I really can't believe you think the SLR is slow and not comparable to even a CGT. The embarassing thing is, even though the SLR is 400kg heavier, its just as fast, if not faster...hahahah, smoke that in your pipe eh?

And as for transmission, the SLR has a manual mode, which is just as quick and effective as the Enzo's paddleshift, ask CF, he can concur and confirm. So you dis the SLR because its an auto, yet you can praise the Enzo? Double standards or what? The SLR jsut happens to have full auto usaility and thanks to AMG, Enzo paddleshift when you want, best of both worlds.

If the SLR doesn't offer anything special for that price, are you calling the people who put down 1000 orders for the first two years..idiots? If SLR isn't special enough, then neither is the CGT. Plain and simple.

BTW, the Enzo can't beat the mac F1, even with more HP, why? because N/A engines can't produce prodigious torque low down, so if the SLR had an Enzo V12 it would be slower than it is. But isn't this amazing, the SLR is heavier than teh CGt and Enzo by about 400kgs, yes 400kgs, and yet it wll keep up with them? Even with an auto tranny? Its points like this that make the Italian supercars pointless and pathetic...


All in all, I can't belive I'm arguing on the internet trying to defend a car I will most probably never get to drive and buy, boy do I feel retarded.

I think its jealousy more than anyhing else...there is STILL no valid and justified argument against the SLR.

I think CF will concur the SLR is a great car, but the CGT is for him, not because its faster and the SLR isn't special enough for the price, but because he prefers the CGT. And thats fine, but syaing, I'd rather get a Brabus and crappy lawnmowerenginedcardboardboxes like the radical is just stupid, and an insult to supercars everywhere..