RE: Mercedes SLR Stirling Moss
Discussion
Gold said:
RFSA 180 said:
forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
Bloody hell, are the decorators in? chill out. Let me guess, you drive an poverty spec, generic grey, A4 1.9tdi.
I have to say, I don't understand why anybody would be on the "Pistonheads" site and s
g-off that SLR. It seems to be the epitomy of what "we" love and, in some cases, aspire to own. As a "product": it makes no sense whatsoever; it's utterly ridiculous timing; it's bound to make you unpopular... But, as a car: I would simply *love* to have one in my garage on a crisp Sunday morning.
g-off that SLR. It seems to be the epitomy of what "we" love and, in some cases, aspire to own. As a "product": it makes no sense whatsoever; it's utterly ridiculous timing; it's bound to make you unpopular... But, as a car: I would simply *love* to have one in my garage on a crisp Sunday morning.forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
You should have gone to specsavers.............
chevronb37 said:
While I wouldn't put it quite like that, I kind of agree with the sentiment. I think the whole thing is in bad taste. Even Gordon Murray says the car isn't the one he wanted it to be.
I have huge respect for Gordon Murray's engineering abilities, but the last car that was "the one he wanted it to be" sold badly and made no money for his employer. This one has, it seems, sold well and made money for bother McLaren and Mercedes.Like it or not, that's the game - build cars, make money doing it
It is not for the car industry to simply not supply those whose taste it doesn't like, especially not in the current climate!Saw them testing this at the Ring in the summer, it sounded like absolute insanity! Nice to see it without the camoflague (sp?) on it.
It always makes me laugh when people comment on stories about these sort of cars by complaining about the timing of release in respect to the financial markets. Because obviously we'd have all had our names down for this 6 months ago, god damn credit crunch!
It always makes me laugh when people comment on stories about these sort of cars by complaining about the timing of release in respect to the financial markets. Because obviously we'd have all had our names down for this 6 months ago, god damn credit crunch!
MartinD said:
forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
This is the 2nd/3rd (depending on how you count them) over 5 years, that's a lot is it ?The SLR has already sold 50% MORE than the Carrera GT (similar cost/performance)which ended production early because of poor sales , that make it an "utter abortion" does it ?
You could have just you didn't like it which would have been OK as its your personal opinion instead of talking factual b*llocks.
For the record.
SLR Coupe
SLR Roadster
SLR 722
Roadster 722
SLR Roadster 722S
SLR Stirling Moss.
A quick glance at the classifeids on this very site shows depreciation on the early cars is monumental! £170K for a £320K car is fairly catastrophic. The main reason for the cost is not the materials per say, but the huge amount of hours the car spends on the producition line.
Additionally the car never really got lavish praise. Everyone raved about it's power, and grip, but its a big old bus and the brake problem is just as bad as the reviewers say. (Allegedly sorted on the specials) Then when 722 was launched "Evo" said its even more "pointy" than the normal version! Couple that with the fact it cannot have a decent Sat Nav fitted, had far to much plastic on the HVAC controls and people wondered why not just buy a SL55 or 600 or even Brabus which is faster.
I like the idea of this later car. But it does seem a little too "marketing" than making a real sucessor to those old Mille Miglia cars. As above, manual box would of been a nice touch.
Edited by Rich_W on Monday 22 December 21:25
Rich_W said:
MartinD said:
forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
This is the 2nd/3rd (depending on how you count them) over 5 years, that's a lot is it ?The SLR has already sold 50% MORE than the Carrera GT (similar cost/performance)which ended production early because of poor sales , that make it an "utter abortion" does it ?
You could have just you didn't like it which would have been OK as its your personal opinion instead of talking factual b*llocks.
For the record.
SLR Coupe
SLR Roadster
SLR 722
Roadster 722
SLR Roadster 722S
SLR Stirling Moss.
A quick glance at the classifeids on this very site shows depreciation on the early cars is monumental! £170K for a £320K car is fairly catastrophic. The main reason for the cost is not the materials per say, but the huge amount of hours the car spends on the producition line.
Additionally the car never really got lavish praise. Everyone raved about it's power, and grip, but its a big old bus and the brake problem is just as bad as the reviewers say. (Allegedly sorted on the specials) Then when 722 was launched "Evo" said its even more "pointy" than the normal version! Couple that with the fact it cannot have a decent Sat Nav fitted, had far to much plastic on the HVAC controls and people wondered why not just buy a SL55 or 600 or even Brabus which is faster.
I like the idea of this later car. But it does seem a little too "marketing" than making a real sucessor to those old Mille Miglia cars. As above, manual box would of been a nice touch.
Edited by Rich_W on Monday 22 December 21:25
Rich_W said:
MartinD said:
forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
This is the 2nd/3rd (depending on how you count them) over 5 years, that's a lot is it ?The SLR has already sold 50% MORE than the Carrera GT (similar cost/performance)which ended production early because of poor sales , that make it an "utter abortion" does it ?
You could have just you didn't like it which would have been OK as its your personal opinion instead of talking factual b*llocks.
For the record.
SLR Coupe
SLR Roadster
SLR 722
Roadster 722
SLR Roadster 722S
SLR Stirling Moss.
A quick glance at the classifeids on this very site shows depreciation on the early cars is monumental! £170K for a £320K car is fairly catastrophic. The main reason for the cost is not the materials per say, but the huge amount of hours the car spends on the producition line.
Additionally the car never really got lavish praise. Everyone raved about it's power, and grip, but its a big old bus and the brake problem is just as bad as the reviewers say. (Allegedly sorted on the specials) Then when 722 was launched "Evo" said its even more "pointy" than the normal version! Couple that with the fact it cannot have a decent Sat Nav fitted, had far to much plastic on the HVAC controls and people wondered why not just buy a SL55 or 600 or even Brabus which is faster.
I like the idea of this later car. But it does seem a little too "marketing" than making a real sucessor to those old Mille Miglia cars. As above, manual box would of been a nice touch.
Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
MartinD said:
I thought it was 1500 CGT's & 3000 Mercedes SLR's (its not a McLaren), not that it really matters.
Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
You're right about the 722 Roadster. So substitute in GTR (which was done by RML not McLaren - Odd given McLaren Cars last road car turned racer won Le Mans in 95 Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
)I do consider it a McLaren though. They designed the thing (and subsequently led the development into these Specials), the mono is built in Portsmouth by McLaren Composites and the people that assemble it in Woking are paid by McLaren Automotive. With their snazy Hugo Boss workwear!
I'm curious why you don't like the comparison to the SL though. Same engine/gearbox/Diff. Its nearly as fast at the top end delimited. A damn site smaller. (though 200kgs ish heavier) Doesn't have the brake issue, has a funky folding roof and is 1/3 of the price (new) Ok, its not got McLaren badges, or mad doors, or a carbon fibre body but in terms of what the car actually does. 2 seater GT car. There's not a lot in it IMO.
Rich_W said:
MartinD said:
I thought it was 1500 CGT's & 3000 Mercedes SLR's (its not a McLaren), not that it really matters.
Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
You're right about the 722 Roadster. So substitute in GTR (which was done by RML not McLaren - Odd given McLaren Cars last road car turned racer won Le Mans in 95 Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
)I do consider it a McLaren though. They designed the thing (and subsequently led the development into these Specials), the mono is built in Portsmouth by McLaren Composites and the people that assemble it in Woking are paid by McLaren Automotive. With their snazy Hugo Boss workwear!
I'm curious why you don't like the comparison to the SL though. Same engine/gearbox/Diff. Its nearly as fast at the top end delimited. A damn site smaller. (though 200kgs ish heavier) Doesn't have the brake issue, has a funky folding roof and is 1/3 of the price (new) Ok, its not got McLaren badges, or mad doors, or a carbon fibre body but in terms of what the car actually does. 2 seater GT car. There's not a lot in it IMO.
Built by & designed by McLaren yes( I know a few of the guys who work there), but to the design of & under the constraints of Mercedes. I believe it is not the car McLaren wanted to build.
I though the SLR engines were quite different to the SL, similar on paper but different heads,dry sump etc..
Brakes were cured early on, Ive driven one & they were fine.
There was a '03 SL65 at a track day , its brakes were ok but not brilliant & it would not go round corners anywhere near as fast as you would think it should, any idea how quick a SL is round the 'ring ? I think the SLR was only 12 seconds slower than a CGT.
MartinD said:
Rich_W said:
MartinD said:
forzaminardi said:
What a load of complete b*llocks. The McMerc SLR has had more 'special editions' than the Citroen Saxo! Best for all concerned if they just admitted the whole thing is an utter abortion and let it die. What a hideous car.
This is the 2nd/3rd (depending on how you count them) over 5 years, that's a lot is it ?The SLR has already sold 50% MORE than the Carrera GT (similar cost/performance)which ended production early because of poor sales , that make it an "utter abortion" does it ?
You could have just you didn't like it which would have been OK as its your personal opinion instead of talking factual b*llocks.
For the record.
SLR Coupe
SLR Roadster
SLR 722
Roadster 722
SLR Roadster 722S
SLR Stirling Moss.
A quick glance at the classifeids on this very site shows depreciation on the early cars is monumental! £170K for a £320K car is fairly catastrophic. The main reason for the cost is not the materials per say, but the huge amount of hours the car spends on the producition line.
Additionally the car never really got lavish praise. Everyone raved about it's power, and grip, but its a big old bus and the brake problem is just as bad as the reviewers say. (Allegedly sorted on the specials) Then when 722 was launched "Evo" said its even more "pointy" than the normal version! Couple that with the fact it cannot have a decent Sat Nav fitted, had far to much plastic on the HVAC controls and people wondered why not just buy a SL55 or 600 or even Brabus which is faster.
I like the idea of this later car. But it does seem a little too "marketing" than making a real sucessor to those old Mille Miglia cars. As above, manual box would of been a nice touch.
Depreciation, just over 50% in 4 years is pretty good compared to most cars.
There is no 722 roadster ,its the 722S
Sure it has faults but is better than most make it out to be,you simply cant compare it to a SL55 or 600, its in a different league. It will be interesting to look back in 10 years time & see what history makes of it.
I still haven't managed to get a hold of a copy of that programme though
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff