130 mph: 14.8s
1/4 mile: 12.3s @ 119 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.92g
wt: 4,085lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2
SL65:
0-60: 3.8s
0-100: 8.2s
0-130: 13.4s
1/4 mile: 11.9 @ 123 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.93g
wt: 4,494lbs
The new XKR is a great car... I personally like it a lot. But the SL65 out performs it easily in a straight line. You can tell above 100mph there is a huge advantage for the SL65. The SL65 runs from 60-130 mph in 9.6s, while the XKR does that same interval 10.8s. What I find amazing is that with 400+ more pounds the SL65 stops in the same distance as the XKR from 70mph ....and displays higher grip around the skidpad. And the best part .... push a button and your coupe becomes a convertible...
Tom
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...take_road_test
New Jaguar XKR:
0-60 mph: 4.0s
0-100 mph: 8.8s
0-130 mph: 14.8s
1/4 mile: 12.3s @ 119 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.92g
wt: 4,085lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2
SL65:
0-60: 3.8s
0-100: 8.2s
0-130: 13.4s
1/4 mile: 11.9 @ 123 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.93g
wt: 4,494lbs
The new XKR is a great car... I personally like it a lot. But the SL65 out performs it easily in a straight line. You can tell above 100mph there is a huge advantage for the SL65. The SL65 runs from 60-130 mph in 9.6s, while the XKR does that same interval 10.8s. What I find amazing is that with 400+ more pounds the SL65 stops in the same distance as the XKR from 70mph ....and displays higher grip around the skidpad. And the best part .... push a button and your coupe becomes a convertible...
Tom
New Jaguar XKR:
0-60 mph: 4.0s
0-100 mph: 8.8s
0-130 mph: 14.8s
1/4 mile: 12.3s @ 119 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.92g
wt: 4,085lbs
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...t/specs_page_2
SL65:
0-60: 3.8s
0-100: 8.2s
0-130: 13.4s
1/4 mile: 11.9 @ 123 mph
70-0: 160ft
skidpad: 0.93g
wt: 4,494lbs
The new XKR is a great car... I personally like it a lot. But the SL65 out performs it easily in a straight line. You can tell above 100mph there is a huge advantage for the SL65. The SL65 runs from 60-130 mph in 9.6s, while the XKR does that same interval 10.8s. What I find amazing is that with 400+ more pounds the SL65 stops in the same distance as the XKR from 70mph ....and displays higher grip around the skidpad. And the best part .... push a button and your coupe becomes a convertible...
Tom
It looks like the Jag would eat my 63, but I guess that all that torque from the 65 is eventually going to kill the cat. There is one thing though, what
happens if you can re-map the Jag, holy moly it could be seriously quick.
Here's a question, is it light enough to be called a sport scar though
Last time we discussed this a member stated that the SL65 was 2400kg,
maybe that's what I was thinking.
Once again thank you for your reply and bringing some civility to this thread,
much appreciated.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,895
Likes: 53
From: Maryland
'14 E63S & '14 Audi SQ5
Thanks Tom for an excellent and comprehensive reply,I was feeiling a little vulnerable after the last reply. I believe congratulations are also in order.
It looks like the Jag would eat my 63, but I guess that all that torque from the 65 is eventually going to kill the cat. There is one thing though, what
happens if you can re-map the Jag, holy moly it could be seriously quick.
Here's a question, is it light enough to be called a sport scar though
Last time we discussed this a member stated that the SL65 was 2400kg,
maybe that's what I was thinking.
Once again thank you for your reply and bringing some civility to this thread,
much appreciated.
It looks like the Jag would eat my 63, but I guess that all that torque from the 65 is eventually going to kill the cat. There is one thing though, what
happens if you can re-map the Jag, holy moly it could be seriously quick.
Here's a question, is it light enough to be called a sport scar though
Last time we discussed this a member stated that the SL65 was 2400kg,
maybe that's what I was thinking.
Once again thank you for your reply and bringing some civility to this thread,
much appreciated.
Tom
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,838
Likes: 19
From: U.K.
SL 63 W/B AMG , S600,C220
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 6,897
Likes: 85
From: Central WI (BFE)
SL55, ML500 & Acura TL
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Something Fly
Im going to cop the new XKR over the Benz. The XKR is better in all aspects and just gorgeous. Jag>Benz
Check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fCrHDbvn00
Check it out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fCrHDbvn00
