Sep 27, 2005 9:44:31 AM
Sep 27, 2005 9:44:31 AM
Sep 27, 2005 1:05:58 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
Sep 27, 2005 1:05:58 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
Sep 27, 2005 5:08:47 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
That will leave a line up of SL350, SL500, SL600, SL63 AMG and SL65 AMG.
I assume (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that the SL63 AMG has a supercharged 6.3 litre V8 whereas the SL65 AMG has a 6.5 litre V12 bi turbo??
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
Sep 27, 2005 5:08:47 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
That will leave a line up of SL350, SL500, SL600, SL63 AMG and SL65 AMG.
I assume (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that the SL63 AMG has a supercharged 6.3 litre V8 whereas the SL65 AMG has a 6.5 litre V12 bi turbo??
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
Quote:
Mike S said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
That will leave a line up of SL350, SL500, SL600, SL63 AMG and SL65 AMG.
I assume (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that the SL63 AMG has a supercharged 6.3 litre V8 whereas the SL65 AMG has a 6.5 litre V12 bi turbo??
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
the SL500 and the AMG models are WORLDS apart. the Suspension, brakes, performance are totally different. but the SL's were never meant to be a good handling car, they are cruisers
Quote:
Mike S said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
That will leave a line up of SL350, SL500, SL600, SL63 AMG and SL65 AMG.
I assume (pls correct me if I'm mistaken) that the SL63 AMG has a supercharged 6.3 litre V8 whereas the SL65 AMG has a 6.5 litre V12 bi turbo??
I think MB and AMG should focus on improving handling and reducing weight rather than merely increasing engine size and power output. There has to be a point when there is simply too much power going to the rear wheels for it to be worthwhile.
I haven't driven the SL55 or the SL65. I have only driven the SL500 and I found the handling dreadful. It felt like a 2 door, 2 seater S Class. There was so much body roll. They should fix that first!
the SL500 and the AMG models are WORLDS apart. the Suspension, brakes, performance are totally different. but the SL's were never meant to be a good handling car, they are cruisers
Sep 27, 2005 6:30:16 PM
Sep 27, 2005 6:30:16 PM
Sep 27, 2005 6:35:38 PM
Sep 27, 2005 6:35:38 PM
Sep 28, 2005 6:09:45 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Mike S,
You're absolutely right that, in relation to power & performance, the SL500 and the AMGs models are VERY different. So, there's a big difference in straight line speed and acceleration. But, you have to accept that the size, weight, handling etc are almost equally poor compared to a sportscar.
Sep 28, 2005 6:09:45 PM
Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Mike S,
You're absolutely right that, in relation to power & performance, the SL500 and the AMGs models are VERY different. So, there's a big difference in straight line speed and acceleration. But, you have to accept that the size, weight, handling etc are almost equally poor compared to a sportscar.
Quote:
VKSF said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Mike S,
You're absolutely right that, in relation to power & performance, the SL500 and the AMGs models are VERY different. So, there's a big difference in straight line speed and acceleration. But, you have to accept that the size, weight, handling etc are almost equally poor compared to a sportscar.
May want to take a look at the N-ring times of SL55 vs 360 vs new M5....hmmm, which cars are the "cruisers"?...
Quote:
VKSF said:Quote:
easy_rider911 said:
Mike S,
You're absolutely right that, in relation to power & performance, the SL500 and the AMGs models are VERY different. So, there's a big difference in straight line speed and acceleration. But, you have to accept that the size, weight, handling etc are almost equally poor compared to a sportscar.
May want to take a look at the N-ring times of SL55 vs 360 vs new M5....hmmm, which cars are the "cruisers"?...
Quote:
DamienL said:
I'm sure it's been said many times before, but unless those times were done by the same driver in very similar conditions, then they are really meaningless.
The SL55 is a blindingly fast grand tourer with almost acceptable handling, but it's definitely not a sports car.
Quote:
DamienL said:
I'm sure it's been said many times before, but unless those times were done by the same driver in very similar conditions, then they are really meaningless.
The SL55 is a blindingly fast grand tourer with almost acceptable handling, but it's definitely not a sports car.
Quote:
Bilal said:
Insanely childish comments displayed here. So what if its not a sportscar? So what if it ain't a 911, is it crap then? We have the same recurrent theme in every post in this forum. TELL US SOMETHING NEW! If for any reason, someone from now on declares that an AMG with its 2 ton+ weight and automatic transmission is no sportscar, they're going to get a slap in the face by the obvious police.
I'm sorry, I forgot this board was infested by Porsche-blind members