that lack of maturity of the opinions posted here is what pissed me off. C&D presents the facts (not heresay, or opinions) right in front of everyones face, yet some people can be so ignorant!

 

greenfrog,
Got any Nomex?? Looks like you're going to need it!!! Oh, by the way, welcome greenfrog!!

 

Funny that the numbers on one SL600, tested by only one magazine is so inconsistent with logic, experiences and real world physics. I guess that translates into a common "FACT" according to you. Testing is a measure of comparative controls and variables. Let's test that same SL600 with one from my dealership and let the revelations begin.

Btw, when I start seeing 3.6-3.8 secs SL600s in every other independent test, then you know Mercedes is likely producing a highly under-rated SL600 which everyone(including myself) would just love. Just don't be so ready to believe that this particular and spectacular automatic SL600 sudddenly exceeds the typical performance of a CL/S600 that we've been seeing.

There's a fine line between measuring test numbers, integrity, variables and +- %uncertainty in equipment and calibrations, let alone validating the SL600 used in the test. Any actual dyno runs posted with HP/TQ vs RPM charts (Not marketing)? Any confirmation to the history of that test vehicle? Would C&D even know? Not likely. Sorry, I don't see any "facts" presented in the article except measured variables. That's why they call it a "test," and it's an extraordinary test at that. Only C&D fact is that they did indeed test a SL600 and got some nice measured readings which they "validated" by generically speaking "torque" and the +74ft-lbs starting @ 1800RPMs over the "slow" SL55 which , I guess, scientifically explains everything to the average layperson. It's all IN the "Torque" baby! Traction? It's IN There? Missing Horses? It's IN there.

Funny thing. This reminds me of the 2001 Z06 that produced 385HP @ the crank. No magazines ever got close (4.4secs?) in achieving the 4.0 secs 0-60 that GM claimed. Not even on the 2002 Z06 that was rated at 405HP with more tq and revisions. I think the best I've seen was 4.3 on that. If GM could get 4.0 why couldn't C&D? I guess the "pros" couldn't find that GM engineer's Z06 to test or they could be lacking in Z06 launch skills? The SL600 goes way beyond the consistent 4.4-4.6 you see on the S/CL600 tests.

 

there is alot more than just weight and torque/hp.

• suspension geometry
• aerdynamics
• weight distribution
• clutch takeup
• gearing
• shifting speed
• torque curves
• Tires
• etc

those above could change a cars 0-60 by ALOT.
Given the price and usual MB engineering, i'd say all those above are done very well. The Zo6 may be just as good, but for $50k or something, they just cant spend enough time tweaking everything. They couldnt turn a profit in that price range to compete with the big players.

 

And with the very common knowledge that all of these variables exist, don't you think that this SL600 falls way out of the common sample pool? Maybe, there's a reason that it's in the 99.999% of performance?

I didn't know that all of those items were so inherently different from one "STOCK" SL600 to another "production" SL600. Hence, the reason for this thread. If the SL600 underperformed as in the intro of the 2001 Cobra SVT (missing 40hp), the 2001 Z06 (can't hit 4.0), the 2001? Mazda Miata (missing 15hp), the magazines ask questions and the manufacturers give responses and concessions to customers. Now, if a SL600 overwhelmingly overperforms, I don't see any fact-finding by the so-called "pros" at C&D. Don't forget. It's common global knowledge that magazines operate for profit, marketing, and their own opinions on vehicles. They do not operate and produce a scientific automotive journal in any sense of the word.

 

..........some of what is going on in this thread may have to the with the loss of the perceived SL55's supremacy. SL55 was heavy touted by mercedes as the fastest production mercedes. This of course turned out not to be true when the W211 E55 came out and was found to be faster than the SL55. Even tough these are totally different cars, for SL55 owners this was not wellcome news. whatever component of the buying decision that was due to the ability to have the bragging rights as the fastesproduction mercedes dissappeared with the introduction of the W211 E55. Since Mb officially underrated the HP rating of the E55, this served to placate some SL55 owners. The SLR is definitely faster than the SL55, but that is okay because it costs considerably more. Now, here comes the SL600.......according to the car and driver article, it is considerably faster than the SL55 and costs the same. So much for saying that SL600 is not sporty enough. If these numbers turn out to be correct, SL55 sales and future SLR sales will drop dramatically. A lot of what people in this car buying category are buying is the bragging right associated with the fastest car etc. For this reason, I tend not to believe that mercedes will undercut their premier brand (SL55) in this manner by producing a much much faster SL600 within less than 2 years of the release of the SL55.

Ted

 

I have read that cars with forced induction engines (turbos, superchargers) often can produce power numbers that are up to 20% different from the ones claimed by the manufacturers. Maybe it has something to do with the concentration of oxygen in the air that is being pumped back in the engine from the turbos, although I am certainly no expert in this area. It is maybe this inconsistency in power delivery that accounts for the off-the-charts results of this test.

 

I don't think that many people tout that the SL55 as the flagship of Mercedes. Yes, for all around sportiness and performance, but the V12 S/CL/SL600 was always considered the flagship of the series. Ego can go far though I truly believe that many SL55 owners chose their model for more performance, style and the AMG exclusivity than merely because it's supposed to overcome a V12TT version in the hierarchy of things. I almost chose a more luxury-oriented 2004 SL600 though I prefered the styling, sports appeal and uniqueness of the AMG given that strict straight-line performance were considered nearly identical until higher speeds.

In regards to the well-known fact of the E55's quickness relative to price in the hierarchy of Mercedes-Benz, I would rather own an E55 than the S600 though for many others, the "prestige" factor would take precedence in the S600. To each his/her own based on appeal, priorities and how well that particular vehicle's purpose fits within their other family of vehicles.

 

Bang for the buck aside, the S600 is actually quicker in straight line than the E55 - although I will have to crack a magazine open to see how they compare in quarter miles. The S600, although heavier than the E55, has more grip in lateral acceleartion tests: .87g vs. .82 I believe.

 

Wow, this thread is quite the read....

Any chance that C&D has just made another mistake as it quite often does?

Substitute a 4 for the 3 and all seems to be correct again.

If I look at the numbers for the CL65 with 612 HP in relation to the CL55 with 493 HP we see a slightly fast er car in 0-100KM and a much faster car 0 to 300KM.

I have a really hard time thinking that the standard MB TTV12 would have more HP than the AMG Variant and that MB would just rate it at 500 HP for the sleeper fun of it.

Also don't see MB building ringers for test any more, all companies may have done it in the distant past but it is just too easy for a Car Mag to put it on the dyno and stick it to MB for playing games.

My take (or leave it as you will) is that they made a mistake (C&D) and no one thought to check it out. I agree with the discussion of physics, it just isn't going to happen.

I guess we will see when the SL65 comes out.

On a side note, I have driven the SL600 and I own an SL55, The SL600 is NOT a second faster to 60, if it was I would have traded in my car..... (If they fixed the brakes, handling and the quite sound.)

Schiz

 

My, there are a lot of opinions being posted on this thread. A few corrections / clarifications are in order:

1. "That SL600 needs a minimum of 650HP (4501 lb cr + 180lb for driver) to attain 11.9 secs. For a 120MPH trap speed he needs 750HP+."

Incorrect. My S600 w/RENNtech ECU consistently dyno's 521 - 525 RWHP (about 650HP) and normally runs 11.6 @ 120. The formulas you are using for your HP calculations assume a constant HP/RPM relationship typical of a N/A powerplant. The MB turbo engines make peak HP from 3500RPM to redline and are anything but linear in their RPM/HP ratio.

> ACCEPT IT!......... BTW, C&D knows more about car and testing them, and dragging them better than anyone on this board!

Incorrect. I've worked with C&D (remember, my car was in their October issue) and while they are quite competent drivers, they are not drag racing experts. Didn't you see their article last year about trying to race a modified Mustang? It was full of newbie errors, which made it a fun read but didn't exactly scream "veteran dragstrip junkie" to me :p . Why do you think pros like Evan Smith of MM&FF can consistently get stock cars to run .1 - .4 sec faster than you see published elsewhere?

Reality: on the subject of 0-60, in any RWD car of this power level it is a traction question, pure and simple. The SL600 has plenty of power to run the quoted 0-60 time; what it will normally lack is traction. With the right surface and right tires, 0-60 in 3.6 is quite straightforward. I've timed 0-60 in 3.3 in my S600 on a mediocre track with excellent tires (BFG DRs), and the SL600 should be about as fast given its slightly lower power but lighter weight.

That said, you can bet that it took a number of tries (and a lot of VHT!) to get that 3.6-sec pass. On the street under normal driving circumstances, I'd expect the SL600 to run 3.9-4.2 0-60 depending on available traction.

 

Excellent post from someone with hands on experience.

 

Great points Treynor!

Thanks for the insights as well as input. At the start of tis thread, I wanted someone with experience and ownership to offer some direct feedback. This must have been an interesting read for you by the tail-end of the topic.

I can see that a SL600 could ideally and optimistically attain a time close to the posted 11.6 being in the higher sample of output/traction and/or driven by a true "Pro" dragster. Variations in quickness happens very often in drag racing sportbikes although there are more dynamics and direct rider skill of the launch with bikes to attain the "best" posted times. In this C&D case isn't there still a better likelihood that this particular SL600 was truly not stock with it's observed multi-mode transmission and rated HP/TQ having stated what you have?

 

The question is an interesting one: do *I* think the results are fishy? My answer may not satisfy you: it is "I believe they are possible with a stock car, but not under realistic conditions" -- so both yes and no

The 0-60 run actually is not helped by more HP. In my S600, which is a heavier car, the extra HP arrives with a whallop at 3200 RPM and lights up my rear tires under any normal driving conditions. On street tires I am never able to get perfect traction at full throttle in 1st, even at the dragstrip. With drag tires it's a different story - the midrange "wham" from the ECU upgrade hits right after I launch, and the tires have enough traction to turn that into a killer 60' time.

So net net, I do not think a power upgrade would affect the 0-60 time of the SL600. It's all about traction, and I suspect the times quoted were obtained on a very well-prepped dragstrip, probably with lowered rear tire pressure and a good burnout.

The 1/4 mile ET is easy; that's simply a function of a good 0-60. 11.9 @ 120 is actually not a very impressive ET given the MPH; I've run 11.5 @ 120

The MPH is a different story. Stock, in 70F weather with 91 octane pump gas, my S600 ran 114.5 MPH. CL600s, which are about 200 lbs lighter, run as fast as 116 MPH. In theory the CL weighs the same as the SL (has anyone verified this??) so we have 4 MPH to account for. I have discovered that running 100 octane unleaded in my S600 picks up 3 MPH of trap speed compared to 91 octane - from 118 to 121 MPH in the 1/4. This is almost certainly due to timing & boost retard to avoid knock; this is true with the stock ECU as well, although since it runs lower boost I am not sure if the effect is as dramatic. However, remember that my times were run in 70F weather; runs in (say) 30F weather would be significantly faster because of increased air density and intercooler efficiency. A 2 mph increase from weather is a no-brainer; if we attribute the other 2 mph to high-octane unleaded gas, then we have our 120 MPH.

Soo... net net, I think 0-60 in 3.6 and 11.9 @ 120 is quite within the realm of possibility in a stock SL600, as long as the conditions are just right. However, in the real world we do not drive around in freezing temperatures on VHT-treated roads with 100 octane in the tank and 26 lbs of air in our rear tires Thus I think a more realistic expectation for street performance in the SL is 0-60 in 3.9 - 4.1, and 1/4 in 12.1-12.2 @ 116-117.

 

Im surprised that this thread has gotten so long. Just FYI for pretty much everyone.

I remember reading in Car and Driver in the fine print somewhere in one of their old magazines that their acceleration times are adjusted for optimum conditions..... I had no idea that they had special engineers on their staff just to adjust their 0-60 times and 1/4mile times so that it would reflect the optimum times.....

In case you cannot sense my sarcasm.... when I read that little tidbit I completely lost respect for that magazine. From then on I was never surprised to see Car and Driver's ridiculous acceleration times and speeds as compared to every other reputable magazine. I believe its a bunch of CRAP!!! Car and driver isnt worth the money, and I would recommend switching to a better (read british) publication.

and in case you are wondering, I am not british, I do not work for any publication at all, I just spend a pretty penny on car magazines and have found that the british magazines (a-la EVO, CAR, TOPGEAR) are very worth the pricetags (usually twice the price of your typical american car magazine).

Regards

 

Torque also has a lot to do with 0-60 times and the sl 600 has tons of it.

 

Please explain the theory behind torque having such an affect on 0 - 60. In my mind traction and less weight are far more important than torque. Now if you are talking 60 - 120 then torque really does have a role to play!!

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=7782


Just in case some people haven't read the article in question yet, the link is the one above.

Some people have already mentioned that other magazines have just put up the Benz factory acceleration times for the SL 600, while C & D actually tested it themselves.
Don't you think it's a very real possibility (and there is much talk confirming this around) that the other magazines don't post the awesome numbers these Mercedes are really capable of because they have deals with other manufactueres (like BMW) and they don't want to **** them off, or make other cars look really bad?

It's always so helarious how all the car magazines almost unilaterally rate BMW's above their respective Benz competitor models.... and it's just accepted in the industry. And everyone knows BMW spends tons of money giving to magazines, so the last thing these magazines want is to **** the people who are paying their bills off.
Finally C & D broke the chain of secrecy and shadyness and let everyone know what one particular Benz can really do. We should all applaud them for that.

Also, if it was a misprint then they could easily modify it, atleast on their website. And Benz would never send a ringer car, they're too reputable for that.

It's going to be exciting to see what the SL 65 will be able to do....Can't wait till mine comes in .....

 

ALL of the 600 cars will do sub 4 second 0-60 times PROVIDED:

1). they're on drag slicks

2). they've warmed their tires with very little fuel in the car and they're on a strip....


In the real world 4.6 seconds sounds and IS more appropriate, however I do agree with the BMW thing, they are WAY OVERRATED!

 

Read the article. It explains the reason for the better 0-60 and QT times. It says: "So what's up with that?" "Torque that's what."

The 55 has the same HP as the 600 but its torque is 516 lb ft from 2750-4000 rpm and the 600 has 590 lb ft at 1800-3500.

Torque is a measure of how much force acting on a object causes an object to begin rotation.

The more low end torque and the flatter the curve the better the off the line response which betters 0-60 and quarter mile times. Horsepower is important too and it has the greater effect on top speed than does torque.

Traction and less weight are important too as is torque, hp AND gearing (people tend to forget gearing).

The 3.6 0-60 is very impressive and CD says they stand behind thier #'s. I would like to see a repeat performance with a customers car to verify the 3.6. It seems lately MB's have been recording very impressive #'s in Magazine tests i.e the R/T CLK 500 test against the 645csi.

 

I dont think car magazines are the BEST way to base your performance numbers or facts. Look at it this way.... This thread is now 7 pages long, and I think I would be correct in assuming a number of you have clicked on the link to "check it out"

Their ludacris times seem to sell magazines and get them alot of traffic on their website.

I know that the mclaren F1 weighs circa 2400lbs with 617hp and has performance in that range (low 3's 0-60, 7-8's 0-100, and 11.5 in the 1/4). this mercedes weighs nearly twice as much... albiet it does have an extra 100lb/ft of torque but I seriously doubt that it is THAT close the the mclaren. Look at whats on the market, and what has been tested and proven and compare. Mercedes knows how to build cars, but they do not know how to defy the laws of physics. Sorry to burst your bubbles.

The toyota supra TT will run an 11.9 second quarter mile with around 650hp.... that car weighs around 3000lbs, and also has twin turbos and pushes out a crapload of torque (mostly due to the turbos). So how can a sl600 that weighs 1500lbs more and has 150 less horsepower do the same?

 

The re-awakening of this thread is entertaining. All I want to state now is that the opinions just posted supporting the "credibility" of C&D just shows why US mags sell so well. Let's see if a Brit ish mag will ever post these times in the near future on an SL600/S600/CL600 (Any of them). As far as Mercedes and "ringers" go, a ringer can knowlingly be in the 99th percentile of a production-based run with a blue-printed engine and such (for example) so it properly represents the model. There's a fine line that's not well-delineated as far as reputation is concerned. Not quite a white lie though a 99th % vehicle does represent "production."

Go ahead and read what is fed to you in a magazine article without raising any questions on physics, reality, and experience. Accept everything in life as-is based on the criteria of it having been printed. Again, this article has failed to explain scientifically why this particular S600 performs so well. Generic "Torque" accounts for but doesn't explain the numbers period. Otherwise great "torque" vehicles that weigh more than half-a-ton less just barely meet these numbers. A 520HP/515ft-lb Porsche 996 Twin-Turbo 6-SPEED AWD could hit 3.5-3.6secs 0-60mph with about 1000lb less weight. I owned one. SO, it only takes 75ft-lbs @ low RPMs (uh oh traction again) overcomes the physics of 1000lbs, limited rear-wheel drive traction, much slower manu-matic trans and smaller tire contact patches? Explain that? On that track on the same day, my 996TT should have hit 11.0 secs FLAT with SLICKS. Treynor's explanation and my support on traction and optimal conditions speaks well for the potential of an S600 posting these times although it's not a uniform, no-questions asked reality for a "stock" production RWD 4600+lb vehicle with driver.

 

Some very heavy muscle cars from the 60's weighing well over 4000lbs acheived 0-60 times in the mid 4's and amazing times and speeds in the quarter mile with impressive top speeds for cars with poor aerodynamics. The cars were rated at 400+/- gross hp and +/-450 lb ft of gross trq. but its well known they were underated and were putting out something like 500 (still gross) hp and 575 of gross trq but no where near the 500 net hp and 600 lb ft of net trq. of the sl600. These cars really had skinny bias ply tires with no traction control and some even had three speed auto boxes that are no match for today's five speed electronic units.

In my previous post I was trying to explain to the guy asking why torque and other factors are important to 0-60 and qt times. Look as I said I'm a bit skeptical too until I see a customer's car doing these #'s. But I'm damn glad to see them never the less and hope we can all buy an SL600 out of the box that will do anywhere close to 3.6.

For the ones that are saying it's impossible, write CD via email and tell them you want an explanation, I know there are some of us that would like to see their response. Until then, there is no way any of us (that includes your's truly) can come to a 100% conclusion and even then, we may never know because even if CAR magazine in the UK posts the same numbers there will be speculation it was a ringer.

It's all good though

 

Through all this, there's a little voice in the back of my head saying "all Mercedes has to do to make a 'ringer' SL600 is to tweak a few values in the ECU. Pity poor BMW - their only hope of making the new M5 run 11s in the 1/4 would involve strapping a big Nitrous bottle in the trunk and plumbing braided lines into the engine bay..."

 

Turbos that have modified wastegate settings (ECU enhancements do a fine job of controling this on the newer cars) can really do wonders. Good point Treynor.

Back in the late 80's all I had to do is change the spring in the wastegate of my 930 turbo Porsche which raised the boost to 1 bar + from the factory 0.7 and all hell broke loose (I always used octane booster 104 + racing grade/black bottle after doing this to keep the detonation away).