RE: Tell Me I'm Wrong: Mercedes SLR McLaren
Discussion
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/gordon-murray...
Mid-mounted n/a engine AND 1400kg I should have said.
Mid-mounted n/a engine AND 1400kg I should have said.
Mastodon2 said:
Urban Sports said:
Side exhausts.
One of the best features surely?Wasn't a huge fan on the SLR when it launched but got to admit it is ageing very nicely indeed. Maybe just due to the push button start on the gear knob but I always felt this had a whiff of a Bond car. It's a big GT car so auto box wouldn't concern and in fact would be perfect.
In my fantasy garage it would be this or the Hartge Z8.
Coulthard with SLR
http://www.myspace.com/video/taipoca/mclaren-slr-a...
Not a fan of the Mercedes SLR, if i was to buy a big engine mounted in the front it would be the Ferrari 599. Just don't like bling factors, side exhausts and the long nose. Just not for me. But like others have said it has aged remarkably well, you can't say it looks 'old'. I thought the biggest problem with the SLR was the brakes, but there must be way to fix that issue right?
Never been a fan of the SLS. It just seems a "downgrade" from the SLR. The SLR looks like a proper supercar, with the SLS seeming bland in comparison. However, I will concede that the SLS is easily one of the best sounding cars on sale at the moment. I also think the convertible version makes the SLS much more appealing.
The SLR does have the DRAMA that every supercar should have; something not so much quantifiable, but rather, emotional. I still want one, but a few issues make me wary (disregarding the fact that I could barely afford an old 190E, let alone a six-figure supercar!)
-1: I'd have to move. For some reason, the fact that the side-exit exhausts exhale in front of the door, precludes me from registering it in the state of Virginia.
-2: I'd be terrified of potholes. The all-carbon construction means if you get a flat tire, well, you better not have any plans for the day. You can NOT use any type of jack or jackstand on this car, even if you could carry a spare. Call for a tow? Nope! It can't be towed. Get it fixed by an independent shop? Certainly not! SLRs can only be lifted by a proprietary lift found only at the few Mercedes dealerships that are certified to work on the SLR.
Basically, any attempt to jack/hoist/lift an SLR other than using the bespoke lift will essentially ruin the carbon tub, resulting in the entire car being totalled!!!
The SLR does have the DRAMA that every supercar should have; something not so much quantifiable, but rather, emotional. I still want one, but a few issues make me wary (disregarding the fact that I could barely afford an old 190E, let alone a six-figure supercar!)
-1: I'd have to move. For some reason, the fact that the side-exit exhausts exhale in front of the door, precludes me from registering it in the state of Virginia.
-2: I'd be terrified of potholes. The all-carbon construction means if you get a flat tire, well, you better not have any plans for the day. You can NOT use any type of jack or jackstand on this car, even if you could carry a spare. Call for a tow? Nope! It can't be towed. Get it fixed by an independent shop? Certainly not! SLRs can only be lifted by a proprietary lift found only at the few Mercedes dealerships that are certified to work on the SLR.
Basically, any attempt to jack/hoist/lift an SLR other than using the bespoke lift will essentially ruin the carbon tub, resulting in the entire car being totalled!!!
bagman13 said:
Not a fan of the Mercedes SLR, if i was to buy a big engine mounted in the front it would be the Ferrari 599. Just don't like bling factors, side exhausts and the long nose. Just not for me. But like others have said it has aged remarkably well, you can't say it looks 'old'. I thought the biggest problem with the SLR was the brakes, but there must be way to fix that issue right?
Article said:
...the infamously grabby brakes modulated by a change in pad compound later in its life.
Hope this helps. 
The trouble with hind-sight is that you can change context to suit your chosen argument.
Yes, if you now compare the SLR against a different benchmark, it will appear better. However, the fact remains that at it's launch it was in competition with the very cars which still today out-class it.
Now it has devalued and time has softened the impact of its launch it CAN be appreciated as a very fine road car. However, looking at its original spec (including price) it appears as a car which doesn't really have a particular point.
Yes, if you now compare the SLR against a different benchmark, it will appear better. However, the fact remains that at it's launch it was in competition with the very cars which still today out-class it.
Now it has devalued and time has softened the impact of its launch it CAN be appreciated as a very fine road car. However, looking at its original spec (including price) it appears as a car which doesn't really have a particular point.
Fire99 said:
The trouble with hind-sight is that you can change context to suit your chosen argument.
Yes, if you now compare the SLR against a different benchmark, it will appear better. However, the fact remains that at it's launch it was in competition with the very cars which still today out-class it.
Now it has devalued and time has softened the impact of its launch it CAN be appreciated as a very fine road car. However, looking at its original spec (including price) it appears as a car which doesn't really have a particular point.
Bawlocks, at the time it was unjustly pitched against out-and-out racecars that is both eyedrippingly expensive to maintain, too hardcore for regular use and slated on the grounds of being taken back-to-back onto tracks and compared to enzos and CGT`s.Yes, if you now compare the SLR against a different benchmark, it will appear better. However, the fact remains that at it's launch it was in competition with the very cars which still today out-class it.
Now it has devalued and time has softened the impact of its launch it CAN be appreciated as a very fine road car. However, looking at its original spec (including price) it appears as a car which doesn't really have a particular point.
With a slushbox, half a tonne heavier and a softer setup,
of cource it would appear as a fish out of water.
As an everyday proposition and a USABLE supercar its merits today have become more clear, to me it is one of THE prettiest and most extravagant mercs ever made.
You cant live with a CGT or an Enzo the way you can with an SLR.
Which I guess is the point the author here tries to convey.
I want one. Badly.
Edited by C36 Nico on Sunday 17th February 20:33
bobberz said:
-2: I'd be terrified of potholes. The all-carbon construction means if you get a flat tire, well, you better not have any plans for the day. You can NOT use any type of jack or jackstand on this car, even if you could carry a spare. Call for a tow? Nope! It can't be towed. Get it fixed by an independent shop? Certainly not! SLRs can only be lifted by a proprietary lift found only at the few Mercedes dealerships that are certified to work on the SLR.
Basically, any attempt to jack/hoist/lift an SLR other than using the bespoke lift will essentially ruin the carbon tub, resulting in the entire car being totalled!!!
If that's true then it wipes a large amount of the point from this car for me. Is this the case with any other carbon tub cars?Basically, any attempt to jack/hoist/lift an SLR other than using the bespoke lift will essentially ruin the carbon tub, resulting in the entire car being totalled!!!
PiB said:
Over engineered underperforming crap the German auto industry shuves us. Collectable? Yes. Would I love to experience one? Yes. Would I love to see one? yes. Not the first or last car I would look to buy. I just think it's crap.
A car that misses the point. McLaren? I'll take a cheaper MP$-12C. That's real automotive equipment and history.
Mercedes has done better with their GT1 car and CLK DTM.
Hmmm not sure about your last statement. The GT1 was massively expensive and laughably impractical. Ironically, the very uesability of the SLR is often quoted as a reason for people's dislike of it. Mclaren seem to have managed the same trick with the MP4/12C...A car that misses the point. McLaren? I'll take a cheaper MP$-12C. That's real automotive equipment and history.
Mercedes has done better with their GT1 car and CLK DTM.
Over the w/e I rewatched the Top Gear SLR versus powerboat episode. Must admit the SLR looked (and sounded) brilliant.
Give that it is now getting on a bit, how is it stacking up reliability wise compared to equivalent Ferraris/Lambos etc? Certainly JC made much of the fact that it seemed solid and not plagued with the foibles/issues associated with exotic supercars of that price.
As an everyday supercar, what else is there? Porsche 911 turbo I suppose (though still A LOT cheaper new)?
Give that it is now getting on a bit, how is it stacking up reliability wise compared to equivalent Ferraris/Lambos etc? Certainly JC made much of the fact that it seemed solid and not plagued with the foibles/issues associated with exotic supercars of that price.
As an everyday supercar, what else is there? Porsche 911 turbo I suppose (though still A LOT cheaper new)?
g3org3y said:
Over the w/e I rewatched the Top Gear SLR versus powerboat episode. Must admit the SLR looked (and sounded) brilliant.
Give that it is now getting on a bit, how is it stacking up reliability wise compared to equivalent Ferraris/Lambos etc? Certainly JC made much of the fact that it seemed solid and not plagued with the foibles/issues associated with exotic supercars of that price.
As an everyday supercar, what else is there? Porsche 911 turbo I suppose (though still A LOT cheaper new)?
M155 engine bulletproof, passive damping, loads of shared parts with the lesser SL models.Give that it is now getting on a bit, how is it stacking up reliability wise compared to equivalent Ferraris/Lambos etc? Certainly JC made much of the fact that it seemed solid and not plagued with the foibles/issues associated with exotic supercars of that price.
As an everyday supercar, what else is there? Porsche 911 turbo I suppose (though still A LOT cheaper new)?
Seems like a dream of an ownership proposition to me given the cars abilities.
Mercedes has always done reliability well and I suspect the SLR is no different.
terenceb said:
Totally agree,although as already stated,the interior was not really 'special'.
I had a small connection with the SLR in 2006/7 through my work at MB.IIRC the interior was originally to have been a McLaren design but very late in the day this was rejected (I never found out the reason as to why) and replaced with a MB design. The last minute nature of the decision meant that the interior was never as well made or thought out as it should have been and (despite allegedly costing £8.5k per car) looked cheap.
Sorry Dan - I think you are wrong...
I had a brief (20 miles) drive in a 722 and found the steering far too sensitive (too highly geared), the ride overly harsh, the brakes wooden and the throttle mapping exceptionally aggressive.
It reminded me of a TVR Cerbera - when you approach it you see the grand tourer shape and when you drive it, the NVT characteristics feel like that of a track/race car.
Compared to a Murcialago/599, it did not compare - let alone to a Carerra GT or Enzo I'm sure (which I have not driven)
Oh and the interior plastics felt like those of an RX8
I think they didn't have the budget to develop it fully.
I had a brief (20 miles) drive in a 722 and found the steering far too sensitive (too highly geared), the ride overly harsh, the brakes wooden and the throttle mapping exceptionally aggressive.
It reminded me of a TVR Cerbera - when you approach it you see the grand tourer shape and when you drive it, the NVT characteristics feel like that of a track/race car.
Compared to a Murcialago/599, it did not compare - let alone to a Carerra GT or Enzo I'm sure (which I have not driven)
Oh and the interior plastics felt like those of an RX8
I think they didn't have the budget to develop it fully.
rubystone said:
Hmmm not sure about your last statement. The GT1 was massively expensive and laughably impractical. Ironically, the very uesability of the SLR is often quoted as a reason for people's dislike of it. Mclaren seem to have managed the same trick with the MP4/12C...
Supercars shouldn't have to be practical! the SLR has lots of character, and the CLK-DTM is a fantastic car tooI was lucky enough to spend a day at McLaren, with a factory tour and then down to the top gear test track to drive the convertable SLR.
Personaly i thought it looked pretier than the ordinary SL, but not that much, then to drive..Wow...certainly i think it was the fastest car in a straight line that i have ever driven, but there was a distinct lack of personality, the gear changes never felt as immediate as they do in say a Ferrari, it was too easy to drive in automatic and the manual mode was just lifeless..
McLaren technology center impressed me greatly, perhaps the car just did not live up to the impression of the company, to me it was just a fast mercedes.. with enormous servicing costs just buy the equivalent AMG or the new SLS and you will have at least the same ammount of fun.
Personaly i thought it looked pretier than the ordinary SL, but not that much, then to drive..Wow...certainly i think it was the fastest car in a straight line that i have ever driven, but there was a distinct lack of personality, the gear changes never felt as immediate as they do in say a Ferrari, it was too easy to drive in automatic and the manual mode was just lifeless..
McLaren technology center impressed me greatly, perhaps the car just did not live up to the impression of the company, to me it was just a fast mercedes.. with enormous servicing costs just buy the equivalent AMG or the new SLS and you will have at least the same ammount of fun.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff