Sl55 VS. E55
Banned
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
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.
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.
Super Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 784
Likes: 0
From: Ga.
All of them!
Of a straight up race between the SL55 and the E55, I would lay my $ on the E.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
7 Craziest Things AMG Gas Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
New Electric Mercedes-AMG GT 4-Door Coupe Unveiled: 10 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
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
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 536
Likes: 35
From: Seattle
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
Also,--- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLLsK4TiBpU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5YaHyBnf7P8
Last edited by BigApe; Aug 26, 2007 at 01:14 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 623
Likes: 0
From: Taipei
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.
Stock verse stock, I would put my money on the e55.
Banned
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
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.
Of a straight up race between the SL55 and the E55, I would lay my $ on the E.
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?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 1,200
Likes: 0
From: Irvine, CA
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?
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?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 2,923
Likes: 3
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.
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.
Out Of Control!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,266
Likes: 3
From: Texas
2005 E55
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,952
Likes: 4
From: Hollywood CA
2011 twin turboed prius
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?
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 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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 3,703
Likes: 5
From: Arizona
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
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 1
From: Ventura County USA
'06 E55, '05 SLK55, a few others
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?
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?
Banned
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
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?
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?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,351
Likes: 0
From: SoCal
C63S coupe, X5M
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?
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?
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.
Banned
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Englewood Cliffs, NJ
SL55 AMG, M5 E60, 2002 S55 AMG, Range Rover Sport Supercharged,
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...
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...
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 1
From: Ventura County USA
'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; Oct 4, 2007 at 10:00 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,653
Likes: 5
From: Ann Arbor
'03 SL55
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?
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!
