Hey Bav... And others

Home  \  European Imports  \  Hey Bav... And others

What do you think of the new Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG with the dual turbo chargers?

The only thing i dont like is that is has a electronically limited top speed of 155mph

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-ben z-sl65-amg-front.jpg

http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/aic/mercedesbenz_slclass_sl65 amgroadster_2005_385x192.jpg

posted by  Car Guy

I'd rather be driving around in a Turbo M3... Why?

A. SL65 AMG = Merecedes, which only can lead to my next points of...
B. It probably will be a boat in handling
C. The Steering will feel numb as a cotton mouth
D. It's going to need EXPENSIVE repairs
E. I'd rather just be in a BMW, a true 'drivers feedback' car.

posted by  thunderbird1100

How do you know that has twin turbo's?...I've always known Mercs to be of the NA variety myself...still, could be wrong I spose lol. I always used to prefer BMW for looks and handling etc, now however I'm not too sure, it seems that Mercs have more heritage with them...if that's the right word to describe them, still, that's just my oppinion I guess :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

When was the last time you got anywhere close to 155 MPH in a street car and when is the next time you plan to go over 155MPH in a street car?

posted by  DodgeRida67

How much does that thing weigh? All the performance mercs (except the slk) weigh quite a bit and that kind of offsets the massive torque.

posted by  importluva

Looks just like any ordinary Mercedes. Massive ammounts of HP, good looks, and an extremly high top speed.

You guys seem to downplay Mercedes alot. Think about who actually drives Mercedes SL's SLK's and AMG alike. All I picture is moviestars, businessmen, and women. People who want to flaunt their wealth.

Mercedes is'nt really envisioned to be some sort of super race car with pin-point handling. How often do you see a production model Benz in an autocross race? How many Mercedes have you seen at the local dragstrip?

They make hella good high performance race cars, but their higher end production models are simple cruisers, road trip, and daily driver cars. Aside from some of the lower class models,like the C320, Mercedes production cars are'nt meant to be extreme drivers and or autocross cars like some of BMW's M series.

I'm damn sure that Mercedes would kill lots of its competition in a straight line, or even possibly on skidpad. Other than that I would'nt expect more from Mercedes than a good looking, luxery car with optional top end power AMG models. With the occasional tuner and or autocross car.

posted by  DSMer

How do i know? Well i looked the car up.

MSRP $179,720.00*
Engine AMG-built twin-turbocharged 6.0L SOHC 36-valve V-12 engine
Net Power 604 hp @ 5500 rpm
Net Torque 738 lb-ft @ 2,000 - 4,000 rpm

http://www.mbusa.com/brand/models/SL65.jsp

posted by  Car Guy

I agree, Mercedes' have never been designed to be out and out race cars, for a start, not only Mercs but BMW's too, rev far too low for some race drivers (with exception to maybe BMW's M3)...the reason being that they were initially designed for long distance, comfort driving. Fair enough some Mercs offer high performance, but that's not where thier roots lie!...unless they are tuned specifically for performance purposes like Brabus and some AMG equivilents :thumbs:

posted by  Cliffy

Wow, I still can't believe Merecedes uses SOHC 2v/cylinder tech in a $180k car.... Anyone else think that's pretty cheap?

posted by  thunderbird1100

The 300SL's (Gullwings) from back in the day were one of the few benz' that could handle (were 2900lbs and had 240hp too)...and i mean, you put that car on modern tires...It will easily hand a Mustang GT it's ass on a road course.

posted by  thunderbird1100

As i suspected, this car is crazy heavy. 4473lb fully loaded. What a big turnoff. For that kind of money, id rather be in a next gen 997 911 GT2.

posted by  importluva

if it makes more power than the other variants of valve configuration then no...its not cheap. its making more power.

posted by  SuperJew

heh, i had seen this car on the Car and Driver show on spike tv, but i didnt know the complete specs. im surprised that MB used a sohc 2v/cylinder design. even more surprised they manage so much power on the car, even if its a twin turbo, its still alot of power, specially the torque curve.

posted by  Inygknok

Errr, chaps, 36 divided by 12 is 3, not 2. That means that this engine actually has 3v/cylinder tech.

Who told you 4v/cylinder was better? Marketing. 3v/cylinder is actually better than 4v/cylinder in many ways:

- less complex.
- With 2 inlet ports, you can still control swirl and tumble, and have adequate airflow into the cylinder.
- Why would you need 2 exhaust ports? You don't need to control swirl and tumble, so one, larger valve will do the job.
- Only having three valves gives the engine designer more freedom with the positioning of the spark plug (you don't have much choice with a 4v/cyl engine: it has to go in the middle).

Having said all that, I still think the current range of Mercs look cheap inside, and the styling says 'old man' to me.

And if I was in the market for something as blisteringly quick as this, I'd like it to handle pretty well. Most recent reviews for Mercs seem to suggest they haven't really got a handle on this. Jaguars handle well and are comfortable, so why can't Merc manage it?

posted by  heebee

[QUOTE=Car Guy]What do you think of the new Mercedes-Benz SL65 AMG with the dual turbo chargers?

The only thing i dont like is that is has a electronically limited top speed of 155mph

http://www.autosite.com/images/edphotos/previews/fullsize/2005-mercedes-ben z-sl65-amg-front.jpg

hmmm.. i think the pricetags like its weight very heavy.. I think it looks really nice but to be honest i wouldnt go for it.. id much rather take the money get a porsche :smoke: its nice though

posted by  Lukaz

All I'm saying is you should see top tech in a $180k car. I mean AT LEAST DOHC heads and 4v/cylinder...if not 5v/cylinder. Anyways, a DOHC 4v setup would have made more power than the SOHC 3v setup.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Yeah, meant to hit 3 but the finger hit 2 (stupid big fingers)...just realized i hit 2 when someone responded to it...lol

3v tech has one major advantage over 4v/5v tech...it's simpler, thats about it. If it were that much better, F1 cars would run it. Simple Geometry here, more circles you draw within a circle, more area you can make use of (in the case of cars more airflow...getting the air out is just as important as getting it in). My main gripe isn't really 3v/cylinder tech...it's more of the Single Overhead camshafts..I mean come on, they couldn't run DOHC heads in a $180k vehicle?

posted by  thunderbird1100

I'm afraid it doesn't necessarilly work like that. You don't need more airflow than the cylinder can handle, so bigger valves only improve power to a point. The key thing with multivalve engines is that the flow rate has to be high through smaller valves even at lower revs, which helps with combustion at these lower revs, and having more than one inlet port means you can alter the angles at the design stage, to optimise swirl and tumble.

You don't need swirl or tumble into the exhaust, so one big exhaust valve pretty much does the same job as two smaller ones.

Why don't you see 3valves/cyl on F1? Because they only run at high revs, where 5 valves/cyl offers the optimum ratio between inlet and exhaust flow, assuming all valves are the same size (that's how a Cosworth engineer explained it to me, anyway).

I'm not really sure what advantages multi-cams have these days, either. If you can design an engine with one cam, that still applies adequate force on the valves, then I don't see the advantage of twin cams. It's just more weight and mechanical drag.

Of course, neither of us have driven this thing, so I guess none of this matters a toss...

posted by  heebee

We've gpone over this before, you're an ignorant POS if you think 4 valves per cyl is somehow "top tech." Or "high tech." Or even necessary tech. It's ONE way of putting valves in an engine, but it isn't always the best way.

Youre bullshi t about being used in F1 shows you don't understand ANY of it. Instead of learning about it, you've formed opinions based on deductions you've made by looking at them, but you've made mistakes in logic that have made your opinions flawed.

F1 engines are limited in displacement, and they are no longer allowed forced induction. So they HAVE to rev hig in order to make winning power. This requires HUGE port volume and HUGE valve surface area. Cost is not an issue, and neither do they care about complexity OR long term reliability (if the engine blows up after crossing the line, no one cares. NO F1 engine in relatively modern history has gone 1000 miles of driving without having to be completely rebuilt)

OTOH, the Mercedes street car has no restrictions on displacement or forced induction. A larger engine makes more torque to start with, so can make more hp without having to rev as high. This makes for a broader power curve and a more flexible engine, which is what a street car needs more of. 2 or 3 valves are not only all that is necessary, they are STILL more than necessary in an engine that isn't going to rev over 9000 rpm. Does teh mercedes need to flow more air at high roms? No. And on top of that, it's turbocharged, so teh air is being FORCED into the engine, which negates quite a bit of the need for more valves In fact, the lower number of valves gives better throttle response, due to higher flow velocity.

This means that for a street performance car, a larger engine with 2-3 valves per cyl is BETTER tech, as it is the better tool to do the job.

I ask again, how many engines have you built for different applications? How many drag race engines? How many autocross engines? How many street car engines? How many have you built and changed a variable to make it do more than it did in stock form?

posted by  ChrisV

Umm, no. Where do you think Ferdinand Porsche got his big break? Chief engineer for the Mercedes race cars in the first part of the 20th century. From the SSks to the 300 SLRs, up to the 190E 2.3-16 Evo models, Mercedes has always been about racing.


http://www.starsite.dk/images/Motorsport/1906_Mercedes_Race_Car.jpg

http://www.starsite.dk/images/Motorsport/1924_Mercedes_Race_Car_Targa_Flori o.jpg

http://www.starsite.dk/images/Motorsport/1937_Mercedes_Benz_W_125_Formula_R ace_Car.jpg

http://www.starsite.dk/images/Motorsport/1939_Mercedes_Benz_W_165_Formula_R ace_Car_Tripolis.jpg

http://www.starsite.dk/images/Motorsport/1954_Mercedes_Benz_W_196_R_Formula _I_Race_Car.jpg

http://www.vintageweb.net/pics/millemiglia/mercedes300slr2.jpg

http://www.f1photographs.co.uk/images/1955%20Mercedes-Benz%20300SLR%20Coupe 1d_jpg.jpg

http://www.dansky.de/Image17.jpg

posted by  ChrisV

This seriously makes me question why you were appointed to be a moderater......of a car forum. How could you not know about this car? How could you not know that Mercedes commonly uses turbocharging? Only about the last 10 AMG Mercedes were either supercharged, or turbocharged! Even the Maybach is turbo charged.
Every exciting car produced by Mercedes since 2001 has made use of forced induction.

This makes me wonder about what else you DON'T know.

Anyway...
I don't like the distant feeling of Mercedes cars, but I wouldn't take an M3 over this. This car produces 738 ft-lb of torque at only 2000 rpm. That's amazing. That's more low-end torque than many diesal trucks. Also, this thing has almost twice the horsepower of the M3. This thing will kick the M3's ass in any type of race.

This car is impressive, I wish they put this engine in the SLR McLaren.

If I had $180,000, I wouldn't buy this car. But this things blows the doors off of an M3.

posted by  What

All I was pointing out is DOHC 4v/5v heads > SOHC 2v/3vs. No need to explain all that crap to me. I see you'll call keep saying F1 engines use multiple valves mainly because of The high compression. But riddle me this, Why are all the turbo Four Bangers out on the market DOHC 4v/cylinder? 4g63T, EJ20T/EJ25T, SRT-4, Mazdaspeed Protege to name a few, and even it doesn't sotp there...The older 6g72 turbo, VG30DETT and 2JZ-GTE were all DOHC 4v/cylinder. All are turbo engines. Also, don't forget, you could easily pick-up 30-50whp on a SVO 2.3T just by swapping the stock SOHC 2v head for a DOHC 4v head (not all comes from the upgrade in cams/more valves, but a good deal of it does).

My entire point of the whole entire thing was to show that if you make a top car, make it have something not every other car on the market has. Don't make it simple, make it complex. Make it show that it means serious business under the hood. When I see that a $180k car has a SOHC 6L 36v engine, it just turns me away.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Complex does not equal better. Complex does equal a higher repair bill when it up.

Why does it matter how complex it is? As long as the engine is powerful, it doesn't matter to me.

My guess is that you hate the Saleen S7.

I'd rather complexity go into other parts of the vehicle.

posted by  What

So not true. You generilization of "greater" has too many faults in it. It all depends on what the application is for. How exactly can you prove that a DOHC 4-valve or 5-valve is fare better than a SOHC 2-valve or 3-valve?



If you don't know why almost all imports that have turbo are DOHC, I don't think you know enough about this subject to contemplate the schematics behind each variant of engine. DOHC are well known for being able to produce higher RPM's. One reason for that being is turbos need time to spool, and turbos produce far better output at higher RPM's. Don't believe me, look at dyno sheet for all the engines you listed. DOHC engines have more room for tuning than SOHC. Not only does it give alot of room for the manufactuer to tune and perfect when giving the option of stock turbo. It offers a variant of tuning room for people with aftermarket turbo, fuel rail, and intake applications.



Your all over the place with this one. Your lack of knowledge of the two contrasts of these two engines denies you of a valuble compairison. If 700+ ft lbs of torque does'nt scream business, and you turn your head away at an SOHC 6L 36v engine that creates that kinda power; its not because the car is weak in new technology. Its because you don't know anything about the engine and the tuning that goes behind it. You call it simple, but I'd love to see you create an SOHC engine that produces more powerband under 2000 RPMS than any of those turboed 4cylinders you listed could even if they had a 12,000RPM max

posted by  DSMer

Um....I think you'll find that if Mercedes uses anything, it'll be a supercharger and not a Turbo charger...Kompressor means supercharger in German..apparently. Oh, and believe it or not, what, Mods dont have to know everything about every car ya know :ticking:

posted by  Cliffy

1) Because they were turbocharged versions of existing engines, and al of them small displacement. Small displacemetn engines need other added complexity in order to deliver high power numbers. Do any of THOSE turbo engines deliver 700+lb ft of torque in stock form? No.




It does. 700+ lb ft of torque. In an emissions legal, warrantied, streetable package. Duh.




Make it complex for the sake of making it complex? Since WHEN is that a valid engineering principle? From toasters to the Space Shuttle, complexity comes in the actual function, not because some engineer thinks it's cooler to be more complex than is necessary to do the job!



That's because you're an opinionated, narrowminded fool who has no concept of proper engineering, what actually works, or why. EVERYTHING about your opinion stems from one mistaken assumption: that more complex tech is in fact higher tech, and the best tech for the job. Until you get over that misconception, your opinion will continue to be flawed and in fact, wrong.

posted by  ChrisV

Some cars I see, it makes me wonder if that's still true. You know? :laughing:

posted by  DodgeRida67

You didn't say, "I've always known Mercs to be of the "supercharging" variety myself", you said, "I've always known Mercs to be of the NA variety myself". That led me to believe that you weren't thinking of any type of forced induction.


You don't have to know about every car, but you should know about obvious sh*t. Everyone knows that AMG uses forced induction.

Come on dude, you got to work with me.

posted by  What

The head of Mercedes a few years ago was quoted as saying 'turbos are for diesels'.

'Kompressor' can mean a turbocharger or supercharger in German. It actually means 'compressor', surprisingly enough. We often have problems when we get manuals translated into German, as they get confused as to what words to use for a turbo/SC.

posted by  heebee

I appologise for the mix up there...believe it or not, I do know alot about cars, but we all make mistakes :ohcrap:

posted by  Cliffy

Your Message