SL55/63/65/R230 AMG: '04 SL600 in March C&D-0-60 3.6sec 1/4 11.9@120mph
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 881
Likes: 54
From: Mechanicsville, VA
'09 CLK550, '18 AMG GTR, '06 C55 AMG, '25 GLS450, 09 E63
'04 SL600 in March C&D-0-60 3.6sec 1/4 11.9@120mph
I couldn't believe it when I read it that the SL600 in the new C&D (March '04 pg 144) ran the 1/4 mile 11.9@120 and 0-60 in 3.6 sec. That is absolutely smoking for a car that weighs in at 4500lbs. Everyone must get the new issue and read even though it is just a "short take" article. Amazing. My E55 is just a wanna be compared to this car.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 2
From: Boston
SL600, A8L W12, Continental GT, Range Rover SC
I never thought I’d feel glad to have a car break down, but the engine failure that caused me to sell the SL55 and order an SL600 is starting to look like a stroke of good fortune. That car, designo silver with all available options, should be a the dealer’s in a couple weeks. Grin.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 2
From: Boston
SL600, A8L W12, Continental GT, Range Rover SC
If Mercedes has underrated the SLR in its official numbers, just as it has the 55 and 600, then the numbers on the 600 could be genuine while the SLR still remains quickest. Also, an 11.9 quarter mile for a stock 600 seems consistent with the 11.6 reported on this website by people with Renntech ECU mods and the 11.427 reported on a timeslip posted on the Renntech website.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Manchester, UK
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
So what are we saying, the SLR could pull off a 0-60 of about 2.8 seconds?
Come on, whthe car they tested may have been an SL600, a time of 4.6 seconds seems more likely. Misprint in my book. I fail to belive a 2 Ton car can do 0-60 faster than the Diablo, Murcielago, 575M, Pagani Zonda, F50/F60/F40, and equal aroundabout the Mac F1, am I the only idiot here that thinks the 0-60 time is bogus, or is Mercedes putting drag slicks on their 2000lb weighing SL600's with 900 horsepower?>
Come on, whthe car they tested may have been an SL600, a time of 4.6 seconds seems more likely. Misprint in my book. I fail to belive a 2 Ton car can do 0-60 faster than the Diablo, Murcielago, 575M, Pagani Zonda, F50/F60/F40, and equal aroundabout the Mac F1, am I the only idiot here that thinks the 0-60 time is bogus, or is Mercedes putting drag slicks on their 2000lb weighing SL600's with 900 horsepower?>
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 116
Likes: 1
From: Surrey, England
2004 SL55 AMG
Sorry guys but someone on that mag must have been smoking some pretty strong cigarettes to get a 0 - 60 number like that. With an additional 70Kgs and same bhp as SL55 it is likely to be slower not faster. The torque will only come into play at higher speeds not from 0 mph!!!
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
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
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 2
From: Boston
SL600, A8L W12, Continental GT, Range Rover SC
Well, in this forum last April 18th Treynor reported a 3.55 second 0-60 on the same run he achieved an 11.987 quarter mile in his S600 (with better runs to follow). Hence a 3.6 second 0-60 is totally consistent with an 11.9 quarter. Admittedly he used drag slicks but traction is a consequence of many factors, especially the road surface. The result seems plausible if Car and Driver ran their test on a drag strip with a high friction surface. You spoke earlier of physical impossibility, but zero to 60 MPH (or 88 feet per second) in 3.6 seconds averages out to 24.4 feet per second squared or 0.76 times the force of gravity. With enough rearward weight transfer to load the rear tires this should be possible.
Said another way, the SL600 and SLR are probably both traction limited 0 to 60 in first gear and the lower part of second gear where the SL600’s torque is highest. Their acceleration should similar because it is dependent mainly on weight distribution, the road surface and driver skill. However at higher speeds where the gearing is taller their acceleration would be limited by engine power, so I would expect the SLR to achieve a better 0 to 100 MHP and quarter mile times. The higher the speed in question, the greater the SLR’s advantage would be.
Said another way, the SL600 and SLR are probably both traction limited 0 to 60 in first gear and the lower part of second gear where the SL600’s torque is highest. Their acceleration should similar because it is dependent mainly on weight distribution, the road surface and driver skill. However at higher speeds where the gearing is taller their acceleration would be limited by engine power, so I would expect the SLR to achieve a better 0 to 100 MHP and quarter mile times. The higher the speed in question, the greater the SLR’s advantage would be.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 881
Likes: 54
From: Mechanicsville, VA
'09 CLK550, '18 AMG GTR, '06 C55 AMG, '25 GLS450, 09 E63
Damn, before you guys say it is physically impossible, buy the new issue of C&D and read it for yourself. This is definitely not the SLR. Much of the performance data that MB quotes is underrated as all of you know. The data that C&D gives in their articles is very credible so I have no reason to doubt their acceleration and 1/4 mile figures. When we see a real test on the SLR in C&D, I bet we will be amazed again.
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)
Originally posted by JohnH
Sorry guys but someone on that mag must have been smoking some pretty strong cigarettes to get a 0 - 60 number like that. With an additional 70Kgs and same bhp as SL55 it is likely to be slower not faster. The torque will only come into play at higher speeds not from 0 mph!!!
Sorry guys but someone on that mag must have been smoking some pretty strong cigarettes to get a 0 - 60 number like that. With an additional 70Kgs and same bhp as SL55 it is likely to be slower not faster. The torque will only come into play at higher speeds not from 0 mph!!!
My old CL600 with only 650 miles on it had 444 hp,my E55 with all the Renntech mods,on the same dyno had 399 hp.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
From: Manchester, UK
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
John, whats the point. Someone already scanned te article, thanks dude.
As for this whole debate, I mean 0-60 in about Enzo time, 0-100mph, in GT2 time, and the quarter mile in 2 seconds slower than the CGT.
If its true, which I still fail to belive, then the SL600 is simpley a butt kicker!
As for this whole debate, I mean 0-60 in about Enzo time, 0-100mph, in GT2 time, and the quarter mile in 2 seconds slower than the CGT.
If its true, which I still fail to belive, then the SL600 is simpley a butt kicker!
Member
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area, CA
Mercedes C43 AMG
0-60 in 3.6sec seems unbelievable for a front-engined, rear wheel drive car weighing 4500lbs, and with only 285 rear tires. The only cars that can do 3.6sec or better are the following:
Murcielago, Enzo, F1, Saleen, Koenigsegg...
Not sure what else I've missed, but not even the Pagani, F40, F50 can get this time . But all those cars above are either around 3000lbs or less or have AWD (Lambo), have monster tires, and they are all more powerful than the SL600. Not to mention they are all mid-engined, which should help acceleration from a stand-still significantly.
So 0-60 in 3.6s for the SL600 is doubtful, but I believe the 1/4-mi figures. Either way, this SL600 has more than 500 crank HP for sure.
Murcielago, Enzo, F1, Saleen, Koenigsegg...
Not sure what else I've missed, but not even the Pagani, F40, F50 can get this time . But all those cars above are either around 3000lbs or less or have AWD (Lambo), have monster tires, and they are all more powerful than the SL600. Not to mention they are all mid-engined, which should help acceleration from a stand-still significantly.
So 0-60 in 3.6s for the SL600 is doubtful, but I believe the 1/4-mi figures. Either way, this SL600 has more than 500 crank HP for sure.
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)
Originally posted by JohnH
Presumably you will be able to post some graphs of the dyno runs of an SL600 to show us with the comparative ones from an SL55?
Presumably you will be able to post some graphs of the dyno runs of an SL600 to show us with the comparative ones from an SL55?
Go back ,check the posts from early last year.
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: West Toluca Lake, CA.
2004 SL55 AMG
The times are highly unlikely for a stock SL600
The 0-60mph time of 3.6secs seems highly improbable although the nearly 600 ft-lbs of TQ could make the 1/4 mile time of 11.9 more realistic. I've just exchanged my MODIFIED 520HP/peak 510ft-lbs TQ 2002 996TT, 6 sp with AWD for an '04 SL55 AMG STOCK. The 996TT could run consistent 3.5-3.6secs 0-60 with about a 11.6 sec quarter mile time given others who have gone to track with the exact same mods. This is an AWD vehicle that is more than 1000lbs lighter with a much tighter suspension and consistent AWD at that.
Anyways, I believe we should ask Shank and some others over in the 6speedonline forum that own both vehicles (996TT & SL600 modified) currently to see if this is really plausible. Anyone here have both vehicles right now to add their own insight on??
Physics doesn't appear to be applied with integrity to this article. How is it that this particular SL600 is outrageously quicker than the V12 bi-Turbo S600? Every 0. 1 secs 0-60MPH is at least a minimum 1 car-length improvement. We're talking about 0.8 secs 0-60MPH quicker than the best time I've seen for a S600 V12TT (~4.3-4.4 secs)? The quarter mile is more believable although highly optimistic.
I really don't believe this since my SL55 is much, much slower in every respect at any speeds under 100MPH, not to even consider passing power compared to a STOCK 996TT, let alone my modified 996TT. The SL55 isn't even a 6sp manual at that? The SL600 should have a better 1/4 than the SL55 though...........
Anyways, I believe we should ask Shank and some others over in the 6speedonline forum that own both vehicles (996TT & SL600 modified) currently to see if this is really plausible. Anyone here have both vehicles right now to add their own insight on??
Physics doesn't appear to be applied with integrity to this article. How is it that this particular SL600 is outrageously quicker than the V12 bi-Turbo S600? Every 0. 1 secs 0-60MPH is at least a minimum 1 car-length improvement. We're talking about 0.8 secs 0-60MPH quicker than the best time I've seen for a S600 V12TT (~4.3-4.4 secs)? The quarter mile is more believable although highly optimistic.
I really don't believe this since my SL55 is much, much slower in every respect at any speeds under 100MPH, not to even consider passing power compared to a STOCK 996TT, let alone my modified 996TT. The SL55 isn't even a 6sp manual at that? The SL600 should have a better 1/4 than the SL55 though...........
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
The Car and Driver Magazine may be pulling an AutoMotorundSport [and their SL55 comparo] by testing a car that is more powerful than the manufacturer's claims. A chip upgrade ala Renntech may be the "culprit". However, CD are too reputable to commit such a mistake or to oversee such missrepresentation. So, it may very well be a case of the conditions coming all optimal at the right moment, or that MB furnished them with a car that has the now-expected overendowment of power. Either way, even before reading this article, I was leaning increasingly more toward the SL600 rather than the upcoming SL65.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
From: Banana Republic of Louisiana
2002 E55K RENNtech HP
SL600 performance
I agree with benznut's comments about optimal conditions AND a handpicked, finely tuned, possibly massaged SL600 being furnished by MB for testing (knowing the results will be published in a widely read auto magazine such as C&D). It certainly would not hurt their sales! The same car may wind up being tested by another mag and it will be interesting to see the results. By the way, I remember having seen a member with a bone stock CL600 claim to have run a 12.275 ET, and the quickest S600 bone stock was Treynor's 12.450 ET. And how would anyone know if the ECU was modified for more turbo boost?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,041
Likes: 36
From: Ontario, Canada
E 320
I believe one of the board members with a CL 600 had a time of 12.1 s for the 1/4 mile but not too sure who it was. So 11.9 for an SL 600 is not out of the question?
Iron Sheik
Iron Sheik
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
From: West Toluca Lake, CA.
2004 SL55 AMG
Drag Slicks On??
THere's a big difference between a "STOCK" 12.450 (believable)/12.275 sec (pushing it) in the 1/4 mile, let alone 12.1 down to 11.9. We can even say that 11.6 is not that far from 11.9. But it is. Do you really know how quick a low 12sec car is in the 1/4 mile? It's completely amazing for a 4500lb luxury vehicle RWD-STOCK! We're talking lower spectrum of the sportbike 600cc realm here.
A stock CL600 in optimal conditions, in the 95% sample for highest hp/tq ratings, drag slicks, sea level, etc.... can still be considered a stock CL600. Even with minor mods like high-flow filters, synthetic oils, etc. Even though I'd love to believe this....it's not realistic. Now the 3.6 secs 0-60MPH isn't even fathomable. See my post in the SL500/600 thread for HP vs. trap speed. vs. e.t.a. 1/4 mile. 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+.
I understand the torque aspects of the V12TT BUT that doesnt play in the simple calculations for trap speed and e.t.a.
Like I said, I'd love for this to be true but we have to keep it real with facts and logic. This isn't the first V12TT application, it'd be more realistic for the 1/4 mile if we were speaking of the 6.0L V12TT in the future SL65, but then again 3.6secs would still be unrealistic 0-60MPH unless the vehicle lost weight and gained considerable traction enhancements like AWD, came with a manual 5/6 speed, etc... Highly unlikely.
A stock CL600 in optimal conditions, in the 95% sample for highest hp/tq ratings, drag slicks, sea level, etc.... can still be considered a stock CL600. Even with minor mods like high-flow filters, synthetic oils, etc. Even though I'd love to believe this....it's not realistic. Now the 3.6 secs 0-60MPH isn't even fathomable. See my post in the SL500/600 thread for HP vs. trap speed. vs. e.t.a. 1/4 mile. 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+.
I understand the torque aspects of the V12TT BUT that doesnt play in the simple calculations for trap speed and e.t.a.
Like I said, I'd love for this to be true but we have to keep it real with facts and logic. This isn't the first V12TT application, it'd be more realistic for the 1/4 mile if we were speaking of the 6.0L V12TT in the future SL65, but then again 3.6secs would still be unrealistic 0-60MPH unless the vehicle lost weight and gained considerable traction enhancements like AWD, came with a manual 5/6 speed, etc... Highly unlikely.
Last edited by RU_MATRX; Feb 2, 2004 at 03:21 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 603
Likes: 0
From: NY
ML 500 Sport
This really doesn't add up...either someone is pulling someone's leg or look for a retraction from CD...
Just compare with stats on the Brabus SV12:
"There is nothing to replace displacement other than more displacement. This philosophy is also true for the new Mercedes SL 600 and that's why the BRABUS engineers developed the BRABUS S V12 Biturbo increased-displacement engine. The BRABUS engine sets new performance standards with a maximum power output of 640 hp / 471 kW and a maximum torque of 1,026 Nm from just 1,750 rpm. The power is transferred via a reinforced five-speed automatic transmission run with ARAL high-performance lubricants like all BRABUS engines and transmissions. Performance of the immensely powerful two-seater speaks volumes: 4.3 seconds for 0 - 100 km/h, 13.0 seconds to 200 km/h and an electronically limited op speed of 310 km/h place the BRABUS S V12 Biturbo roadster firmly among the fastest sports cars in the world."
Compared to 500hp/800NM in the stock SL600....0-60/3.6...not possible
Just compare with stats on the Brabus SV12:
"There is nothing to replace displacement other than more displacement. This philosophy is also true for the new Mercedes SL 600 and that's why the BRABUS engineers developed the BRABUS S V12 Biturbo increased-displacement engine. The BRABUS engine sets new performance standards with a maximum power output of 640 hp / 471 kW and a maximum torque of 1,026 Nm from just 1,750 rpm. The power is transferred via a reinforced five-speed automatic transmission run with ARAL high-performance lubricants like all BRABUS engines and transmissions. Performance of the immensely powerful two-seater speaks volumes: 4.3 seconds for 0 - 100 km/h, 13.0 seconds to 200 km/h and an electronically limited op speed of 310 km/h place the BRABUS S V12 Biturbo roadster firmly among the fastest sports cars in the world."
Compared to 500hp/800NM in the stock SL600....0-60/3.6...not possible
Last edited by jco-amg; Feb 2, 2004 at 08:40 PM.
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 298
Likes: 2
From: Boston
SL600, A8L W12, Continental GT, Range Rover SC
This is a long shot, but I notice the review says “The five speed automatic offers a three mode manumatic function. just as it does in the SL55.” I thought the SL600 (at least in US form) actually didn’t offer that, but Renntech’s ECU and transmission control modifications added it. I wonder if any owners of unmodified SL600’s out there can clarify this point: does the stock car have the third manual mode or not? (And this is a question I should be able to address is a couple weeks when I get mine.) If it doesn’t have the manual mode, then it appears likely the test car is not stock. What we do know is that the tuned 600 engine can yield quarter mile times in the mid-to-upper 11s. There are plenty of reports here along with time slips reproduced on the Renntech website. And I think that if there upper-eleven second quarter mile times are real (and there is plenty of evidence they are) then sub-four second 0 to 60 times must be real in order to make the quarter mile in that time.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
From: Cleveland Ohio
2006 SL55 with 030 Performance Package
What it the world is the SL65AMG going to do!!!!
I have to say those number sound a little crazy, but who knows.
AMGBENZ
2003 SL55 AMG
2005 SL65 AMG (On Order)
2000 ML430
I have to say those number sound a little crazy, but who knows.
AMGBENZ
2003 SL55 AMG
2005 SL65 AMG (On Order)
2000 ML430
Member
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
From: Brunei
Too Young To Drive
It seems C&D always has phenomenal numbers during their car tests... The Ford GT has McLaren F1-like times and this SL600, as fast as Mercedes' flagship coupe, the SLR. But one thing I know for a fact, the S600 is Mercedes' fastest car to 60MPH, good weight distribution. I remember I read it somewhere, EVO or CAR I think it was.
