W211 AMG Discuss the W211 AMG's such as the E55 and the E63

Sl55 VS. E55

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 08-25-2007, 11:55 PM
  #1  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
hamann69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
E55 AMG
Sl55 VS. E55

Any stock E55's run stock SL55's? What was the outcome?
Old 08-26-2007, 12:27 AM
  #2  
Out Of Control!!
 
Can Drive 55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,266
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
2005 E55
My stock E55 ran even with a modded SL55, so my guess is the E is a bit faster than the SL
Old 08-26-2007, 12:34 AM
  #3  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
hamann69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Florida
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
E55 AMG
Originally Posted by Can Drive 55
My stock E55 ran even with a modded SL55, so my guess is the E is a bit faster than the SL
what was done to the SL?
Old 08-26-2007, 01:10 AM
  #4  
Banned
 
SoS SWATxV2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
Not too many races of either against each other at all...unless somebody can search and find one...

Mercedes is supposed to make their SL AMG flagship the fastest of the classes/AMGs.

Um. My bet is on the SL if there was a legitimate NOT staged race.
Old 08-26-2007, 01:10 AM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
DFW01E55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 2,566
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
'14 ML BT
On the 'E' board, the E wins!

Guess who wins on the SL board?

PS. Over on the CL board, the CL chews up modified C6 Z06's and modified 997TT's.

You wouldn't expect any different, would you?
Old 08-26-2007, 10:15 AM
  #6  
Super Member
 
derrick_lui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 980
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My ex-cars: 03 E55,04 C32, 05 C55 ,03 E320
The SL55 according to my knowledge is around 42xx pounds and the E55 is around 40xx pounds.
Old 08-26-2007, 10:37 AM
  #7  
Super Member
 
mbenzman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Ga.
Posts: 784
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
All of them!
Originally Posted by SoS SWATxV2
Mercedes is supposed to make their SL AMG flagship the fastest of the classes/AMGs.
Um. My bet is on the SL if there was a legitimate NOT staged race.
The SL never was the quickest of the two due to it being the heavier car. The 500E was quicker than the SL500 because it was lighter. I also would not call the SL55 Mercedes Benz's flagship. Most would argue the S600 or the SLR would be the Mercedes flagships. Then you have AMG cars, of which you have the SL65, CL65 or the S65 as the top dogs. Most people would probably say the S65 is the AMG flagship.

Of a straight up race between the SL55 and the E55, I would lay my $ on the E.
Old 08-26-2007, 12:33 PM
  #8  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
AKnight55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: NH
Posts: 6,752
Received 92 Likes on 72 Posts
2012 C63 BS & 2014 E63 Estate & 2008 CLK63 BS
e55 would win no question!
Old 08-26-2007, 01:10 PM
  #9  
Super Member
 
BigApe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Seattle
Posts: 536
Received 35 Likes on 17 Posts
2105 S63 Full Carbon - 2018 GTR
I've posted a performance chart below that should settle it

Also,--- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLsK4TiBpU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YaHyBnf7P8
Attached Thumbnails Sl55 VS. E55-recent-amg-performance.jpg.jpg  

Last edited by BigApe; 08-26-2007 at 01:14 PM.
Old 08-26-2007, 01:20 PM
  #10  
Super Member
 
Sunny55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Taipei
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2005 SL55 AMG
I have owned both....yes, the e55 is lighter and does feel a lil quicker from my butt dyno. I have never raced an e55 in the sl55, but I have raced an sl55 in the e55 before. I won by a quite a few car lengths, then again, I had evo stage 2.....

Stock verse stock, I would put my money on the e55.
Old 08-26-2007, 02:32 PM
  #11  
Banned
 
SoS SWATxV2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
Originally Posted by mbenzman
The SL never was the quickest of the two due to it being the heavier car. The 500E was quicker than the SL500 because it was lighter. I also would not call the SL55 Mercedes Benz's flagship. Most would argue the S600 or the SLR would be the Mercedes flagships. Then you have AMG cars, of which you have the SL65, CL65 or the S65 as the top dogs. Most people would probably say the S65 is the AMG flagship.

Of a straight up race between the SL55 and the E55, I would lay my $ on the E.
Ahh... weight smeight!

Sure, it might a little bit heavier (200 pounds? WHY Mercedes?) but didn't they intentionally detune the E55's engine to 469 Horsepower due to the fact if it had 493 horses like the SL, CL, S, etc AMGs, it would be faster than them?

They detuned it so at least it have to be pretty even between them or not slower. That's I heard, not what I know...

And I wasn't saying the SL55 as the flagship of MB, I meant the SL class in general. Still though, Mercedes has many high end top cars so there can't really be a "flagship" hmm?
Old 10-04-2007, 01:57 PM
  #12  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Fantasm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Car Whore
so does anyone really know WHAT makes the SL55 that much slower? I see stock E55's running 11.9's... the fastest stock SL55 i've heard of is 12.4-12.5 with both of those times being achieved by me as well, but nothing quicker in stock form.
So what would it take, not including engine mods to make it as quick as an E55 while in mechnically stock form?
Do those 2xx pounds really make a .6 of a second difference in 1/4 mile times?? I highly doubt it, but then what?
Old 10-04-2007, 02:02 PM
  #13  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
CynCarvin32's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Mercedes Benz
I had both and did a couple runs a while back on the freeway and the E55 was a bit quicker. The SL55 has a 2.82 rear end to make up for its extra 200 lbs but the E55 still is faster with its downgraded 2.65 rear end.

Up to say 130 or 140 it was about a 1 car length difference.

My E55 felt a fair bit quicker. Not sure it was just the weight. I just think my E55 was a stronger pick of the litter.
Old 10-04-2007, 03:51 PM
  #14  
Out Of Control!!
 
Can Drive 55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,266
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
2005 E55
Originally Posted by hamann69
what was done to the SL?
Sorry for the delay.

He had a RENNtech pulley, headers, air box, and ECU. It already had the larger TB, since it was the 510 HP version.
Old 10-04-2007, 05:18 PM
  #15  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
juicee63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hollywood CA
Posts: 6,950
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
2007 CLS63 030
Originally Posted by Fantasm
so does anyone really know WHAT makes the SL55 that much slower? I see stock E55's running 11.9's... the fastest stock SL55 i've heard of is 12.4-12.5 with both of those times being achieved by me as well, but nothing quicker in stock form.
So what would it take, not including engine mods to make it as quick as an E55 while in mechnically stock form?
Do those 2xx pounds really make a .6 of a second difference in 1/4 mile times?? I highly doubt it, but then what?
The weight costs about .2
the weight and the transfer of the weight is what slows the SL.

An average E class will do 12.4
An Average SL class will do 12.6

E 55 is faster unless you make the weight = then betch the cars are the same , so much for the detuned E 55 theory
Old 10-04-2007, 06:03 PM
  #16  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
IngenereAMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Arizona
Posts: 3,703
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
SL55AMG, Ferrari 348, Ferrari Testarossa, Ferrari F40, Ferrari Mondial t, Ducati 916, Indycar
There are so many debates on this. I own a SL55 and I have driven a number of stock E55s.....before we set them up and I am pretty sure that MB underrated the E's engine....they are the same motors and the lighterweight, sure made the E55 feel quicker.

Here is a comparison done by a German magazine when the SL55 forst came out...it's very interesting.

https://mbworld.org/forums/attachmen...3&d=1172289558
Old 10-04-2007, 06:04 PM
  #17  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
Originally Posted by SoS SWATxV2
Ahh... weight smeight!

Sure, it might a little bit heavier (200 pounds? WHY Mercedes?) but didn't they intentionally detune the E55's engine to 469 Horsepower due to the fact if it had 493 horses like the SL, CL, S, etc AMGs, it would be faster than them?

They detuned it so at least it have to be pretty even between them or not slower. That's I heard, not what I know...

And I wasn't saying the SL55 as the flagship of MB, I meant the SL class in general. Still though, Mercedes has many high end top cars so there can't really be a "flagship" hmm?
The E55 was only detuned on paper. It has been proven through many dyno runs that the 2 cars make essentially identical power. My '06 made 435 RWHP, bone stock down to the air filters. That is far more than 469 crank HP. Vadim can attest to the dyno numbers.
Old 10-04-2007, 06:41 PM
  #18  
Banned
 
SoS SWATxV2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
Well then... if that's the case that Mercedes "lied" to us that the E had 469 horses,

I'm about to SELL MY STOCK SL55 AMG! Am I kidding? You guess!


Oh wait a sec... WHY JUST WHY would a SEDAN like an E be heavier than 2 passenger roadster?

Shouldn't the E class actually be heavier than the SL? Why is it the other way around?
Old 10-04-2007, 06:54 PM
  #19  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
BMWEATR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: strip bar in Oregon
Posts: 1,671
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
211 E55(sold) & 80cc shifter kart
I've got it on with a SL 55 on the freeway, I slowly pulled away.
Old 10-04-2007, 07:05 PM
  #20  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Murtaza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
C63S coupe, X5M
Originally Posted by SoS SWATxV2
Well then... if that's the case that Mercedes "lied" to us that the E had 469 horses,

I'm about to SELL MY STOCK SL55 AMG! Am I kidding? You guess!


Oh wait a sec... WHY JUST WHY would a SEDAN like an E be heavier than 2 passenger roadster?

Shouldn't the E class actually be heavier than the SL? Why is it the other way around?
Convertibles need more high strength steel in the center to makeup for the rigidity a normal roof provides. The SL also has the whole retractable hardtop assembly and I'm sure thats not too light...

It's still impressive that it weighs less then an M6 vert

As for E55 vs SL55, the E is faster. I've raced an SL55 in my buds CLS63 and won by almost a car up to around 80.
Old 10-04-2007, 07:11 PM
  #21  
Banned
 
SoS SWATxV2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
Okay that's it.

Time for a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 C6!
Old 10-04-2007, 09:19 PM
  #22  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
sack5000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Oklahoma City
Posts: 1,947
Received 8 Likes on 6 Posts
2015 AMG C63 S
Originally Posted by SoS SWATxV2
Okay that's it.

Time for a Chevrolet Corvette Z06 C6!
This is strictly a weight issue what is there to consider....?
Old 10-04-2007, 09:36 PM
  #23  
Banned
 
SoS SWATxV2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
Originally Posted by sack5000
This is strictly a weight issue what is there to consider....?
That paying 120,000 back in 2002 for a SL55 AMG and now to be dethroned as the 2nd fastest Mercedes by a cheaper E55 AMG?

Then again, it's still an amazing vehicle to drive and be in... but yet you get what you pay for right?

I've always thought and agreed that the SL55 AMG was always a wee little bit faster than the E by a car length if not both the same...
Old 10-04-2007, 09:44 PM
  #24  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
Fast55's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Ventura County USA
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
It's not, and it never was. If you were worried about being the fastest, you should have bought a 65. No 55 is even close, stock for stock. It takes a highly modified 55 anything to keep up with a stock 65.

Last edited by Fast55; 10-04-2007 at 10:00 PM.
Old 10-04-2007, 10:18 PM
  #25  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
jmf003's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ann Arbor
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
'03 SL55
Originally Posted by SoS SWATxV2
Well then... if that's the case that Mercedes "lied" to us that the E had 469 horses,

I'm about to SELL MY STOCK SL55 AMG! Am I kidding? You guess!


Oh wait a sec... WHY JUST WHY would a SEDAN like an E be heavier than 2 passenger roadster?

Shouldn't the E class actually be heavier than the SL? Why is it the other way around?

Part of the reason for the extra weight is Mercedes reinforces the undercarriage so that the SL55 body remains stiff in spite of lacking a fixed roof.

BMW's M6 has the same issue. The M6 fixed roof coupe weighs 3,909 lbs. The M6 convertible weighs 4,398 lbs and that's with a cloth top!


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Sl55 VS. E55



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:26 PM.