Bilal

http://www.alpina-automobile.de/down...-1312-2004.pdf

Its on page 7...


Its in German, but basically the time for the Porsche from 0-186mph (300km/hr) is 34.2, while the Mercedes takes 31.9.... That is a huge difference....Some mathematicians wanna calculate how many carlengths?

So those of you lucky to have one, take pride, get it delimited, find a long stretch of road, and pray some Porsche CGT owner wants to play!

Bravo Mercedes!

Sleestack

Yeah, but who really cares.... would you really want an SL65 over a CGT... I surely wouldn't. Furthermore, you're going to need an awful lot of straightaway and an enormous amount of stupidity to race up to 186 mph.

Clyde

You can take the beast to a racetrack on a sundayafternoon; smoke some tires. I would if i had one..

Sleestack

There aren't alot of racetracks that are going to give you enough room to get to those speeds. On 5th gear they were testing The Vanquish S, trying to get it to 200. With 2.5 miles of runway, they were able to hit about mid 170 and estimated they would need approximatley 2 more miles to reach 200. They were on an airstrip used for emergency space shuttle landings.

Don't get me wrong, I love the SL65, but I would take the CGT over it any day.

Walter.fr

Hello @ all members

I had the pleasure to test my SL65 at the racetrack in SPA ( Belgium ) which is one of the fastest racetracks here in Europe with a max- straight line of about 900 meters (just estimated) - and on this part of the race track, I had the chanche to take a lot of very fast cars ( GT3, 996 turbo, F360 etc) but THESE cars are much faster in the turns - means as well they are not that heavy !

THE SL65 is a great GT - if you want to drive from Lyon to Paris - or Cannes - it is a real pleasure - but not to fight against sport cars. Then it will be really hard work, and You use up your brakes/tyres/nervs sooner as you imagine.

DOn't misunderstand please - I love my SL, but I know the limits of the car ! It is a car to enjoy - just for pleasure - not for racing !

kind regards from France

Walter

Clyde

Even though it can't compete with a CGT or so, it doesn’t mean it’s useless for racing. I never drove a SL65 before (so forgive me if i say something stupid) but I think the car is perfect for all-round work. You can cruise it around a boulevard, drive from Holland to Luxemburg; and burn a few rounds on a track as well. I agree that it is not 100% designed to race, but I guess it’s more of a car that now and then should smoke a few tires at the track. Not for the nr 1 place; just for the 600hp/1000nm kick.

IngenereAMG

I have delimited my SL55 and have tracked it a few times. It has surprised some very serious sports cars with its abilities...both straight line and in the corners. While true that it is some work because of the weight....I haven't had much trouble with most sports cars that were on street tires.

As for top speed......202....and it didn't need that much room....although living in the desert with some empty, straight roads helps!

Sleestack

To hit 202 you need at least 3- 4 miles of straightaway... not much room for a desert, but you're not going to find that in may other places.

... and sure, with close to 500 hp and lb/ft torque, you're going to do all right on a track... but put that power in a proper sports car and you'll see how well the SL does on the track.

Again, don't get me wrong, I love the SL and many other MBs, but sports cars they are not... well maybe the SLK 55.

Bilal

Was bored so I worked it out....191.59m difference between the two cars....around 42-43 carlengths

RU_MATRX

Hey Bilal:

At first, the figure seemed very high for a difference of 2.3 secs @ 300Km/hr. I see how you did your calculations. Using 191.67m difference @ 300Km.hr. and a SL65 car-length of 4.535m, one gets 42.26 car lengths. This is correct if you were actually driving the SL65 300km/hr for a duration of 2.3 secs BEFORE the CGT hit the same starting mark having already attained a speed of 300km/hr 2.3 secs later.

The SL65 is not 42.26 car lengths ahead of the CGT when they hit 300 km/hr. because both are accelerating from 0km/hr on their way to 300km/hr. Even w.r.t. to each individual vehicle, the rate of acceleration and distance attained is not linear nor consistent in any given time segment (20-40, 40-60, 0-100km/hr.,etc.)

Anyone care to extrapolate the distance in car-lengths between these vehicles? We're missing the "actual" distance covered by each respective vehicle because the delta of acceleration from 0-300km/hr is a differential equation (variable w.r.t. to a minute time segment). We can probably extrapolate from their respective "quarter-mile" times on the same day and give a ballpark figure from there though there is a high uncertainty in error based on aerodynamic affects, gearing differences, powerband characteristics, and the all-encompassing differential equation for the rate of acceleration. Get the distance at the exact point where one of the cars hits 300km/hr., and we're onto something.

Walter.fr

Hello Bilal
Hello RU_MATRX
Hello good evening @ members

Sorry guys, are we serious about the above mentioned issue ??

These figures are tested by professional drivers - or test drivers. Both cars are excellent ! One with automatic gear - and second with manual gearbox .. so here is already a difference.

WHO cares really, in normal life - even on a straight line "Autobahn" ( Highway ) there are so many other issues, which could stop the one or the other .....

Both cars give you much, much more than just acceleration and top speed. IMHO there is a inner soul in each of them - and you have to like them - no I am not that crazy - but with other words, you have to adore your car.

Maybe I see all this different, from another point of view. Maybe I am a little bit .....

kind regards from France

Walter

RU_MATRX

Walter:

It's just an interesting point of discussion since the thread was focused on 0-300km/hr. I'm certain everyone at one point in time actually compared figures to real world "car-lengths." Afterall, segments of 1 sec doesn't truly mean anything unless one can compare it to a real-world perception of experiences right? Why are 0-60, 0-100MPH, 1/4 mile times ever posted regularly then? It's a way to functionally compare, contrast and relay measured performance figures inasmuch as track times.

There was never a question that both cars are excellent in their own right and can't be truly compared in the same calibre or class. Each has their own strengths, weaknesses, appeal and purpose in creation.

Nevertheless, since Bilal brought up one aspect of real-world car-length differences, why not be somewhat accurate in conjecture? I was interested in reading this thread on the sole purpose of the title alone as I'm sure others have (300+ views so far)? No harm, no foul right?

Walter.fr

Hello Dave

You're right - the issue of this thread was 0-300 acceleration ! Sorry I missed the point.

I see cars a little bit different. But this is only my point of view ...

If it would not be that late here in Europe, I would go for a calculation according my "physic books".

Thank you for bringing me back "on track"

kind regards from Paris

Walter

RU_MATRX

Hey Walter:

I have a feeling that you are more of a track-oriented enthusiast as well as appreciating cross-country GT cruising. As I actually have more experience on the track and twisties with open-class sportbikes than any racing or dragstrip through the past decade, I actually value handling/driver feedback above all out power. I also appreciate acceleration sensations moreso than speed, driver feedback and suspension dynamics more than burnouts or racing. That's the great thing about the SL55/65 AMGs hardtop convertibles, they touch on all facets of performance without compromising everyday comfort and luxury while shining brilliantly in many areas.

Take Great Care,

AgentQ

The math really isn't that hard, but calculus is necessary to prove the point.

Basically, you integrate the change of speed with respect to time and distance for each car then subtract the distance for the CGT from the distance of the SL (If you want a positive number ). Since you've got the times, you've got the speeds (0-186), and only the distances are unknown, you're good to go. I'm not doing this right now, but it's not bad.

note: This isn't entirely acurate becuase it assumes linear acceleration, which isn't the case, but the curve does become more flat in 6th gear so you could assum logrithmic acceleration and get a better number I think.

Erik

How will you be able to calculate the distance between those 2 cars, when the only figure you have is the time to 186 mph. Its actually very likly that the CGT is in front at that time, and do not forgett the sopspeed of the CGT is as fast as the SL65 in topspeed, give or take a few mph.

The CGT is faster to 60, to 125 and probably to 150, but then at some point it seems that the SL65 is catching up. The problems is we have no idea if the car actually made it passed the CGT, the SL65 could be side by side, behind or also in front.

Cant see how anyone can calculate anyting without haveing lots of other info.


But what this really proves is with todays supercars 0-60 is more or less pointless, even the 0-125 mph does not really separate them, it is the 125 - 186 mph that really separate the boys from the BIG buys.

BTW: The SL65 reached 206 mph on the first run.Early next morning after increasing the tirepressure by 0,5 bar, the speed was then 210 mph , thats faster than the SLR, and it is one of the fastest cars on the planet.

Just for comparisson, in 1993 McLaren made the amazing McLaren F1, the 0-186 mph on that monster was app 21 sec. Thats totaly mindblowing.
0-200 mph was 25 sec........ still today no car has recorded anyting remotly close.

Even the CGT and the Enzo would look like they hit a brik wall compared to that monster.............


The Porsche in this test got some serious engine troubles, that why the disapointing result, I have seen this car run 230+ mph

SLK55_AMG

check the CCR Koeingssegg

Shinigami

I'm not a Porsche fan, so I'd DEFINITELY take the SL over the CGT *shrug*

IngenereAMG

Before the car was derestricted I could hit an on ramp pretty hard and bounce off the limiter (155) just before I got to the next exit (1 mile).

As far as proper spotrscars go....I have plenty to pick from, but lately I have been choosing the SL55 as it is really very good at the track. The Ferraris are alot more tossable of course, but with the SL you just have to adapt your driving style slightly. I can understand why Walter would have a problem on a road course with the 65....I believe that its 400+ pounds heavier...and all the weight is in the nose.

Lov2xlr8

thanx for proving what i said a while back about the SL having a higher top speed then the SLR.

https://mbworld.org/forums/showthrea...&highlight=slr