Wondering if I should just get the latest MB sports car for $160k (SL63 with performance pack) or plunker down another $140k for SLR roadster with the McLaren pedigree and therefore the potential for appreciation. It's just interesting how I feel like the new SL63 with the performance pack maybe a more enjoyable car the SLR. Then again, I doubt anything can beat the SLR's sense of occasion. For some reason the SLS doesn't excite me as either one of these. I like the SLR's exclusivity, but the SL63's dominance in the performance grand tourer market.

Also, I think the SL65 is a bit of a dog. Great engine, but that's about it. If I were to get the 231 I'd want the lighter V8TT which can be tuned to make more power than the SL65. The 65 motor is more fit for the s class imo. Does anyone else feel this way about the SL65?

 

SLR is only 140!?

 

choose what you like i would buy sl 65

 

140 more than the SL63. lol


I haven't driven either but I've heard from MP4-12C owners who have driven the SLR that the driving dynamics are not good for a sports car. I'd attempt to test drive one first before being possibly stuck with a very expensive not very enjoyable car. That car also uses MB's first gen carbon ceramic brake technology which I heard is very noisy compared to modern CCB and the infotainment is extremely outdated on the SLR. But as you said, that car has the WOW factor while the SL doesn't really.

 

I think it's chalk and cheese comparison because of the age difference. Having seen an SLR in person, nothing compares to it visually, including the SLS. The exhaust note is truly special. One common criticism is the feel of the brakes in an SLR. If I had a choice I would get the SLR 722 roadster. Got to have an open top to hear that exhaust!

 

So it will be another $140k for the SLR. The thing is that it doesn't stop there. The brake job on one of these are $10k. Oil change is $800. Tires another $2k and so on....

However, my personal preference would be the SLR. Everyone and their mother have an SL63 but very few have an SLR. -and unless you are going racing with it, does it really matter that the driving dynamics are slightly less than what is now the peak of performance cars? The SLR is 8 years (?) old and with performance cars, it is like computers. What is how today is less hot tomorrow.

I do agree with Maverick that you should go for the 722 roadster like on the picture you added.

 

" A bit of a dog " wash your mouth out, and plead for forgiveness

I just sold a SL63 for a 10 year old SL65. Apart from costing me a grand
a month the 63 lacks drama and looks ordinary, ugly some might say.
It is very fast but that's it. The 230 shape of the 65 is all you need apart
from all the toys. You can also have fun, so far I have put 20 inch rims
and lowered it, and she looks stunning, something the 63 lacked.

 

SLRs are going cheap now depending on the year, but I know roadsters are more then the coupe (coupe 180k-220k+, roadsters 250-300k+) but you do not want to know what the maintenance on an SLR is, service A is 4000-5000 and service B is 7000-8000

Here's the link to the maintenance thread:

https://mbworld.org/forums/slr-mclar...rvice-slr.html

If I had to choose for that much bread and have as a daily driver type car then SL65 Black Series (I had to think about this choice too while ago since I wanted to treat myself as a wedding gift for next year.) An SL65 Black Series are now 180-200k and you get a limited production car (1/175 in US, and 300 total worldwide) but if I were choosing a car to sit in my garage then SLR since I have a feeling maybe SL65 BS will drop maybe a slight more.

But remember SLR are 500k cars new so don't be surprised by maintenance, just like 65 owners buying 200k cars new the maintenance is gonna reflect that.

Even when I bought my 12' S550 4 Matic with less than 10k miles vs 05 Maybachs 57 with 35k miles were about the same price but the parts on that car are crazy too, an alternator alone is 4-5k on that car, but if you can good warranties on the cars then go with w/e

Also an SL63 is def gonna tank over the years, I see 2013 SL65 going for 175k when they were 215-220k+ new that's 35-40k depreciation in one year

Your other option is an SLS AMG, I've seen those as low as 110k, I'm just hoping they tank a bit more before biting the bullet on one of those so you can def pick one up for 130-160k np, And I know many people who will drive an SLS daily and not complain about the car, but if you really want a roadster you can also opt for an SLS AMG Roadster (I just looked on Auto Trader and there's one with less then 5k miles for 165k

BTW SL65 def not a dog, I raced my 06 SL65 with an 11 SL63 both with tunes and the SL65 will haul np, in performance tho maybe the SL63 can corner better than an SL65 but those long stretches SL65 all day

 

They're two different cars for different purposes. Also, while I don't know for a fact, I would assume a tuned 63TT cannot reliably outrun a tuned 65TT.

 

Would anyone really take an SL63 over an SLR

 

^ I agreed~

 

I couldn't own either. But I would almost always go with the newer tech

 

Not a fan of the new SL and I don't really like the SLR. I would take a SL65 Black over either one.

 

"Also, I think the SL65 is a bit of a dog. Great engine, but that's about it. If I were to get the 231 I'd want the lighter V8TT which can be tuned to make more power than the SL65. The 65 motor is more fit for the s class imo. Does anyone else feel this way about the SL65?"

Depends on what your definition of "dog" is! Yes, I believe my SL65 is a dog...with Meisterschaft exhausts, ECU/TCU upgrades, larger capacity IC cooling, etc., I think it growls like my Akita, and bites like my German Shephard. Does it run like a greyhound...no, it's not a greyhound like an SLS. But then again, having driven most AMGs, I don't find the SL63 to be a greyhound either.

Can the 63 "make more power than the SL65"? I find it hard to believe a modified 63 can make more power than a modified 65 if you keep the modifications at roughly the same $ amount...but, I guess it depends on what your definition of "power" is. I'm pushing 691HP with 935 ftlbs of torque at the crank. And that's with a slightly modified 65.

Bottom line - whatever lights your candle is what you should go with. I'm very content with my modified 65 and would be very cautious about an SLR's maintainence requirements / costs. I thoroughly enjoy the thrust of my V12 over the 63's V8. And, well...it just a lot of fun having more meat, including under the hood, than most.

Oh, my preference is for a 230 over a 231 anyday! My 230 has the balanced look of my old '67 Vette hardtop / convertable. IMO, it don't get much sexier than that.

What ever you get, keep the shiney side up and enjoy my friend!

 

I agree it you on the "wow" factor. The SLRs were some of the hottest looking cars to ever come down an assembly line. Sooo much better looking than the SLS it's not even close.

However infotainment is for pussies. Turn the radio off and drive the car

 

Run with a 65 and we know it is not a dog.......ask some Lambo, Porsche and Ferrari owners that have been dusted..........

 

My God, just look at the 230 body shape, the 63 is ugly and miss proportioned and the SLR with it's fake ugly F1 nose, it's not even how
fast these cars are, the 230 SL65 is beautiful to look at, has lovely lines
and with 20" rims and lowered untouchable :bow
:

 

As I said: "Oh, my preference is for a 230 over a 231 anyday! My 230 has the balanced look of my old '67 Vette hardtop / convertable. IMO, it don't get much sexier than that. "