In the Market
10-02-2007, 05:06 PM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
In the Market
Hi all,
After looking at BMW, Lexus, Corvette, Mustang, I have decided that I want an SLK 55 AMG. I have driven it and fell in love. Im east of Atlanta and I'm looking for a deal and a good dealership. Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Rick
After looking at BMW, Lexus, Corvette, Mustang, I have decided that I want an SLK 55 AMG. I have driven it and fell in love. Im east of Atlanta and I'm looking for a deal and a good dealership. Any suggestions?
Thanks in advance
Rick
10-02-2007, 06:18 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lotus Elise SLK55
P.S. If you're buying a new car, disregard everything I just said
10-02-2007, 06:56 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bay Area
Posts: 1,990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'10 Porsche Turbo PDK, 500e, GL450
08
sorry no advise as to a good dealer out there ... but if you are in the market for an 08 ... make sure you get the 030 package.
10-02-2007, 06:59 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Irvine, CA.
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2005 SL55, 2000 CL500
Its a great car. Drive as many as you can before you buy one.
I would also suggest getting the perspective of the SL vs the SLK.
The dealers are a good place to shop. But when it comes to buying and saving some cash. Private party or a different brand dealer that took one for a trade is the best price. Take your time and enjoy the shopping experience.
Look in Autotrader and E-Bay for some perspectives on prices.
As always get the latest model year you can afford. Low miles and warranty
are important as well. Extended warranty on a starmarked AMG is a premium and worth some extra cost. Congratulations on being at the point in life to own an AMG. You will enjoy it without a doubt.
PS. Just go to a dealer and test drive a SL55. Thats what you really want.
If you enjoyed the SLK55 the big dog will just blow your mind.
I would also suggest getting the perspective of the SL vs the SLK.
The dealers are a good place to shop. But when it comes to buying and saving some cash. Private party or a different brand dealer that took one for a trade is the best price. Take your time and enjoy the shopping experience.
Look in Autotrader and E-Bay for some perspectives on prices.
As always get the latest model year you can afford. Low miles and warranty
are important as well. Extended warranty on a starmarked AMG is a premium and worth some extra cost. Congratulations on being at the point in life to own an AMG. You will enjoy it without a doubt.
PS. Just go to a dealer and test drive a SL55. Thats what you really want.
If you enjoyed the SLK55 the big dog will just blow your mind.
10-02-2007, 10:15 PM
#5
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lotus Elise SLK55
Its a great car. Drive as many as you can before you buy one.
I would also suggest getting the perspective of the SL vs the SLK.
The dealers are a good place to shop. But when it comes to buying and saving some cash. Private party or a different brand dealer that took one for a trade is the best price. Take your time and enjoy the shopping experience.
Look in Autotrader and E-Bay for some perspectives on prices.
As always get the latest model year you can afford. Low miles and warranty
are important as well. Extended warranty on a starmarked AMG is a premium and worth some extra cost. Congratulations on being at the point in life to own an AMG. You will enjoy it without a doubt.
PS. Just go to a dealer and test drive a SL55. Thats what you really want.
If you enjoyed the SLK55 the big dog will just blow your mind.
I would also suggest getting the perspective of the SL vs the SLK.
The dealers are a good place to shop. But when it comes to buying and saving some cash. Private party or a different brand dealer that took one for a trade is the best price. Take your time and enjoy the shopping experience.
Look in Autotrader and E-Bay for some perspectives on prices.
As always get the latest model year you can afford. Low miles and warranty
are important as well. Extended warranty on a starmarked AMG is a premium and worth some extra cost. Congratulations on being at the point in life to own an AMG. You will enjoy it without a doubt.
PS. Just go to a dealer and test drive a SL55. Thats what you really want.
If you enjoyed the SLK55 the big dog will just blow your mind.
10-02-2007, 10:38 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 4,707
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
06 SV650S, 11 Santa Fe
Haven't shopped from them but I know Atlanta Classic Cars is a big name Mercedes dealer in Atlanta. You might want to make a post in Off Topic asking about dealers as well. I know we have quite a few Atl area people on the board.
10-03-2007, 03:39 PM
#7
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
An SL is a step up from the SLK in just about every way, but it's roughly twice as expensive, and you'll sacrifice some handling in the corners due to the much higher weight (~500kilos/~1000lb).
I think the SLK is a very worthy alternative if the budget is not as high, but you still want an AMG.
I think the SLK is a very worthy alternative if the budget is not as high, but you still want an AMG.
Trending Topics
10-04-2007, 07:54 PM
#9
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
An SL is a step up from the SLK in just about every way, but it's roughly twice as expensive, and you'll sacrifice some handling in the corners due to the much higher weight (~500kilos/~1000lb).
I think the SLK is a very worthy alternative if the budget is not as high, but you still want an AMG.
I think the SLK is a very worthy alternative if the budget is not as high, but you still want an AMG.
Addicted, agree. The blower upgrade on the SLK55 along with the LSD, etc takes care of any slight top end acceleration advantage the SL may have had on a roll anyway.
10-05-2007, 02:02 PM
#11
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
The SL is probably a little quicker on a drag strip. The huge gobs of torque from the supercharger do help.
But a step up it is in many other ways:
1) the roof, when stowed away, has a button which be pressed so that you have better access to the trunk.
2) more interior options with alcantara and leather lining on the dash etc.
3) tv, dvd playback, better comand system overall.
4) seats have massaging functions (although no airscarf and lateral support isn't quite as good, but they're definitely comfier).
5) other optional gadgets that one can fiddle around with.
6) easier to mod for power (pulley upgrade can net 50hp more, costs pittances versus having to do all kinds of header swaps etc on an SLK).
7) whilst trunk space isn't any larger then in the SLK, you do have a space behind the seats to store more stuff.
8) more technology in use (brakes are 'dried' by massaging them ever so slightly if it rains, roll bar pops up by detecting roll-over).
etc...
Overall tho', I do prefer the SLK. It just feels nimbler and more fun then the SL's that I've driven. The enhanced brakes (030 option for the SL) are quite darn powerful tho'.
But a step up it is in many other ways:
1) the roof, when stowed away, has a button which be pressed so that you have better access to the trunk.
2) more interior options with alcantara and leather lining on the dash etc.
3) tv, dvd playback, better comand system overall.
4) seats have massaging functions (although no airscarf and lateral support isn't quite as good, but they're definitely comfier).
5) other optional gadgets that one can fiddle around with.
6) easier to mod for power (pulley upgrade can net 50hp more, costs pittances versus having to do all kinds of header swaps etc on an SLK).
7) whilst trunk space isn't any larger then in the SLK, you do have a space behind the seats to store more stuff.
8) more technology in use (brakes are 'dried' by massaging them ever so slightly if it rains, roll bar pops up by detecting roll-over).
etc...
Overall tho', I do prefer the SLK. It just feels nimbler and more fun then the SL's that I've driven. The enhanced brakes (030 option for the SL) are quite darn powerful tho'.
10-05-2007, 02:33 PM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
The SL is probably a little quicker on a drag strip. The huge gobs of torque from the supercharger do help.
But a step up it is in many other ways:
1) the roof, when stowed away, has a button which be pressed so that you have better access to the trunk.
2) more interior options with alcantara and leather lining on the dash etc.
3) tv, dvd playback, better comand system overall.
4) seats have massaging functions (although no airscarf and lateral support isn't quite as good, but they're definitely comfier).
5) other optional gadgets that one can fiddle around with.
6) easier to mod for power (pulley upgrade can net 50hp more, costs pittances versus having to do all kinds of header swaps etc on an SLK).
7) whilst trunk space isn't any larger then in the SLK, you do have a space behind the seats to store more stuff.
8) more technology in use (brakes are 'dried' by massaging them ever so slightly if it rains, roll bar pops up by detecting roll-over).
etc...
Overall tho', I do prefer the SLK. It just feels nimbler and more fun then the SL's that I've driven. The enhanced brakes (030 option for the SL) are quite darn powerful tho'.
But a step up it is in many other ways:
1) the roof, when stowed away, has a button which be pressed so that you have better access to the trunk.
2) more interior options with alcantara and leather lining on the dash etc.
3) tv, dvd playback, better comand system overall.
4) seats have massaging functions (although no airscarf and lateral support isn't quite as good, but they're definitely comfier).
5) other optional gadgets that one can fiddle around with.
6) easier to mod for power (pulley upgrade can net 50hp more, costs pittances versus having to do all kinds of header swaps etc on an SLK).
7) whilst trunk space isn't any larger then in the SLK, you do have a space behind the seats to store more stuff.
8) more technology in use (brakes are 'dried' by massaging them ever so slightly if it rains, roll bar pops up by detecting roll-over).
etc...
Overall tho', I do prefer the SLK. It just feels nimbler and more fun then the SL's that I've driven. The enhanced brakes (030 option for the SL) are quite darn powerful tho'.
Command systems are the same - just a software program differnce (which, as you know, can be accessed by the owner to allow DVD play, etc). Besides, we did not buy the SLK to watch movies (it's friggin' dangerous while driving - not a good idea).
Seats - you made my points. Inferior lateral support & NO airscarf in a convertible.
The SLK55 is not meant to weigh in like a ship - it's a sports car (and as such, the SL is not a "step up" to sports car enthusiasts that prefer the smaller, lighter (just as quick) SLK55).
The SL55 is a gourgeous car, has a nice interior, and accelerates well. It's shortcomings outweigh the benefits to people whom want a sportier convertible though (2X the cost, 4,400+ lbs, inferior handling, longer brake distance, no discernable acceleration difference, no Airscarf, etc). One man's opinion.
10-05-2007, 02:55 PM
#13
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Did I say the SL was a step-up for sports car enthusiasts? No. What I meant was that technologically, the SL is superior. There's more electronics in that car then in the SLK. Even the TV tuner is something that's "more" in the SL then one could have in an SLK (even a COMAND update wouldn't just 'make' it available).
A pulley upgrade is a simple mod. It can be done by oneself in the comfort of ones garage. A header swap does require more work. The right tools. A lift. And as was the case with the older (larger) Kleemann headers, supposedly even required lifting up the engine a bit (not something I'd be too comfortable doing... that kind of work would go way over my head).
From what I've seen, the SL has some very consistent drag times, better so then the SLK. But it also came in several trims, with the earlier versions having something like ~480hp, and then boosted to 500 a year later. That could amount to some of the lower times that have been posted here and there. Some have reported just 4.9 seconds for their 0-60 sprints with the SLK, whilst others have managed 4.5 or even 4.3 with the right tires. I do believe the SL manages manages below 4.9 with ease, whilst the SLK has to be launched right to achieve that.
But let's not kid ourselves, the SLK isn't exactly a "sports car" either. It's a very capable tourer, a sporty tourer, more so then the SL which is just a GT.
Just my two cents
A pulley upgrade is a simple mod. It can be done by oneself in the comfort of ones garage. A header swap does require more work. The right tools. A lift. And as was the case with the older (larger) Kleemann headers, supposedly even required lifting up the engine a bit (not something I'd be too comfortable doing... that kind of work would go way over my head).
From what I've seen, the SL has some very consistent drag times, better so then the SLK. But it also came in several trims, with the earlier versions having something like ~480hp, and then boosted to 500 a year later. That could amount to some of the lower times that have been posted here and there. Some have reported just 4.9 seconds for their 0-60 sprints with the SLK, whilst others have managed 4.5 or even 4.3 with the right tires. I do believe the SL manages manages below 4.9 with ease, whilst the SLK has to be launched right to achieve that.
But let's not kid ourselves, the SLK isn't exactly a "sports car" either. It's a very capable tourer, a sporty tourer, more so then the SL which is just a GT.
Just my two cents
Last edited by Shinigami; 10-05-2007 at 02:57 PM.
10-05-2007, 03:55 PM
#14
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Did I say the SL was a step-up for sports car enthusiasts? No. What I meant was that technologically, the SL is superior. There's more electronics in that car then in the SLK. Even the TV tuner is something that's "more" in the SL then one could have in an SLK (even a COMAND update wouldn't just 'make' it available).
A pulley upgrade is a simple mod. It can be done by oneself in the comfort of ones garage. A header swap does require more work. The right tools. A lift. And as was the case with the older (larger) Kleemann headers, supposedly even required lifting up the engine a bit (not something I'd be too comfortable doing... that kind of work would go way over my head).
From what I've seen, the SL has some very consistent drag times, better so then the SLK. But it also came in several trims, with the earlier versions having something like ~480hp, and then boosted to 500 a year later. That could amount to some of the lower times that have been posted here and there. Some have reported just 4.9 seconds for their 0-60 sprints with the SLK, whilst others have managed 4.5 or even 4.3 with the right tires. I do believe the SL manages manages below 4.9 with ease, whilst the SLK has to be launched right to achieve that.
But let's not kid ourselves, the SLK isn't exactly a "sports car" either. It's a very capable tourer, a sporty tourer, more so then the SL which is just a GT.
Just my two cents
A pulley upgrade is a simple mod. It can be done by oneself in the comfort of ones garage. A header swap does require more work. The right tools. A lift. And as was the case with the older (larger) Kleemann headers, supposedly even required lifting up the engine a bit (not something I'd be too comfortable doing... that kind of work would go way over my head).
From what I've seen, the SL has some very consistent drag times, better so then the SLK. But it also came in several trims, with the earlier versions having something like ~480hp, and then boosted to 500 a year later. That could amount to some of the lower times that have been posted here and there. Some have reported just 4.9 seconds for their 0-60 sprints with the SLK, whilst others have managed 4.5 or even 4.3 with the right tires. I do believe the SL manages manages below 4.9 with ease, whilst the SLK has to be launched right to achieve that.
But let's not kid ourselves, the SLK isn't exactly a "sports car" either. It's a very capable tourer, a sporty tourer, more so then the SL which is just a GT.
Just my two cents
And, as stated before, the Quarter Mile times for the cars are within driver error - no matter what source you look up (they are both 12.2 - 12.8 sec cars).
The SLK55 is not a sports car? Oh contrair! I'ts a 2 seat, RWD layout, has a 355 Hp/376 Ft/Lbs torque powerplant, 18" rims on Y rated rubber, a low center of gravity, a suspension allowing the car to post a slalom time of 68.3 mph (within .3 of a 911 Carrera), a top speed of 175 mph+ (030 engine delim option), brakes within 3 ft of a 360 Modena from 60 - 0, a close ratio 7 Spd tranny, & acceleration numbers as quick as a C6 Vette. It is every bit a sports car & your car insurance classifies & reflects it as such. Dayum, some of you people need to put down the Kool Aid & realize what a good performign sports car it is. And please, no "it lacks a manual tranny" giberish (so does a Ferrari 360/430 with the F1 option...the same company that pioneered the technology in F1 & has been offering it in their road cars for more than a decade).
10-05-2007, 05:17 PM
#15
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lotus Elise SLK55
From a 40mph roll, SL55 will easily walk an SLK55 due to much higher torque. But from 0-60 and 0-100, they are pretty much equal with SL starting to overtake SLK55 at triple digit speeds. 1/4 mile, SL55 has a slight advantage and would win by a very small margin with equal drivers (12.7 vs 12.5 on street tires).
I extensively drove both before making a decision to go with the SLK and can say for a fact that SL pulls much harder at triple digit speeds. You have to remember that power becomes more important than weight at high speeds...
I extensively drove both before making a decision to go with the SLK and can say for a fact that SL pulls much harder at triple digit speeds. You have to remember that power becomes more important than weight at high speeds...
10-05-2007, 11:17 PM
#16
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Yellow: I do own an SLK55 AMG, and I know how good it is. After all, I've raced 360's, Wiesmann's, Lancer Evolutions with 4wd and 350hp, M3's and Gallardo's down twisty country lanes, and I know very well that the SLK can keep it's own, outperforming some of these cars in various situations.
BUT, it's not labelled a sports car in any insurance papers over here in Switzerland, and 90% of the population will not accept it as a "sports car" because it has no manual tranny, no matter how good a car it is.
I know very well that the SLK outperforms a ton of other cars on the street, but I don't need to prove it. I drive it, I enjoy it. Be it an automatic or not.
I don't consider a "sports car" to be something with solely a manual tranny or whatever. A sports car for me is something truly sporty, an SLK is not 'quite' this to me. It's maybe a bit too soft in some respects, too comfy perhaps, and the automatic gearbox does hamper it at times.
But the SLK is a "sporty" car for sure, and I truly enjoy the growl of the exhaust, the screech of the tires, and the rapid pull from a standing point.
I have friends who have outright declared my SLK a sports car. But as an owner who has driven most modern Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, AMG's, M's and many other cars, to me, it's in a league of it's own. I definitely found an SL to pull on a whole different level to an SLK. An SL was a GT, the SLK was a sporty tourer.
BUT ULTIMATELY, it really depends on each and everyones definition of what 'kind' of a car the SLK (or any other car) is. I don't want to get into an argument just because I perceive the SLK as a certain type of car. Cars are a very personal thing, because different things rock you in different ways. To each their own as they say. The SLK is one thing to me, and a different thing to you.
BUT, it's not labelled a sports car in any insurance papers over here in Switzerland, and 90% of the population will not accept it as a "sports car" because it has no manual tranny, no matter how good a car it is.
I know very well that the SLK outperforms a ton of other cars on the street, but I don't need to prove it. I drive it, I enjoy it. Be it an automatic or not.
I don't consider a "sports car" to be something with solely a manual tranny or whatever. A sports car for me is something truly sporty, an SLK is not 'quite' this to me. It's maybe a bit too soft in some respects, too comfy perhaps, and the automatic gearbox does hamper it at times.
But the SLK is a "sporty" car for sure, and I truly enjoy the growl of the exhaust, the screech of the tires, and the rapid pull from a standing point.
I have friends who have outright declared my SLK a sports car. But as an owner who has driven most modern Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, AMG's, M's and many other cars, to me, it's in a league of it's own. I definitely found an SL to pull on a whole different level to an SLK. An SL was a GT, the SLK was a sporty tourer.
BUT ULTIMATELY, it really depends on each and everyones definition of what 'kind' of a car the SLK (or any other car) is. I don't want to get into an argument just because I perceive the SLK as a certain type of car. Cars are a very personal thing, because different things rock you in different ways. To each their own as they say. The SLK is one thing to me, and a different thing to you.
Last edited by Shinigami; 10-05-2007 at 11:22 PM.
10-05-2007, 11:28 PM
#17
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
PS: I've had a pulley upgrade done to my old SLK. It was done very quickly. Nothing had to be taken apart.
Headers (as far as I've seen) will require mounting the car on a lift in order to access the right mounting points, undoing several bolts, undoing the existing headers from the exhausts, and so on... It's not on the same level for someoen doings mods in the comfort of his own home.
For a dealer or specialist, this is probably nothing. They've done it to various cars a hundred times and they've got all the right tools for all the different bolt sizes...
Just my two cents. I'm NOT an expert. I only rely on personal data whenever possible
Headers (as far as I've seen) will require mounting the car on a lift in order to access the right mounting points, undoing several bolts, undoing the existing headers from the exhausts, and so on... It's not on the same level for someoen doings mods in the comfort of his own home.
For a dealer or specialist, this is probably nothing. They've done it to various cars a hundred times and they've got all the right tools for all the different bolt sizes...
Just my two cents. I'm NOT an expert. I only rely on personal data whenever possible
10-06-2007, 02:17 PM
#18
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Yellow: I do own an SLK55 AMG, and I know how good it is. After all, I've raced 360's, Wiesmann's, Lancer Evolutions with 4wd and 350hp, M3's and Gallardo's down twisty country lanes, and I know very well that the SLK can keep it's own, outperforming some of these cars in various situations.
BUT, it's not labelled a sports car in any insurance papers over here in Switzerland, and 90% of the population will not accept it as a "sports car" because it has no manual tranny, no matter how good a car it is.
I know very well that the SLK outperforms a ton of other cars on the street, but I don't need to prove it. I drive it, I enjoy it. Be it an automatic or not.
I don't consider a "sports car" to be something with solely a manual tranny or whatever. A sports car for me is something truly sporty, an SLK is not 'quite' this to me. It's maybe a bit too soft in some respects, too comfy perhaps, and the automatic gearbox does hamper it at times.
But the SLK is a "sporty" car for sure, and I truly enjoy the growl of the exhaust, the screech of the tires, and the rapid pull from a standing point.
I have friends who have outright declared my SLK a sports car. But as an owner who has driven most modern Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, AMG's, M's and many other cars, to me, it's in a league of it's own. I definitely found an SL to pull on a whole different level to an SLK. An SL was a GT, the SLK was a sporty tourer.
BUT ULTIMATELY, it really depends on each and everyones definition of what 'kind' of a car the SLK (or any other car) is. I don't want to get into an argument just because I perceive the SLK as a certain type of car. Cars are a very personal thing, because different things rock you in different ways. To each their own as they say. The SLK is one thing to me, and a different thing to you.
BUT, it's not labelled a sports car in any insurance papers over here in Switzerland, and 90% of the population will not accept it as a "sports car" because it has no manual tranny, no matter how good a car it is.
I know very well that the SLK outperforms a ton of other cars on the street, but I don't need to prove it. I drive it, I enjoy it. Be it an automatic or not.
I don't consider a "sports car" to be something with solely a manual tranny or whatever. A sports car for me is something truly sporty, an SLK is not 'quite' this to me. It's maybe a bit too soft in some respects, too comfy perhaps, and the automatic gearbox does hamper it at times.
But the SLK is a "sporty" car for sure, and I truly enjoy the growl of the exhaust, the screech of the tires, and the rapid pull from a standing point.
I have friends who have outright declared my SLK a sports car. But as an owner who has driven most modern Lamborghini's, Ferrari's, AMG's, M's and many other cars, to me, it's in a league of it's own. I definitely found an SL to pull on a whole different level to an SLK. An SL was a GT, the SLK was a sporty tourer.
BUT ULTIMATELY, it really depends on each and everyones definition of what 'kind' of a car the SLK (or any other car) is. I don't want to get into an argument just because I perceive the SLK as a certain type of car. Cars are a very personal thing, because different things rock you in different ways. To each their own as they say. The SLK is one thing to me, and a different thing to you.
Here are the track times at Hockenhiem with some of the worlds fastest SPORTS cars (there is an SLK55 Black Series in there - it's as fast as a Diablo GT.....whaddya know!):Sportauto:
Porsche 911 GT2 (462hp) ------------------------------ 1.12,6 min
Audi R8 -------------------------------------------------- 1.12,7 min
BMW M3 CSL/AC Schnitzer --------------------------------- 1.12,6 min
Sportec-Porsche 996 Turbo (540 hp) ----------------------- 1.12,6 min
Ferrari F430 ------------------------------------------- 1.12.7 min
Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren 722 Edition ----------------- 1.12,9 min
Ferrari 360 CS ------------------------------------------- 1.13,0 min
Porsche 911 GT3 (2003) ------------------------------- 1.13,2 min
AC Schnitzer-BMW CLS II (E36) ------------------------- 1.13,4 min
BMW M6 AC Scnitz. Tens. (552hp) ------------------------ 1.13,5 min
BMW M3 CSL -------------------------------------------- 1.13,5 min
Mercedes SLR ------------------------------------------- 1.13,5 min
Z4 V8 Topster -------------------------------------------- 1.13,7 min
Porsche 997 Turbo ---------------------------------------- 1.13,7 min
CLK63 BS 1.13,8 min
MTM Audi S4 Clubsport (500hp) --------------------- 1.13.9 min
Donkervoort D8 180R ----------------------------------- 1.14,1 min
min
Porsche Carrera S (997) -------------------------------- 1.14,3 min
M3:1.14,3 min
Mercedes SLK55 Black Series -------------------------------- 1.14,4 min
Lamborghini Diablo GT --------------------------------- 1.14,4 min
BMW M6 -------------------------------------------------- 1.14,4 min
Z4 Alpina Roadster S------------------------------------- 1.14,4 min
Honda NSX-R -------------------------------------------- 1.14,6 min
Porsche 911 Turbo (420hp) ---------------------------- 1.14,6 min
Ferrari 575M --------------------------------------------- 1.14,7 min
Aston Martin V8 Vantage --------------------------------- 1.14,8 min (R-tires)
Corvette C6 ---------------------------------------------- 1.14,8 min
Porsche 911 GT3 (old) ---------------------------------- 1.14,9 min
Viper SRT-10 --------------------------------------------- 1.14,9 min
Mercedes CLK-DTM Cabriolet -------------------------------- 1.15,0 min
Ferrari 360M --------------------------------------------- 1.15,1 min
Lotus Esprit Sport 350 ---------------------------------- 1.15,3 min
Last edited by Yellow R1; 10-06-2007 at 02:19 PM.
