RE: Mercedes-Benz SL 65 AMG | Spotted
Discussion
The pre-facelift is one of the all time great cars, sensational design and such an amazing blend of luxury cruiser and muscle car. The facelift '63 does have one of the best exhaust noises though. The current ones are wonderful vehicles, far superior, but the design has lost its way a touch, I had a current SL63 and did really like it, but not as much as my original SL55.
DSLiverpool said:
It’s way too much, it might be worth it but it’s unjustifiable against a SL63 much much less.
Also at 10 years it’s ready for a bush refresh on each corner at the very least.
Use that argument against the E46 M3 CSL / CS/Base model. Similar £ differences now is it justifiable. Also at 10 years it’s ready for a bush refresh on each corner at the very least.
So many examples you can use this on. How about a Massa Merak vs the Merak SS massively different in price.
Welshbeef said:
Oddly and superbly people modify the engine in the “65”‘ just when 6ltr v12 bi turbo isn’t enough.
I considered having a Celtic re-map on mine which brought it up to 660 BHP and a massive 800 lb/ft of torque, didn't see the point though as even with a Quaife rear diff it would squiggle and burn rubber at the slightest hint of too much right foot. Fun in the dry though, not so much on even slightly damp roads.BIRMA said:
I considered having a Celtic re-map on mine which brought it up to 660 BHP and a massive 800 lb/ft of torque, didn't see the point though as even with a Quaife rear diff it would squiggle and burn rubber at the slightest hint of too much right foot. Fun in the dry though, not so much on even slightly damp roads.
Given Audi’s BMWs etc have been shown to get modified to 1,000bhp this surely must be able to go significantly beyond 1,000bhpWelshbeef said:
Given Audi’s BMWs etc have been shown to get modified to 1,000bhp this surely must be able to go significantly beyond 1,000bhp
Probably depends on how long you want it to do so for and how much you're willing to replace to get there. The M275 is a pretty old design now - single overhead cam (per bank, obviously) and only three valves per cylinder. Pagani have had it up to about 830bhp, but I don't know how standard the internals are.
Edited by kambites on Monday 18th May 19:04
kambites said:
Probably depends on how long you want it to do so for and how much you're willing to replace to get there. The M275 is a pretty old design now - single overhead cam (per bank, obviously) and only three valves per cylinder.
Pagani have had it up to about 830bhp, but I don't know how standard the internals are.
That's right it is a pretty old design. I imagine someone in the UK like MSL or in the USA Rentech could probably get much more but in all honesty in standard output it was more than capable of putting the fear of Christ into either a reckless right footer or an unwary driver. Pagani have had it up to about 830bhp, but I don't know how standard the internals are.
Edited by kambites on Monday 18th May 19:04
My car had the additional Quaife diff which by all accounts did a wonderful job at putting the power and at times it was bordering on the unwieldy.
The Black Series version of this car states 670 PS and the torque at 734 lb/ft. So I'm guessing that if the very people who know this engine very well restrict it to this output it must be because the gearbox can't cope with any more. Whereas I'm assuming Pagani in making a bespoke gearbox can raise the power to what the engine is truly capable of.
Edited by BIRMA on Tuesday 19th May 09:46
To me this car is all about that magnificent motor.
At 2.1 tonnes it isn't going to be a sports car, nor does it have the space & practicality to be a great GT.
If that engine is only going to be used to transport two people, then it should be sitting in the middle of a supercar.
Otherwise, IMHO, it's better suited to moving 4 or 5 people in the CL or saloon.
At 2.1 tonnes it isn't going to be a sports car, nor does it have the space & practicality to be a great GT.
If that engine is only going to be used to transport two people, then it should be sitting in the middle of a supercar.
Otherwise, IMHO, it's better suited to moving 4 or 5 people in the CL or saloon.
Penguinracer said:
To me this car is all about that magnificent motor.
At 2.1 tonnes it isn't going to be a sports car, nor does it have the space & practicality to be a great GT.
If that engine is only going to be used to transport two people, then it should be sitting in the middle of a supercar.
Otherwise, IMHO, it's better suited to moving 4 or 5 people in the CL or saloon.
What if someone just wants an everyday 2 seater with a V12?At 2.1 tonnes it isn't going to be a sports car, nor does it have the space & practicality to be a great GT.
If that engine is only going to be used to transport two people, then it should be sitting in the middle of a supercar.
Otherwise, IMHO, it's better suited to moving 4 or 5 people in the CL or saloon.
The Americans call it a ‘personal’ car.
Mum or dad’s car for when they aren’t taking a grandfather clock anywhere or shaving a few 10ths of their ‘ring time.
It's my understanding that the Pagani Zonda uses an AMG modified version of the M120 (quad cam, 4 valves per cylinder) not the M275 (single cam per bank & 3 valves per cylinder).
While the NA Zonda's evolved from 6 litres to 7 & eventually 7.3 litres - my understanding is that the turbo version is a 6 litre.
Swisstoni - I get the "personal luxury car" thing - but I suppose I struggle with the inefficiency of the overall packaging e.g. 2.1 tonnes, limited boot space with the roof down, a lot of weight in the nose, two seats & a great deal of weight tied up in the roof mechanism. I don't know how they compare to the CL models in terms of wind noise, but it's a lot of weight for the carrying capacity.
While the NA Zonda's evolved from 6 litres to 7 & eventually 7.3 litres - my understanding is that the turbo version is a 6 litre.
Swisstoni - I get the "personal luxury car" thing - but I suppose I struggle with the inefficiency of the overall packaging e.g. 2.1 tonnes, limited boot space with the roof down, a lot of weight in the nose, two seats & a great deal of weight tied up in the roof mechanism. I don't know how they compare to the CL models in terms of wind noise, but it's a lot of weight for the carrying capacity.
Penguinracer said:
It's my understanding that the Pagani Zonda uses an AMG modified version of the M120 (quad cam, 4 valves per cylinder) not the M275 (single cam per bank & 3 valves per cylinder).
Possibly but I believe the Huayra uses a variant of the M275. I might be wrong, though. Edited by kambites on Tuesday 19th May 11:32
Penguinracer said:
It's my understanding that the Pagani Zonda uses an AMG modified version of the M120 (quad cam, 4 valves per cylinder) not the M275 (single cam per bank & 3 valves per cylinder).
While the NA Zonda's evolved from 6 litres to 7 & eventually 7.3 litres - my understanding is that the turbo version is a 6 litre.
Swisstoni - I get the "personal luxury car" thing - but I suppose I struggle with the inefficiency of the overall packaging e.g. 2.1 tonnes, limited boot space with the roof down, a lot of weight in the nose, two seats & a great deal of weight tied up in the roof mechanism. I don't know how they compare to the CL models in terms of wind noise, but it's a lot of weight for the carrying capacity.
Spot on, I stand corrected. It is a modified M120 engine in the Zonda. Having lived with the lesser SL63 with the N/A engine I grew to really like everything about it, you can drive in smooth luxury for hundreds of miles with the roof in place, then lower the roof for a bit of country A road blasting. While the NA Zonda's evolved from 6 litres to 7 & eventually 7.3 litres - my understanding is that the turbo version is a 6 litre.
Swisstoni - I get the "personal luxury car" thing - but I suppose I struggle with the inefficiency of the overall packaging e.g. 2.1 tonnes, limited boot space with the roof down, a lot of weight in the nose, two seats & a great deal of weight tied up in the roof mechanism. I don't know how they compare to the CL models in terms of wind noise, but it's a lot of weight for the carrying capacity.
Mercedes have been doing these for long enough to have got the recipe right, okay it is heavy but with the twin turbo V12 I don't imagine there is any situation where you think 'I could do with a bit more power'
I would buy another SL but I'd go for the later 2013 onwards twin turbo V8 unless like me you had to scratch that V12 itch.
Right you are - the Huayra does indeed use the M158, a derivative of the M275.
Not surprising really as AMG were building the M297 (a derivative of the M120) for them long after the M120 went out of mainstream production.
The M120 struggled with cat warm-up time & the M137 was a retrograde step - less powerful, built to a lower price & specification although arguably the 6.3 litre version was an improvement over the 5.8
Not surprising really as AMG were building the M297 (a derivative of the M120) for them long after the M120 went out of mainstream production.
The M120 struggled with cat warm-up time & the M137 was a retrograde step - less powerful, built to a lower price & specification although arguably the 6.3 litre version was an improvement over the 5.8
BIRMA said:
Welshbeef said:
Oddly and superbly people modify the engine in the “65”‘ just when 6ltr v12 bi turbo isn’t enough.
I considered having a Celtic re-map on mine which brought it up to 660 BHP and a massive 800 lb/ft of torque, didn't see the point though as even with a Quaife rear diff it would squiggle and burn rubber at the slightest hint of too much right foot. Fun in the dry though, not so much on even slightly damp roads.Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff