RE: Driven: Mercedes- Benz SLS AMG Roadster
Discussion
British Beef said:
Why would anyone pick the Merc????
Lots of reasons - it'll be a significantly better GT; it'll be cheaper to run long distances (although as you say, if you don't use it much, depreciation will hurt more); it looks and sounds better (IMO); it's got a less pretentious badge; it's got a far better boot;... but the reason for many people will simply be "it's not a Ferrari". JohnG1 said:
kambites said:
Lots of reasons it'll be cheaper to run long distances (although as you say, if you don't use it much, depreciation will hurt more)
Really? Based on mpg or depreciation or a number of other factors?It will be interesting to see, but I suspect that a 5 year-old SLS with 60k miles on it will be worth more than a 458 the same.
Edited by kambites on Monday 26th September 13:32
Gatsods said:
kambites said:
Can you? I didn't realise that version of the engine was used in anything else.
It isn't, the basic block was used in all of the "63 AMG" models until late last year when AMG switched to a 5.5litre Twin Turbo (in some applications) V8. The only cars this is now used in is the SLS Coupé & Roadster and the updated C63 AMG range. Even then the SLS version has considerably different tuning as it's version puts out 563bhp in comparison with the C63's 451bhp.
Yep, have to say that the Gullwing doors are what makes this model special. But that engine is an almighty beast, so losing the roof would enable yoy to enjoy it more. Tough decision for anyone lucky enough to consider buying either of the two.
I followed a dark blue one through london last week for about a mile, just after midnight, what a noise, but when i pulled up next to him, the driver commented on the lovely noise coming from my car, what a nice chap!
I followed a dark blue one through london last week for about a mile, just after midnight, what a noise, but when i pulled up next to him, the driver commented on the lovely noise coming from my car, what a nice chap!
JohnG1 said:
That V8 is awesome and flat out upshifts are a thing of beauty.
But if it's anything like an SL63 AMG it's just a big fat heavy barge. I know the text mentions a loss of 310kg but the SL63 is so lardy anyway...
I was on the launch on the same day as Dan, and it really isn't a lard-arse. The only time the weight makes itself felt is when you're flicking fast left-right-left-right or vice versa. Otherwise, it's lively at the rear end, relatively chuckable for its wheelbase and at the same time it never feels like it's going to kill you. Bloody good car!But if it's anything like an SL63 AMG it's just a big fat heavy barge. I know the text mentions a loss of 310kg but the SL63 is so lardy anyway...
Crunchy Nutter said:
I was on the launch on the same day as Dan, and it really isn't a lard-arse. The only time the weight makes itself felt is when you're flicking fast left-right-left-right or vice versa. Otherwise, it's lively at the rear end, relatively chuckable for its wheelbase and at the same time it never feels like it's going to kill you. Bloody good car!
Fair points - to what are you comparing it in terms of chuckability and lard-arse-ness?kambites said:
......
It will be interesting to see, but I suspect that a 5 year-old SLS with 60k miles on it will be worth more than a 458 the same.
Like you say, not many high mileage ferrari's around, so hard to compare. But if you look at how big Astons depreciate, compared to the baby Ferrari (similar new costs) I think the Ferrari will hold its value better. It will be interesting to see, but I suspect that a 5 year-old SLS with 60k miles on it will be worth more than a 458 the same.
Edited by kambites on Monday 26th September 13:32
Factor in the 458 being the best ever looking and going convertible supercar (IMO), I think demand for it is going to outstrip supply for a long time.
British Beef said:
Factor in the 458 being the best ever looking and going convertible supercar (IMO), I think demand for it is going to outstrip supply for a long time.
Yes, but as you say that's in your opinion - I think it looks awful. ETA: Not that I'd buy either, if I had that money to spend on a mini-supercar.
Edited by kambites on Monday 26th September 15:07
JohnG1 said:
But if it's anything like an SL63 AMG it's just a big fat heavy barge. I know the text mentions a loss of 310kg but the SL63 is so lardy anyway...
Just to put the weight thing into context a little the SLS Roadster is 1660kg and a DBS Volante 1810kg! A Ferrari California is 1735kg and an SL63 1970kg. The SL65 is 2120kg! Off to fat camp with you both!Main thing about the SLS is that the weight is much more centred and, as I said in the story, driven back to back it's night and day with the SL. Front to back it's 47:53 and the engine is much lower in the chassis too being dry sumped. SL63 is great but the SLS is proper. And a lot stiffer than the DBS Volante which is, to my mind, the closest rival on paper, price and in spirit.
And further to what mrclav says about headroom coupe and Roadster (roof up, obviously!) are a tad snug but this can be offset with the one-piece 'race seats' that are mounted a tad lower.
Dan Trent said:
Just to put the weight thing into context a little the SLS Roadster is 1660kg and a DBS Volante 1810kg! A Ferrari California is 1735kg and an SL63 1970kg. The SL65 is 2120kg! Off to fat camp with you both!
Main thing about the SLS is that the weight is much more centred and, as I said in the story, driven back to back it's night and day with the SL. Front to back it's 47:53 and the engine is much lower in the chassis too being dry sumped. SL63 is great but the SLS is proper. And a lot stiffer than the DBS Volante which is, to my mind, the closest rival on paper, price and in spirit.
And further to what mrclav says about headroom coupe and Roadster (roof up, obviously!) are a tad snug but this can be offset with the one-piece 'race seats' that are mounted a tad lower.
Aren't all the 6.3 V8 engines dry-sumped?Main thing about the SLS is that the weight is much more centred and, as I said in the story, driven back to back it's night and day with the SL. Front to back it's 47:53 and the engine is much lower in the chassis too being dry sumped. SL63 is great but the SLS is proper. And a lot stiffer than the DBS Volante which is, to my mind, the closest rival on paper, price and in spirit.
And further to what mrclav says about headroom coupe and Roadster (roof up, obviously!) are a tad snug but this can be offset with the one-piece 'race seats' that are mounted a tad lower.
I am very pleased that a big manufacturer still makes large capacity naturally aspirated engines so good on Mercedes for that.
With my Mercedes geek hat on the 6.2 V8s found in most AMGs are coded M156 and are wet-sumped; the SLS engine gets its own code - M159 - reflecting the number of changes and upgrades made to it, including the switch to a dry sump.
Confusingly a few M159 bits - con-rods and a few other components - are fitted to M156 engines with the Performance Pack option.
So that's, er, cleared that one up then!
Confusingly a few M159 bits - con-rods and a few other components - are fitted to M156 engines with the Performance Pack option.
So that's, er, cleared that one up then!
JohnG1 said:
Crunchy Nutter said:
I was on the launch on the same day as Dan, and it really isn't a lard-arse. The only time the weight makes itself felt is when you're flicking fast left-right-left-right or vice versa. Otherwise, it's lively at the rear end, relatively chuckable for its wheelbase and at the same time it never feels like it's going to kill you. Bloody good car!
Fair points - to what are you comparing it in terms of chuckability and lard-arse-ness?I'd say the SLS was more chuckable than you'd expect, and leave it to the regular supercar testers to go further. The word is relative, of course! I used to own a Clio 182, and you wouldn't say the SLS was THAT kind of chuckable. It also prefers the slow in, fast out school of driving for ultimate smoothness, but that's not to say you can't toss it about a bit.
diluculophile said:
White, with black wheels and black and white leather?
For £176K its a bit chavvy.
Please tell me the people who actually have enough money to buy one would go for a more tasteful combination.
Would Sir prefer his in metallic brown? All the continental ladies on site were loving that one. Might be a secret formula for exciting French women for all I know.For £176K its a bit chavvy.
Please tell me the people who actually have enough money to buy one would go for a more tasteful combination.
Don't see the point of this over an SL63. Yes its prettier, louder and more dynamic but the SL63 is pretty, loud, and as for dynamics if you truly cared you'd buy the coupe SLS anyway, or a 458 or 12C.
As for the golf bag, thats only for fat poseur Yanks. Not that supercar owners here don't play golf, but surely it doesn't take precedence over the engine, brakes and handling!
As for the golf bag, thats only for fat poseur Yanks. Not that supercar owners here don't play golf, but surely it doesn't take precedence over the engine, brakes and handling!
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff