SL65 Black Series (I don't get it)
#16
03-06-2009, 09:59 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: inside someone hot
Age: 55
Posts: 3,444
Rep Power: 170 
Dr Floss. I think you're still 50k high. 200k max. Look how close these "CGT's" are "ASKING" price now, not sale price to the 300k level. Which would you rather have. Wait. I know that answer. We are just at the tip of the iceberg on car prices dropping.
http://www.dupontregistry.com/autos/...?itemid=553848
http://www.dupontregistry.com/autos/...?itemid=553848
#17
03-06-2009, 11:22 AM
Dr Floss. I think you're still 50k high. 200k max. Look how close these "CGT's" are "ASKING" price now, not sale price to the 300k level. Which would you rather have. Wait. I know that answer. We are just at the tip of the iceberg on car prices dropping.
http://www.dupontregistry.com/autos/...?itemid=553848
http://www.dupontregistry.com/autos/...?itemid=553848
.........through the grapevine that they will go to 280k without much fuss. Hell if things keep tanking it won't matter what the "ask" price is...........there won't be any buyers left.
#19
03-06-2009, 11:11 PM
I read the same articles and I recall they stated that the Black Series is slower because they could not get traction. That's it.
As to justy the the increased price for the Black Series "option", I'm with you H20, there is no justification. It simply boils down to a stupid Mercedes thing where they pulled their MRSP out of their asses. Thus the fantastic depreciation price "adjustments."
As to justy the the increased price for the Black Series "option", I'm with you H20, there is no justification. It simply boils down to a stupid Mercedes thing where they pulled their MRSP out of their asses. Thus the fantastic depreciation price "adjustments."
#21
03-07-2009, 11:17 AM
So I'm reading an article in March 09' Road and Track. Why would someone buy the black series over the SL65AMG?
SL65AMG weighs 340lbs more. Costs $110k less. Get's to 60mph .2 seconds faster. Is only .2 slower to 100mph's. The slalom the Black Series is faster by almost 3 mph's. Why would someone pay 110k for better suspension it seems. Why is the Black Series 340lbs lighter with 57 more hp and it's still slower?
Has Road and Track messed these numbers up? I'd expect the car to out perform in all aspects. These numbers just don't add up.
I will say the side vent things look much better on the black series after finally figuring out that Black Series didn't mean the color.
SL65AMG weighs 340lbs more. Costs $110k less. Get's to 60mph .2 seconds faster. Is only .2 slower to 100mph's. The slalom the Black Series is faster by almost 3 mph's. Why would someone pay 110k for better suspension it seems. Why is the Black Series 340lbs lighter with 57 more hp and it's still slower?
Has Road and Track messed these numbers up? I'd expect the car to out perform in all aspects. These numbers just don't add up.
I will say the side vent things look much better on the black series after finally figuring out that Black Series didn't mean the color.
Cars w/ stiffer suspensions usually can't launch well and post up poor 1/4 miles times. The stiffer suspension doesn't allow for the needed weight transfer on take-off that pushes the rear tires into the pavement and gives you traction. This is one of the reasons why 911's do so well in the 1/4 (motor over the rear tires). My supercharged CTS-V had a pretty stiff aftermarket suspension. I saw .2-.3 sec slower times out of the car after I added the stiffer springs. I noticed greatly improved lapping times though and that is the compromise.
#22
03-07-2009, 11:20 AM
Cars w/ stiffer suspensions usually can't launch well and post up poor 1/4 miles times. The stiffer suspension doesn't allow for the needed weight transfer on take-off that pushes the rear tires into the pavement and gives you traction. This is one of the reasons why 911's do so well in the 1/4 (motor over the rear tires). My supercharged CTS-V had a pretty stiff aftermarket suspension. I saw .2-.3 sec slower times out of the car after I added the stiffer springs. I noticed greatly improved lapping times though and that is the compromise.
This is true. The best proven 1/4 mile launching techniques for most Benz's is setting the airmatic to the softest setting for the same reason you described. I don't even think the black series has airmatic, let a lone a "comfort" setting.
#23
03-07-2009, 11:27 AM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: inside someone hot
Age: 55
Posts: 3,444
Rep Power: 170
while i agree with you the 10% add in Horsepower should have made up for the stiffness and in turn at least run the same times. Most likely faster.
To me it appears they are dressing up the amg with a 100k body kit. 10k worth of suspension on a car that most likely would barely see a paddock on a track more or less lap one. It still seems reduntant.
That's an expensive body kit. IMHO.
Still as I stated the best looking MB to come out of germany so far.
To me it appears they are dressing up the amg with a 100k body kit. 10k worth of suspension on a car that most likely would barely see a paddock on a track more or less lap one. It still seems reduntant.
That's an expensive body kit. IMHO.
Still as I stated the best looking MB to come out of germany so far.
#24
03-07-2009, 12:08 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Newcastle, WA
Age: 46
Posts: 629
Rep Power: 54
I had a 2007 E63 AMG and I thought the bodykit on it was amazing, but look at the bodykit on the E350 and E550, they look the same to most people. I have a S550 with AMG package now, it is not fast but quick enough for a huge car and I saved over $100,000 from a S65 AMG ! The front spoiler on my S550 is a bit different than the S65, but I don't think the S65 is worth $100,000 more for the engine and the IWC clock !
#25
04-07-2009, 06:14 PM
I seriously wish everyone would start using some new standards as far as tests go with motorcycles and 500+ HP cars. like 60-130 times make MUCH more sense. I've seen SO many people wondering why they would pay more for more power from one car to another when 0-60 is "only .2 quicker".... THERE'S MORE TO IT THEN THAT!
#26
04-07-2009, 09:12 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: inside someone hot
Age: 55
Posts: 3,444
Rep Power: 170 I seriously wish everyone would start using some new standards as far as tests go with motorcycles and 500+ HP cars. like 60-130 times make MUCH more sense. I've seen SO many people wondering why they would pay more for more power from one car to another when 0-60 is "only .2 quicker".... THERE'S MORE TO IT THEN THAT!
.2 is a lot quicker but i never have cared about 0-60 times in any of my cars. I like fast around corners. It's just the one of the only comparisons that road and track gave us.
In this car economy a 300k MB is like catching 150k on fire the first 3 months of ownership.
#27
04-07-2009, 09:28 PM
I do agree that the BS won't be a whole lot faster than an SL65 and that it's more about suspension setup and widebody just like on the CLK BS. And there's nothing wrong with that, I'm sure the suspension and widebody along with weight savings will transform the car just as the CLK BS has compared to the CLK63.
#28
04-07-2009, 09:36 PM
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: inside someone hot
Age: 55
Posts: 3,444
Rep Power: 170 I do agree that the BS won't be a whole lot faster than an SL65 and that it's more about suspension setup and widebody just like on the CLK BS. And there's nothing wrong with that, I'm sure the suspension and widebody along with weight savings will transform the car just as the CLK BS has compared to the CLK63.
It still has to be in the correct "color"
