Anyone seen the new SL500? I wonder how the AMG version is going to perform given the stock one is quoted at 0-60 in 6.1 seconds.
New MB SL out
- Thread starter hejo
- Start date
- Joined
- 1 September 2001
- Messages
- 4,123
The new 2003 SL55 AMG is 55% more powerful than the SL. $115,500 for a supercharged 5.4 liter 469 hp engine with 516 pound feet of torque, and a 4.6 second 0-60.
Hmmm..... makes one think about that huh
Sorry, but I find those numbers very difficult to believe. First of all, why would an AMG model cost thousands less than the stock 2002 non-AMG SL600? Second, the SL is a VERY heavy car (for example, the 2002 SL600 weighs 4,455 pounds
Are these actual magazine test results? If so, can you please provide the name and date of the magazine? Or is this just someone's hopes or fanciful dream?
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/2002/march/200203_preview_mercedes.xml
Note, this was a press teaser article. It is the usual orgasmic preview piece that the car mags do. All numbers are manufacturer quoted...
Still though, everything should be fairly close to what is disclosed here. Very impressive indeed....
Note, this was a press teaser article. It is the usual orgasmic preview piece that the car mags do. All numbers are manufacturer quoted...
Still though, everything should be fairly close to what is disclosed here. Very impressive indeed....
Here it is Ken.
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/2002/march/200203_preview_merc edes.xml
I've got a friend with money down for one. I'm looking forward to a ride. Yes you're right the numbers are verified by any mag yet but I don't suspect they're going to that far off given R&T already got to ride in one.
Update: Gee man you beat me to return key.
[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 23 February 2002).]
http://www.caranddriver.com/xp/Caranddriver/previews/2002/march/200203_preview_merc edes.xml
I've got a friend with money down for one. I'm looking forward to a ride. Yes you're right the numbers are verified by any mag yet but I don't suspect they're going to that far off given R&T already got to ride in one.
Update: Gee man you beat me to return key.
[This message has been edited by hejo (edited 23 February 2002).]
Interesting. It does sound like reliable information. If I had just bought a new SL600, I'd be p*ssed.
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Interesting. It does sound like reliable information. If I had just bought a new SL600, I'd be p*ssed.
In my opinion, people who get the SL600 do not get it for the performance. They get it so they can say they have a V12! If you look at the entire Merc line, the AMG models generally outperform any of the merc V12 line and cost less.
We have one guy in town that got a 2001 SL600 and paid 140K!! I bet he feels pretty silly after seeing how many LIGHT years the 2002 is ahead of that old car he just bought!
------------------
NetViper -= 100% Stock EBP 2000 Civic Si =- Still looking to get an NSX, but at least I can live life at 8,000 RPM!
[This message has been edited by NetViper (edited 23 February 2002).]
Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Sorry, but I find those numbers very difficult to believe. First of all, why would an AMG model cost thousands less than the stock 2002 non-AMG SL600? Second, the SL is a VERY heavy car (for example, the 2002 SL600 weighs 4,455 pounds). Even in the unlikely event that an AMG version is producing that much power, it would still be tough to get those acceleration figures out of a car that heavy.
Are these actual magazine test results? If so, can you please provide the name and date of the magazine? Or is this just someone's hopes or fanciful dream?
Generally the AMG is the 2nd most expensive after the top of the line in-class. Why it is I'm not sure. Guess because it's more of a stripped down version. Although the GT2 is a stripped down Turbo but runs higher prices. Odd. I'd take an AMG over the top model any day though.
I'd take an AMG over the top model any day though.
That's exactly my point. If the advantage of the top model is supposed to be the power of the bigger engine, but the AMG has way more power than that for less money, it seems like a no-brainer.
That's exactly my point. If the advantage of the top model is supposed to be the power of the bigger engine, but the AMG has way more power than that for less money, it seems like a no-brainer.
Agreed, it definitely seems wierd. The AMG edition is generally the top of the food chain in each Benz model family...
Sorry Hejo
Sorry Hejo
"Generally the AMG is the 2nd most expensive after the top of the line in-class. Why it is I'm not sure. Guess because it's more of a stripped down version. Although the GT2 is a stripped down Turbo but runs higher prices. Odd. I'd take an AMG over the top model any day though." -skim83
Actually, The only AMG's that are less than the top of the line in-class are the CL, S, and SL (all cars that offer the V12). The E55, C32 and SLK32 are all much more expensive than their top of the line counterparts. The V12's are priced so high because there are people, as NetViper pointed out, that just gotta have that V12. It's an exclusivity thing, just like the NSX. Everyone knows the V12 must of cost a lot. I'd still take the AMG anyday, they are all really impressive cars.
[This message has been edited by ck (edited 25 February 2002).]
Actually, The only AMG's that are less than the top of the line in-class are the CL, S, and SL (all cars that offer the V12). The E55, C32 and SLK32 are all much more expensive than their top of the line counterparts. The V12's are priced so high because there are people, as NetViper pointed out, that just gotta have that V12. It's an exclusivity thing, just like the NSX. Everyone knows the V12 must of cost a lot. I'd still take the AMG anyday, they are all really impressive cars.
[This message has been edited by ck (edited 25 February 2002).]
I purchased in Dec a CLK 55 Cab. I have done some RennTech Mods. I am looking to get this Dyno'd. I am guessing I am running 400Plus HP and 0-60 around 5.
Oops! Forgot about the CLK55. That's much more expensive, too!
Stop me if I'm wrong, but don't the AMG models have re-engineered suspensions as well? It would appear to me that the 600 lines would offer the softer ride and Benz refinement with the power of the V12, not having to sacrifice the ride.
I just saw a classified ad for one, asking $195,000.
Yup, every AMG model has upgraded suspensions.
I just saw a 2003 sl500 in person. I must say that car is pretty impressive. I would definitely get it if I were into automatic coupes. Or, better yet, encourage my lady to get it!
[This message has been edited by ck (edited 07 March 2002).]
[This message has been edited by ck (edited 07 March 2002).]
in the March/April issue of the Star (MB Club of America rag) the SL55 is reviewed with some country drives in southern Spain.
> 0-62 in 4.6 sec; 0-125 in 15 secs
> 469 hp (and 516 lb-ft torque at 2650 rpm) -- 9.05 lb/hp (better than the NSX)
> top speed limited to 155 mph (sans limiter I've heard it does 203 mph on track rubber -- w/o wings or other aero/ground effects)
[This message has been edited by nsx1164 (edited 10 March 2002).]
> 0-62 in 4.6 sec; 0-125 in 15 secs
> 469 hp (and 516 lb-ft torque at 2650 rpm) -- 9.05 lb/hp (better than the NSX)
> top speed limited to 155 mph (sans limiter I've heard it does 203 mph on track rubber -- w/o wings or other aero/ground effects)
[This message has been edited by nsx1164 (edited 10 March 2002).]
AMG has lately focused on 5-5.5 liter V8 motors, some naturally-aspirated, others with superchargers. These are found on most of their motorcars: SLK55, ML55, CLK55, C??, E55, S55 and most recently SL55.
The "top model" from MBZ usually has a 6+ liter V12. Typically this does not have as much power (or torque) as the AMG motor.
The "top model" from MBZ usually has a 6+ liter V12. Typically this does not have as much power (or torque) as the AMG motor.
Similar threads
