RE: Driven: Mercedes- Benz SLS AMG Roadster

RE: Driven: Mercedes- Benz SLS AMG Roadster

Author
Discussion

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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

3,462 posts

204 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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?

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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?
Depreciation mostly. From what I've seen. putting significant mileages on modern a Ferrari does horrible things to its value. I think it will be more expected on a car of this type. I suspect the Merc will be cheaper to service too, although I'm only guessing at that.

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

Dagnut

3,515 posts

192 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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.
You can get basically the same engine in the C63 range and you can have it with 480bhp....ok so it would probably cost you a considerable amount to tune it to 560bhp but...I'm not knocking the SLS I think it's amazing but is it special enough to tempt people away from the 458, 12c and Gallardo? it's just purely fantasy opinion on my behalf.

jamcam23

117 posts

206 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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!

Crunchy Nutter

246 posts

193 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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!

JohnG1

3,462 posts

204 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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?


British Beef

2,192 posts

164 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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.

Edited by kambites on Monday 26th September 13:32
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.
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.

kambites

67,461 posts

220 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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. hehe

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

Dan Trent

1,866 posts

167 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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.

JohnG1

3,462 posts

204 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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?

I am very pleased that a big manufacturer still makes large capacity naturally aspirated engines so good on Mercedes for that.




Dan Trent

1,866 posts

167 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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!

uncle tez

529 posts

150 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Has to be the hard top sls for me. If i wanted a two seater soft top merc i think i would save myself some cash and go for the slk63 amg. There's too many exotic cars for that kinda money which imho are more desirable.

diluculophile

130 posts

250 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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.

Daniel1

2,931 posts

197 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
I love it with the roof down, but not with the roof up. I would have one, but only if could have other stuff too...

Carnnoisseur

531 posts

153 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
Absolutely beautiful, but as others have already mentioned, the gull wings make the car, so slightly torn between both models....

Crunchy Nutter

246 posts

193 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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?
To be honest I've not driven enough supercars to compare this to any other - blame having superiors for that one. French hot hatches are more my area! But the SLS is far more mobile on its toes than you'd expect it to be, given that the QE2 had a smaller footprint. I drove the Panamera Turbo S recently and you just can't unstick it or get it to shift around on the road. Obviously they're very different cars and very different approaches, but comparing the two the SLS feels infinitely more alive. That comparison in itself shows the SLS is no fat old man's car.

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.

Crunchy Nutter

246 posts

193 months

Monday 26th September 2011
quotequote all
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.

soad

32,829 posts

175 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
Would take a coupe myself but this looks good too. Saw one (hard top) on the road earlier this year - sounded terrific.

BlackPrince

1,271 posts

168 months

Tuesday 27th September 2011
quotequote all
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!