OT: MB SL55 AMG - opinions vs. TT?
07-07-2003, 04:17 PM
#1
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: new york, new york
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OT: MB SL55 AMG - opinions vs. TT?
Just curious, a buddy just received the new MB SL 55 AMG and I was interested in opinions as to its performance. He sited some recent articles that implied it would make a TT look slow .. I assume he is just a proud new owner and of course I wish him well. But, is this thing just fast in a straight line? It looks so heavy ... can it handle on a track?
Dont worry, im not running out to get one.
=rob
Dont worry, im not running out to get one.
=rob
07-07-2003, 07:19 PM
#2
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: San Luis Obispo, CA
Posts: 2,124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lot's of grunt, but not a handler. He might beat a TT in a drag race, especially if you were smart enough to spare your trans, but your C2 would mop him on the track.
07-07-2003, 07:33 PM
#3
Nordschleife Master
The drag race results can be estimated by comparing "to-the-ground" horsepower versus weight, with some consideration for the benefits of AWD for launching.
The handling is a little more subjective, with weight playing a bigger factor than horsepower.
So... what are the numbers for the AMG? Are we comparing these to a stock 993TT? A 996TT? A GT2?
Lets get some data out here.
The handling is a little more subjective, with weight playing a bigger factor than horsepower.
So... what are the numbers for the AMG? Are we comparing these to a stock 993TT? A 996TT? A GT2?
Lets get some data out here.
07-07-2003, 10:16 PM
#4
Three Wheelin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: new york, new york
Posts: 1,718
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Steve,
i guess for the sake of this discussion, compare to a stock 993tt and/or 996tt. I assume Im outgunned in my simple 993c2, so i will conceed to the bigger hardware (but if not, that would be nice too).
i guess for the sake of this discussion, compare to a stock 993tt and/or 996tt. I assume Im outgunned in my simple 993c2, so i will conceed to the bigger hardware (but if not, that would be nice too).
07-07-2003, 10:53 PM
#6
Addict
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia. >>> Now in Gibraltar
Posts: 1,398
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
993 C2 0-60 = 5.6 - 1/4 = 13.8
993 TT 0-60 = 4.5 - 1/4 = 12.6
996 TT 0-60 = 4.3 - 1/4 = 12.4
SL55 0-60 = 4.7 - 1/4 = 12.8
*apparently* the SL55 is faster to 300kph [190mph]
than the GT2 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
As for track times .....which track ?
Big fast tracks favour high HP cars....
At my local track, the "short" circuit favours my Boxster S, the "long" circuit favours my tt
993 TT 0-60 = 4.5 - 1/4 = 12.6
996 TT 0-60 = 4.3 - 1/4 = 12.4
SL55 0-60 = 4.7 - 1/4 = 12.8
*apparently* the SL55 is faster to 300kph [190mph]
than the GT2 <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
As for track times .....which track ?
Big fast tracks favour high HP cars....
At my local track, the "short" circuit favours my Boxster S, the "long" circuit favours my tt
07-07-2003, 11:48 PM
#7
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: DFW, TX
Posts: 901
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My stepmom drive a MB SL55 AMG with Brabus wheels on it. I drive the car all the time, and I can tell you this. I have raced a 996TT TIPTRONIC, and I beat him (just straight line), and not by much. The guy was a bit surprised!! You guys are correct though, the car doesn't handle very well, and doesn't even come close to the handling of a P car. Hope this helps.
Evan
Evan
Trending Topics
07-08-2003, 02:53 AM
#8
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange Park Acres, CA
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In a heads up street encounter the SL55 has the edge over a 996tt tip in a straight line. For those on the board that think they can duplicate the magazine times of a six speed 996tt or 993tt
dream on unless you want to subject your car to 4000 rpm starts. I've seen what Motor Trend had to do to get a sub 4 sec. 0-60 in a test of an autothority car. M/T brought a back up after they cooked the clutch and trans. The point is,
it is much easier for the average person to get optimum numbers from a SL55 than a manual shift 996tt or 993tt. I've witnessed my wife smoke a ZO6 with her SL55 because the guy couldn't shift. Of course, none of us on Rennlist have ever missed a shift in the heat of a spirited acceleration contest.
dream on unless you want to subject your car to 4000 rpm starts. I've seen what Motor Trend had to do to get a sub 4 sec. 0-60 in a test of an autothority car. M/T brought a back up after they cooked the clutch and trans. The point is,
it is much easier for the average person to get optimum numbers from a SL55 than a manual shift 996tt or 993tt. I've witnessed my wife smoke a ZO6 with her SL55 because the guy couldn't shift. Of course, none of us on Rennlist have ever missed a shift in the heat of a spirited acceleration contest.
07-08-2003, 07:09 AM
#9
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Bill S.:
<strong>The SL 55 will accelerate faster than a stock 996TT and 993TT. This has been discussed on the 996TT forum in detail.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Bill, this is not the 996tt forum
Lets get some FACTS down <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The "famous" German magazine test on the SL55 where the car did 0-200kph in about 14seconds and beat the 996GT2 to 300kph(186mph) 32secs versus 40 (from memory:approx)was deemed by most informed commentators as a fraud, with the SL55 being tweaked for more power. The proof of this is that no test since has got near to that 14 second 0-200kph mark. Check out the discussion on Rennteam.com where they have fully exposed THAT SL.
To 60 mph, there is no doubt a stock 993tt is quicker, all road tests of the time managed sub 4 second times, an SL is always more, usually 4.5seconds (yes I know it is harder to lauch a tt but that is your problem <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )
To 200kph (125mph) the stock 993tt would still be in front at around 15seconds. It is over this speed where the areodynamics and power/torque take over and the weight advantage diminishes. Even an ECU only tuned 993tt like the X50, 424hp version will wipe the floor with an SL up to around 150mph.
A friend of mine has one and I can catch him, let off to let him catch up, then boot it away from him again
<strong>The SL 55 will accelerate faster than a stock 996TT and 993TT. This has been discussed on the 996TT forum in detail.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Bill, this is not the 996tt forum
Lets get some FACTS down <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The "famous" German magazine test on the SL55 where the car did 0-200kph in about 14seconds and beat the 996GT2 to 300kph(186mph) 32secs versus 40 (from memory:approx)was deemed by most informed commentators as a fraud, with the SL55 being tweaked for more power. The proof of this is that no test since has got near to that 14 second 0-200kph mark. Check out the discussion on Rennteam.com where they have fully exposed THAT SL.
To 60 mph, there is no doubt a stock 993tt is quicker, all road tests of the time managed sub 4 second times, an SL is always more, usually 4.5seconds (yes I know it is harder to lauch a tt but that is your problem <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> )
To 200kph (125mph) the stock 993tt would still be in front at around 15seconds. It is over this speed where the areodynamics and power/torque take over and the weight advantage diminishes. Even an ECU only tuned 993tt like the X50, 424hp version will wipe the floor with an SL up to around 150mph.
A friend of mine has one and I can catch him, let off to let him catch up, then boot it away from him again
07-08-2003, 04:02 PM
#10
User
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Malibu, California
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me tell you another fact.
The SL 55 has no prayer, not a chance in hell, of catching Bill S.'s Ruf Turbo R at any speed interval other than 0-60, even though his car has 'only' 490hp. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
The SL 55 has no prayer, not a chance in hell, of catching Bill S.'s Ruf Turbo R at any speed interval other than 0-60, even though his car has 'only' 490hp. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
07-09-2003, 11:39 AM
#13
I hope it's relevant to the decision makers at Porsche. In my opinion, a stock MB sedan beating a stock Porsche sports car, even if in a straight line, is absurd. The MB shouldn't even come close to a non-turbo Porsche!
And I'm not even talking about the MB SL 55 AMG. MB's supercharged 4-door sedan also accelerates about the same as the stock Porsche turbos!
And I'm not even talking about the MB SL 55 AMG. MB's supercharged 4-door sedan also accelerates about the same as the stock Porsche turbos!
07-10-2003, 03:02 AM
#14
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Orange Park Acres, CA
Posts: 982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill S.
I'll bring out the SL55 on our next private track day at WSIR and we can get some comparisons runs with some of the hot iron that usually shows up.
Honest, it is stock and I guarantee it will surprise the prancing horsies'and most of the turbos.
Jim B.
I'll bring out the SL55 on our next private track day at WSIR and we can get some comparisons runs with some of the hot iron that usually shows up.
Honest, it is stock and I guarantee it will surprise the prancing horsies'and most of the turbos.
Jim B.
07-10-2003, 03:55 AM
#15
Burning Brakes
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by Bill S.:
<strong>I hope it's relevant to the decision makers at Porsche. In my opinion, a stock MB sedan beating a stock Porsche sports car, even if in a straight line, is absurd. The MB shouldn't even come close to a non-turbo Porsche!
And I'm not even talking about the MB SL 55 AMG. MB's supercharged 4-door sedan also accelerates about the same as the stock Porsche turbos!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yes, I agree with you there. I meant this statement: "The SL 55 has no prayer, not a chance in hell, of catching Bill S.'s Ruf Turbo R at any speed interval other than 0-60, even though his car has 'only' 490hp.". A silly comparison, given the costs of each car.
The supercharged MB's are an amazing performance bargain. Not much more expensive than a Viper but not much slower. Huge difference in quality and utility.
<strong>I hope it's relevant to the decision makers at Porsche. In my opinion, a stock MB sedan beating a stock Porsche sports car, even if in a straight line, is absurd. The MB shouldn't even come close to a non-turbo Porsche!
And I'm not even talking about the MB SL 55 AMG. MB's supercharged 4-door sedan also accelerates about the same as the stock Porsche turbos!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yes, I agree with you there. I meant this statement: "The SL 55 has no prayer, not a chance in hell, of catching Bill S.'s Ruf Turbo R at any speed interval other than 0-60, even though his car has 'only' 490hp.". A silly comparison, given the costs of each car.
The supercharged MB's are an amazing performance bargain. Not much more expensive than a Viper but not much slower. Huge difference in quality and utility.