There's a TurboKiller over on another forum
#31
Originally Posted by treynor
Which just goes to show you, there are asses in both camps :/
Personally, I like the SL and I like the 911TT, but they're two fairly different cars. The fact that they're reasonably close in acceleration is interesting, and the fact that they're both easily modded to be significantly quicker is a big plus.
Personally, I like the SL and I like the 911TT, but they're two fairly different cars. The fact that they're reasonably close in acceleration is interesting, and the fact that they're both easily modded to be significantly quicker is a big plus.
#33
Never drove an sl65 but have been told that the performance difference between that and an sl55 is nowhere near being justified by price difference. I drove an sl55 briefly and got really bored with it and had a friend (who loves the car) take over the payments. That's the problem with mercedes, they make comfortable reliable cars that are very boring. But then again I'm also bored with the 996TT. My next weekend car will be a rear wheel drive.
-Peter Oh
-Peter Oh
#34
Originally Posted by KJM3SMG
sorry Martin, that 5000 lb (ok i'm exaggerating) boat can't handle as well as an M3.. it's like saying an M3 can handle as well as a Mini
#36
Originally Posted by KJM3SMG
I'm sure you were shocked.. I can see the iLLM3 look :P
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=104360
Beating Physics: SL65 Handling
Taming corners with sophisticated, computerized ease, the SL65's Active Body Control (ABC) eliminates body roll and brake dive with virtually no sacrifice in comfort. Working out at the corner gym with the SL65's double-wishbone front suspension and multilink rear, ABC slips the car through kinks and sweepers with utter predictability. Likewise, the rack and pinion steering guided the SL through the transitions without a twitch. A center-console switch lets you cinch down the suspension damping up to 95 percent, but unless you're going to paint a number on the side of your SL and enter it at Le Mans (you're 50 years too late), save your teeth and stick with the default setting.
A great car's brakes can take your breath away, and the SL65's stole ours outright. Once engaged, the high-speed stopping effect was absolute, like the car was being sucked into the pavement. Front brake discs that are bigger than the standard wheels on a Honda Accord will do that for you.
#37
sure it might be faster in a straight line. but what happens if he has to turn? and turn again? no question there are plenty of cars faster than a tt.
the tt has a balance of straight line speed along with braking and handling not to mention reliablity. the list get's pretty short in this category esp if it's an everyday vehicle.
the tt has a balance of straight line speed along with braking and handling not to mention reliablity. the list get's pretty short in this category esp if it's an everyday vehicle.
#38
Originally Posted by oak
sure it might be faster in a straight line. but what happens if he has to turn? and turn again? no question there are plenty of cars faster than a tt.
the tt has a balance of straight line speed along with braking and handling not to mention reliablity. the list get's pretty short in this category esp if it's an everyday vehicle.
the tt has a balance of straight line speed along with braking and handling not to mention reliablity. the list get's pretty short in this category esp if it's an everyday vehicle.
#40
Originally Posted by oak
ok, it might be good for a few corners. I wonder how it would fare in comparison in a 30 min heat.
Again, all i said is people who say AMG Benz's cant handle or they are just good for straightline are sadly mistaken,, im talking about AMG's like the C55, SLK55, SL65 even the SL55 pulls better lap times around the nurburgring then an M3, which i was SHOCKED as **** to see!
#41
Tis true - the SL65 is heavy but has a LOT of grip, brakes, and of course motor. It would not fare well in an autocross, but it seems to do splendidly on roadcourses considering its mission.
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
#42
Originally Posted by treynor
Tis true - the SL65 is heavy but has a LOT of grip, brakes, and of course motor. It would not fare well in an autocross, but it seems to do splendidly on roadcourses considering its mission.
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
#43
Originally Posted by treynor
Tis true - the SL65 is heavy but has a LOT of grip, brakes, and of course motor. It would not fare well in an autocross, but it seems to do splendidly on roadcourses considering its mission.
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
As for the performance difference between an SL55 and SL65 -- bone stock, my SL65 made 525 RWHP vs a typical 440 RWHP for an SL55. Now, with just an ECU reflash and airbox, my SL makes 611 RWHP and runs 10 second 1/4 miles. Any questions?
#44
Call me an ***, *******, assclown... whatever.
But, I think I kinda know my cars a bit...
And after owning an AMG car for 4 months now....
I can safely conclude... AMG cars are ****ty handlers. Let's see here:
Ring times....
8:14 for an SL 65-- 604hp
8:12 for an SL 55 (actually FASTER than its big brother due to weight differential)-- 493hp
7:54 for a CLK-DTM-- 582hp
7:52 for an SLR McLaren-- 617hp (7:40 when tested by Klaus Ludwig)
vs.
7:46 for a GT2 with Michelin PS1 tires (back in 2001)-- 456hp
7:40-43 for GT3-RS-- 381hp
7:56 996 Turbo (non-X50)-- 415hp
7:49 996 GT3 with PS2 tires-- 380hp
So I don't see how anyone can say Chrysler-AMG makes great handling cars. They downright SUCK, especially given the power/tq of the engines.
But, I think I kinda know my cars a bit...
And after owning an AMG car for 4 months now....
I can safely conclude... AMG cars are ****ty handlers. Let's see here:
Ring times....
8:14 for an SL 65-- 604hp
8:12 for an SL 55 (actually FASTER than its big brother due to weight differential)-- 493hp
7:54 for a CLK-DTM-- 582hp
7:52 for an SLR McLaren-- 617hp (7:40 when tested by Klaus Ludwig)
vs.
7:46 for a GT2 with Michelin PS1 tires (back in 2001)-- 456hp
7:40-43 for GT3-RS-- 381hp
7:56 996 Turbo (non-X50)-- 415hp
7:49 996 GT3 with PS2 tires-- 380hp
So I don't see how anyone can say Chrysler-AMG makes great handling cars. They downright SUCK, especially given the power/tq of the engines.
#45
Originally Posted by Hamann7
Call me an ***, *******, assclown... whatever.
But, I think I kinda know my cars a bit...
And after owning an AMG car for 4 months now....
I can safely conclude... AMG cars are ****ty handlers. Let's see here:
Ring times....
8:14 for an SL 65-- 604hp
8:12 for an SL 55 (actually FASTER than its big brother due to weight differential)-- 493hp
7:54 for a CLK-DTM-- 582hp
7:52 for an SLR McLaren-- 617hp (7:40 when tested by Klaus Ludwig)
vs.
7:46 for a GT2 with Michelin PS1 tires (back in 2001)-- 456hp
7:40-43 for GT3-RS-- 381hp
7:56 996 Turbo (non-X50)-- 415hp
7:49 996 GT3 with PS2 tires-- 380hp
So I don't see how anyone can say Chrysler-AMG makes great handling cars. They downright SUCK, especially given the power/tq of the engines.
But, I think I kinda know my cars a bit...
And after owning an AMG car for 4 months now....
I can safely conclude... AMG cars are ****ty handlers. Let's see here:
Ring times....
8:14 for an SL 65-- 604hp
8:12 for an SL 55 (actually FASTER than its big brother due to weight differential)-- 493hp
7:54 for a CLK-DTM-- 582hp
7:52 for an SLR McLaren-- 617hp (7:40 when tested by Klaus Ludwig)
vs.
7:46 for a GT2 with Michelin PS1 tires (back in 2001)-- 456hp
7:40-43 for GT3-RS-- 381hp
7:56 996 Turbo (non-X50)-- 415hp
7:49 996 GT3 with PS2 tires-- 380hp
So I don't see how anyone can say Chrysler-AMG makes great handling cars. They downright SUCK, especially given the power/tq of the engines.
What you fail to understand is that if we all wanted a porsche for better handling, and jamming it into corners, we would simply buy one. Congrats on your ability to corner, and sharpening your F-1 skills.
The simple truth is that I can give a sh@@ about racing on a track and most guys dont ever compete on a track in their lives. Don't take this so personal. Many of us enjoy driving in luxury at high speeds, and you enjoy whatever. So enjoy and dont ever buy another car or keep another car that pisses you off so much. We AMG owners apologize for not caring about having the most nimble breath taking performance car on the planet. We also apologize for only enjoying a quick quater mile rump.
Take a deep breath and let it go. Better yet, you have the better track car, the fastest car, the more reliable car, you are the better driver, you are the-------------Porsche Master! Feel Better Now