Mercedes SL65 v SL600... 65AMG handicapped??

[mv]

Originally Posted by blah Originally Posted by malte the first thing the board shows in a drag race, isn't that the 0-60 time, because then the sl65 wich did a high 11, got from zero to sixty in 1.85... so i'm thinking it must at least be wearin slicks! not 0-60 thats the 60' foot time.

What a weird figure...I've never heard about any 60 feet time perhaps because I've never been into drag racing.

[blah]

Originally Posted by mv Originally Posted by blah Originally Posted by malte the first thing the board shows in a drag race, isn't that the 0-60 time, because then the sl65 wich did a high 11, got from zero to sixty in 1.85... so i'm thinking it must at least be wearin slicks! not 0-60 thats the 60' foot time. What a weird figure...I've never heard about any 60 feet time perhaps because I've never been into drag racing.

if i wanted to fuck with you i could of said i drive a car that could do it in 2.0 or so.

[martin100]

Very unlikely that the 600 did it in 3.6sec. And IMO it just can´t be faster than the 65 AMG. AMG always wins 8)

[humaid]

I'm sure Car & Driver don't fabricate their results (Ok i'm not sure, i just consider it highly unlikely.)

Maybe they make several runs and give the best time instead of the average. Maybe they compensate for several weather and track conditions (as nthfinity mentioned earlier) and so their timing might not be a simple radar gunned time. Maybe it's a theoretical time compensating for conditions....I Dunno but I was even shocked by some of the times....

[mv]

I've seen the sl600 accelerating many times and as far as I can tell those 3.6s are (nearly?) impossible on regular tires...It's definitely not an average result.

[philios55]

As a Mercedes fan i want to believe those figures are true but,there is no way the SL600 can make a time of 0-60:3.6 sec and let me tell you why:

The Mclaren SLR which it has 126 bhp more than the SL600, its 300 kg lighter can only manages 0-60 in 3.8 sec, how is it possible the SL600 to achieve that time.

No way my friends. 8)

[humaid]

Originally Posted by philios55 As a Mercedes fan i want to believe those figures are true but,there is no way the SL600 can make a time of 0-60:3.6 sec and let me tell you why: The Mclaren SLR which it has 126 bhp more than the SL600, its 300 kg lighter can only manages 0-60 in 3.8 sec, how is it possible the SL600 to achieve that time. No way my friends. 8)

I agree with you in theory, but as the testers put it, The SL 600 has a very good balance between power and traction. As I recall from the Motor Trend test of the SLR, it takes some time from start before the SLR has enough traction to use it's power for propulsion.

Also, Even though the SL 600 has a better time to 60, it does not have a better time to the quarter mile and beyond...I guess, initially at least, the huge torque advantage helps the 600.

[humaid]

I read the Road & Track test of the SL 65...It agrees with the Car & Driver results...I'm still wonderin........

[twboy1999]

0-62 mph is nothing

is 2 short of a distance to test the car's true acceration performance, is all about traction

quater mile is more accurate and the trap speed they get

[wow2000]

Personally i think the 65 would be faster but the 600 is nore than sufficeient for me. The 65's top speed run of 350km/h is insane.{quoted from MErcedes Enthusiast magazine} Actually a 55 will do me just fine.