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

[humaid]

In their SL65 test, Car & Driver blasted the AMG car to 60MPH in 3.8 second which, while being unbelievably quick, still falls 0.2 seconds above the time they clocked their SL 600 at (3.6s)

They say it's 'cause both the cars wear tyres of the same width even though the AMG car has 111 mroe horses and 150 more pund-feet to deal with.

So what happens if the AMG uses the SLR's specially constructed Michelin's? Would the timing improve? Also the SL600 they tested had a panaromic roof. Does that reduce weight?

Just wondering how an SL65 could be made to master the insane engine instead of just coping with it.

Sorry for the long post

[mv]

Originally Posted by humaid Just wondering how an SL65 could be made to master the insane engine instead of just coping with it. Sorry for the long post

Making it an AWD car (with some extra axles added ) could solve the problem...And why to apologize for a lenght of a post, besides it's not that long

[nthfinity]

dont forget that Car and driver adjust thier accelleration runs for weather conditions.... mb of pressure, wind speed/direction, temperature, humidity...

leaving the stock configurations... i think that the AMG car may have tires that need some warming up compared witht he S600... but i am just speculating. if its not the case, then a softer tire compound would definately do the trick, humaid.

another issue would be the torque curve is vastly different on the two cars... and quite obviously, the AMG badged car would win once grip was found.

i do remember once reading that at 130mph, at full throttle, the SL65 traction control light comes on... with that much torque on hand, no wonder its a handful

[blah]

Originally Posted by mv Originally Posted by humaid Just wondering how an SL65 could be made to master the insane engine instead of just coping with it. Sorry for the long post Making it an AWD car (with some extra axles added ) could solve the problem...And why to apologize for a lenght of a post, besides it's not that long

The SL Class should never be awd. If they stuck some bigger tires out back its be much faster. I dont even think the SL600 wears 295, it needs atleast 315s.

[mv]

Originally Posted by blah Originally Posted by mv Originally Posted by humaid Just wondering how an SL65 could be made to master the insane engine instead of just coping with it. Sorry for the long post Making it an AWD car (with some extra axles added ) could solve the problem...And why to apologize for a lenght of a post, besides it's not that long The SL Class should never be awd. If they stuck some bigger tires out back its be much faster. I dont even think the SL600 wears 295, it needs atleast 315s.

Well, it was just a hypothetical statement .

[JiggaStyles09]

yea i saw this article as well and i believe if im not mistaken that they both had the same 1/4 mile time but the SL65 had a higher trap speed by like a few MPH so yea traction was definitly an issue. im sure like nthfinity said that wider and softer/stickyer tires would do the trick.

[ikon2003]

i had no idea the 600 accelerated that quickly.... that's mad quick.

it would be very interesting to see what that 65 would b able to do if it had some nice fat(ter) rubber to connect itself to the road...

[sentra_dude]

With proper tires, the SL65 could probably manage 0-60 times of around 3.3sec, maybe even faster with slicks. That's about how long it takes a RennTech S600 with excellent traction to get there; and it has very close to the power of the SL65, 625hp & 745ft-lbs. That RennTech S600 also does 0-100mph in 8.5sec. 8)

[kksh]

Yeah, with so much torque and power, it's just a matter of traction off the starting line. Any car wish that much power will gain significant time using drag slicks. But still, those monsters are way way fast for cars of that class.

[ikon2003]

^^ yup, traction is a good thing. there was a vid of a "bone stock" sl65amg running 11.69 at the drag (i'm assuming that means tires too). i dunno how (or even if) a 0-60 time can be derived from that, but i know for the quarter, that's a very quick time for a completely stock car.

[sentra_dude]

Originally Posted by ikon2003 ^^ yup, traction is a good thing. there was a vid of a "bone stock" sl65amg running 11.69 at the drag (i'm assuming that means tires too). i dunno how (or even if) a 0-60 time can be derived from that, but i know for the quarter, that's a very quick time for a completely stock car.

Probably about 3.5sec with that ET, you can really just guess. The trap speed gives you a better idea of how fast the car really is, because it depends a lot less on traction and a lot more on just brute power.

[findleybeast]

Originally Posted by sentra_dude Probably about 3.5sec with that ET, you can really just guess. The trap speed gives you a better idea of how fast the car really is, because it depends a lot less on traction and a lot more on just brute power.

Very true. Case in point, I remember when Evo did the test of the CCR in the wet, and it got a time of 12.3 in the 1/4 mile. But the trap speed was 132mph

[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!

[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.

[ikon2003]

Definitely not 0-60 time.

I think it's reaction time off the line.