SL600: 0-60 mph = 3.6 Sec's!! Why No E600?
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
SL600: 0-60 mph = 3.6 Sec's!! Why No E600?
I just read a review of the SL600 in which one of the car mags recorded a 0-60 time of 3.6 sec's.
And 11.9 at 120mph! That's really supercar territory.
Same 493 hp, but lots more torque with the 600.
Why no E600?
I know, MB has to draw the line somewhere.
But an E600 would be just too cool.
And 11.9 at 120mph! That's really supercar territory.
Same 493 hp, but lots more torque with the 600.
Why no E600?
I know, MB has to draw the line somewhere.
But an E600 would be just too cool.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
E55, F550, S600 Ducati 999
If the test measurements were accurate, the car was definately "doctored" by MB, probably a boost upgrade. Doesn't change the fact that it is an awesome result notwothstanding this point
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Re: SL600: 0-60 mph = 3.6 Sec's!! Why No E600?
Originally posted by amg55
I just read a review of the SL600 in which one of the car mags recorded a 0-60 time of 3.6 sec's.
And 11.9 at 120mph! That's really supercar territory.
Same 493 hp, but lots more torque with the 600.
Why no E600?
I know, MB has to draw the line somewhere.
But an E600 would be just too cool.
I just read a review of the SL600 in which one of the car mags recorded a 0-60 time of 3.6 sec's.
And 11.9 at 120mph! That's really supercar territory.
Same 493 hp, but lots more torque with the 600.
Why no E600?
I know, MB has to draw the line somewhere.
But an E600 would be just too cool.
Last edited by MYOFB; Feb 9, 2004 at 08:36 PM.
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
MYOFB you're arguing an undisputable point.
C&D recorded the time quoted, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense, and it's been published.
How did they get those numbers? I don't know.
MB claims much slower times for the SL600 but they're known to be conservative in this regard.
C&D also noted in the article that they tested the Porsche GT2 at 0-60 = 3.8, 2002 Viper = 3.9, 911GT3 = 4.0....and SL55 = 4.5 (C&D's November '02 test).
C&D recorded the time quoted, regardless of whether or not you think it makes sense, and it's been published.
How did they get those numbers? I don't know.
MB claims much slower times for the SL600 but they're known to be conservative in this regard.
C&D also noted in the article that they tested the Porsche GT2 at 0-60 = 3.8, 2002 Viper = 3.9, 911GT3 = 4.0....and SL55 = 4.5 (C&D's November '02 test).
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
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
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
E55, F550, S600 Ducati 999
to be fair to MYOFB this has started a huge debate in the SL55 forum already.
debate on C&D test figures .
basically it is true, but also unbelievable.
debate on C&D test figures .
basically it is true, but also unbelievable.
Thread Starter
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 763
Likes: 0
I will completely agree that it doesn't make sense that the SL600 could be almost a whole second faster than the SL55.
That's why the data in the article caught my eye.
How did they do the test?
Something is strange.
But nonetheless, C&D published their numbers, so I assume they're standing by them.
That's why the data in the article caught my eye.
How did they do the test?
Something is strange.
But nonetheless, C&D published their numbers, so I assume they're standing by them.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,882
Likes: 1,212
From: In my garage
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
E55, F550, S600 Ducati 999
This is a Renntech S600 with drag slicks on 18's. All this does is further confirm the imposssibility of a dead stock S600 pulling the numbers posted by C&D.
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
From: Minneeeesoootah
Originally posted by stephens
This is a Renntech S600 with drag slicks on 18's. All this does is further confirm the imposssibility of a dead stock S600 pulling the numbers posted by C&D.
This is a Renntech S600 with drag slicks on 18's. All this does is further confirm the imposssibility of a dead stock S600 pulling the numbers posted by C&D.
i personally would expect 4 flat. maybe a 3.9 on rare occasion. 3.6 is hard to believe but not impossible IMO. realistically an SL600 puts out only a hair less power than a maybach. i mean thats an immense amount of power!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
From: Melbourne, Australia
E55, F550, S600 Ducati 999
Originally posted by WannaBeAMG
SL not S. the stock S600 posted 0-60 in 4.1 in C&D a few months ago. so imagine a car 3-400 pounds lighter (the SL).
i personally would expect 4 flat. maybe a 3.9 on rare occasion. 3.6 is hard to believe but not impossible IMO. realistically an SL600 puts out only a hair less power than a maybach. i mean thats an immense amount of power!
SL not S. the stock S600 posted 0-60 in 4.1 in C&D a few months ago. so imagine a car 3-400 pounds lighter (the SL).
i personally would expect 4 flat. maybe a 3.9 on rare occasion. 3.6 is hard to believe but not impossible IMO. realistically an SL600 puts out only a hair less power than a maybach. i mean thats an immense amount of power!
