CD tested the SL65 in the new January issue. The interesting comparison is against their own test of the SL600 in the March 04 issue. I think the comparison proves 1) that the 600 from last March was doctored with upgraded software, and 2) that the numbers recorded last March were no misprint. Here is the data:

Zero to 60: 3.6 sec SL600, 3.8 sec SL65 – advantage 600
Zero to 100: 8.6 sec SL600, 8.2 sec SL65 – advantage 65
Quarter mile time: 11.9 sec SL600, 11.9 sec SL65 – a tie
Trap speed: 120 MPH SL600, 123 MPH SL65 – advantage 65

Clearly, the 65 is tuned very conservatively and has considerable headroom for further enhancement, possibly at the expense of drivetrain reliability. My personal opinion is that the tuned 600 is a much better value unless you upgrade the software on the 65 as treynor did, setting its performance ahead of the 600.

 

I saw that as well. Car and Driver numbers are BS. They also have the new F430 at 3.5 to 60 when Ferrari has it at 4.0. In the same issue they have the SLR at 3.6.

 

The article in March was BS and it is BS now. Unless you believe that their team of hack performance drivers can "will" a car to be .7 seconds faster with their massive brainpower and lightning quick skill. This talk about their incredible driving ability resulting in great numbers is something I find amusing since they have the same ESP program that we do and regularly report switching ESP on and just stomping on the gas.......

The SL600 may be a tad bit faster than a SL55 each in stock form not even close to a SL65. Mine ran 11.69 on the East Coast and Ben's ran 11.7 on the west coast.

In this modern age, Mercedes is never going to give a car magazine a tweaked car to test with. This may have happened a long time ago but not now. They have too much at stake and nothing to gain from it. Seriously do you really think that they would have a bunch of tuned SL600 around for car companies to test when their flagship cars are AMG's? No other car mag has ever tested an SL600 even close to those numbers.

Will someone take a stock SL600 to the drag strip and put this to rest. I have $1000 for any 100% stock SL600 that runs under 12.0 on regular stock rubber.

Even the RennTech SL600 from the supercar shootout in Car and Driver Magazine with a reported 640 HP could only run 11.8 in the 1/4.

SL600 RennTech
0-60 3.9
0-100 8.7
1/4 Mile either 11.8 @ 121 or 12.1 @ 121 Depending on what part of the article you read.

Again same mag..... The March findings were and are BS.

Don't believe the crap you read in car mags, half the time they can't get the right model name on the picture.

For the record I do own a SL65. I know that it is not the fastest car in the world. It is however a blast to drive and significantly faster than my old SL55 hands down. If you ever get a chance to ride in one, don't pass it up.

Schiznick

 

Whether or not CD sourced their 600 directly from Mercedes, their car was tweaked. Other than the numbers themselves, the proof is the third manual transmission mode mentioned in the March review (in addition to comfort and sport). The stock 600 doesn’t have a third mode, so the car wasn’t stock. My Renntech-enhanced 600 does have the third mode, just like their test car. I agree with you that a stock 600 isn’t going to run under 12, but a Renntech car can, as proven by treynor’s S600 with the same engine, and by the car in the supercar shootout. Having owned an SL55 and an SL600 that was purchased stock and subsequently modified, I can attest first hand that although the stock 600 is only a tad faster than the 55 as you say, the modified 600 is significantly faster, just as the March numbers imply. Like the 65, that car claws for traction through the first two gears on street tires on most roads, so it isn’t surprising the numbers are so similar. In a turbocharged car, the software’s aggressive management of the waste gates can offset the 9% greater displacement that the 65 has. Of course the addition of similarly aggressive software – as treynor has just done – will give the advantage to the 65. In fairness, the braking and skidpad numbers in the two tests were better for the 65 than the 600, so the extra money for a 65 will get you better track performance than my modified 600.

As for the F430, after reading the CD review and similarly glowing reports in Evo and Car I’m champing at the bit to get in line. It’s the first Ferrari I’ve ever found seriously appealing as a potential purchase. I’ve already asked my wife if we could eventually trade her Carrera 4S for it but she flatly refused. This leaves me with a garage space problem, but where there’s a will there’s a way.

 

btw for $45K less a SL600 with chip puts out more hp/tq than the SL65

 

Sillydriver,

I am fully on board with the performance potential of the tuned SL600 and agree with your thoughts. I still have a problem with C&D and their printing of performance numbers when something is terribly wrong. If a car tests 1 second faster 0-60 than it is suposed to something is out of wack.

RoOzy,

You may get more hp/tq with a chipped SL600 for 45K less but you do not have an SL65 and all of the associated components that make it up. I am sure that if you go back to the tuner for all of the other beefed up components the gap would narrow more than just a bit.

It is what it is, the top performer from AMG and one heck of a stock AMG.

Enjoy,

Schiznick

 

Thought this was funny as well......

I know that I have asked the question about driveline loss a couple of times.

As a reference point:

My SL65 put down 525HP At the rear wheels and is rated at 604 HP

The RennTech dyno sheet that Smoothdriver posted for his tuned SL600 had:

526.4 = 650 HP

Either AMG underestimates HP by 46 or Renntech overestimates by 46. For my sake I hope the first option but in the end it really does not matter!

It would be fun to put a stock SL65 on a track next to a tuned SL600.

Sounds like a great grudge match to me!

Have fun,

Schiznick

 

Same thing happened with the 2003 Cobra - Ford rated it at 390flywheel but they made 350-360rwhp on the dyno (SAE corrected) -