Sl65 vs 997 turbo.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,245
From: CT
Rep Power: 289
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
20% of 600 is 120. So a 600 crank HP TT should be putting down app. 480 to all four wheels. If you dyno an AWD car in RWD, and make 480 at the rear wheels, it's making around 565 at the crank since there is only a 15% loss. I think a AWD TT will need 600 true crank HP, or 480 to all four wheels, to continually beat a stock SL65.
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 502
From: chicago
Rep Power: 40
im gonna have to agree with the gentlemen who side with the 65 , for the simple fact of the huge displacement advantage and the unearthly amount of torque.As much i dont like to say this, but mercedes can build a seriously fast car for the open road and thats about it , every where else they should be left as a roadster or a cruiser.
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 2,487
From: Lincolnwood, Il
Rep Power: 127
Originally Posted by oneflystud
im gonna have to agree with the gentlemen who side with the 65 , for the simple fact of the huge displacement advantage and the unearthly amount of torque.As much i dont like to say this, but mercedes can build a seriously fast car for the open road and thats about it , every where else they should be left as a roadster or a cruiser.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 972
From: San Francisco / DXB
Rep Power: 69
Eh, I had an E46 M3 for 3 years, got rid of it for a CLS55 K2.... had it for a couple of months...wanted to shoot myself for doing it...turned around and got a 996TT X50 ... and I love every minute driving it!
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 357
Rep Power: 36
Originally Posted by Divexxtreme
It wouldn't even be close. I'm confident any 996TT making a true 600 crank HP will easily beat a stock SL65.
Enough talk, however - who wants to show up next Saturday (9/30) for Sacramento Grudge drags? I'll be bringing along the SL65 for some play time
