SL55 AMG v me in my 355

What it boils down to is that in a straight line race, a difference in performance between a car that does 0-100 in 10.9 secs and 10 or whatever is not that great in visual terms if you think about it.

I've noticed this when out and about in the 355- when a hot hatch attaches itself to the rear bumper. Of course you can lose them on each straight, but not by the permanent margin one might hope (and have you noticed they always speed through the 30's, or drive around blind corners at speeds far above that appropriate for the available vision to catch up with you again)

In isolation, the SL55 sounds great; I think they sound at their best when burbling away from rest. But compared to your decatted Tubified 355, it probably would sound less interesting; just a bassy blare.

At the end of the day, the SL55 is perfect for those who want the ultimate convertible Merc, which for many buyers will be reason enough. And don't forget the level of technology and safety built into the Merc compared to the 355. The SL55 is probably a great everyday proposition (with the added attraction of coupe-convertible roof) But if you want involvement, then I suspect the money is better spent elsewhere.

At the end of the day, headline numbers are not everything, and is why, even if I could afford one, the AMG McLaren Mercedes SLR thingy holds absolutely no appeal to me.

Robert.

 

Or even a CLK 55AMG which is not supercharged like the SL and has over 100bhp less at 367bhp - 0 to 100km/h 5.2 secs.

Also doesn't sound that great - I know I've got one - best 4 seater convertible in the world though!

Cheers Kevan
See you down the road - with huge grins on our faces

 

Got to say I would have imagined a SL55 would walk away from an F355 in a straight line - huge dollops of torque, bhp, and forced induction. Maybe a wannabe that had badged their SL as an SL55??

Had one pass me on Park Lane a while back, and it sounded the nuts under full throttle - definitely very aural - bit like how I would imagine a NASCAR to sound.

 

Chris I thought you were joking! But then I saw you own one

How do the performance figures compare?

Cheers Kevan
See you down the road - with huge grins on our faces

 

(Didn't read the other comments before writing this post- pretty much reiterating what everyone else has said):

I do NOT own an SL55, but am fortunate enough to have driven one 500+ miles in the last few weeks including one event in which I raced multiple 400hp+ cars and had it over 150mph.

1. I find it quite the contrary- the SL55 is LOUD as hell when it's opened up at full throttle. A fellow forum member who owns a 700hp+ Supra asked if the car was completely stock besides the exhaust when barely loosing to a 500hp+ Corvette. It doesn't have the F1 Ferrari sound- but it sure does sound great.

2. The SL55 has 493hp and 500lbs/tq+, there is no way in hell unless teh driver wasn't pushing it in which it wouldn't absolutely SMOKE the 355, in fact, it'd take a 360 in a straight line w/o any problem whatsoever.

With that said, the SL55 is an absolutely amazing car, possibly the 'greatest' car ever produced having both incredible performance and reliability. Is it worth the 120k USD? Not if you want it as a sports car. It's not a sports car (my definition of any car that is built w/ track racing in mind), it's a luxury sports cruiser. The 355 and the SL55, a true comparison is asnine.

What worries me is that the SL55 isn't a sports car- but still KILLS the 355. You ask why someone would want to spend 'X' amount on the car if it's not THAT great of a performer-- why would someone want to spend 'X' on a Ferrari that isn't as comfortable, reliable, tractable and ::GASP:: fast?

BTW- If they were the same price I'd still take the 355, come on, it's a Ferrari !

 

Sounds like it might have been a boggo SL500- they have the slits over the wheels. The give-away, from the back, would be the quad tailpipes.

SL55s are bloody quick, no question, but as I said above, I don't think there would be a lot in it on the road. Of course, the SL55 driver would just have to plant foot to floor to emulate the figs below, whereas the 355 would require more than a little skill.

F355 (Autocar): 0-60, 4.7 0-100, 10.6, weight 1422kg
SL55 (Evo): 0-60 4.6, 0-100, 10.2 weight 1955

Tellingly, Evo list the SL55 under Convertibles, and the F355 under Supercars.

Robert.

 

It seems a little unfair to compare a fully modified Merc with one of our bog standard 355,s How would a road registered 355 Challenge compare in performance, weight, let alone cornering.
Any body got the figures for the challenge.

By the way, did I mention I have my RHD 355 Challenge for sale at www.rossocorsa.co.uk and a 750kg 308 IMSA with a328 engine with Webber Alpha injection ( make a great trackday car for a few friends) Sorry about the plug
TWOTOOMANY

 

Some more magazine racing for you-- with some American Magazines #s:

Car-Stats.com Report for 2003 Mercedes-Benz SL55 AMG
Obtained from MT September, 2002
0-60: 4.4 Transmission: Automatic
1/4 Mile: 12.6
1/4 Speed: 116
0-100: 9.9

Car-Stats.com Report for 1997 Ferrari F355 Berlinetta
Obtained from MT May, 1997
0-60: 4.8 Transmission: Unknown
1/4 Mile: 13.2
1/4 Speed: 112
(it didn't list the 0-100 so I included a review of a 355 F1):

Car-Stats.com Report for 1998 Ferrari F355 F1
Obtained from C&D September, 1999
0-60: 4.9 Transmission: Unknown
1/4 Mile: 13.3
1/4 Speed: 108
0-100: 11.6

1.7 seconds @ 100MPH is HUGE, that's at least 2 car lengths.

 

I don't understand what you're getting at-- the SL55 AMG comes STOCK from the factory with 493hp, no aftermarket tuning whatsoever. We're comparing stock to stock cars, what's unfair?

 

And for ****s and giggles:

Car-Stats.com Report for 1999 Ferrari 360 Modena
Obtained from C&D July, 1999
0-60: 4.4
1/4 Mile: 12.9
0-100: 10.5

 

All that power and technology, and the new Merc can only get 1.7 secs in front of a 1994 Ferrari! Count it in your head- I still say 1.7 secs is really is not alot in road terms...

Also, it depends on the stats you quote; Autocar and Evo's figures reveal a far smaller difference.

Forza Ferrari I say!

 

I understood that within the Mercedes Factory the AMG tweeking both on engine and suspension were considered internally as rather special. to call it stock is rather naive.

TWOTOOMANY

 

But also consider that the Mercedes has 1000 little bells and whistles the 355 doesn't have- I'm not saying they're a necessity but.. Ex: navigation, heated/air conditioned seats, HARD top convertible, massage chairs (not an option, they come stock), multi cd changer etc...

What's the point in buying a performance car if it doesn't outperform the basic 'country club car'?

 

Would any car that came out of the factory be considered "stock" There have been some rather special Ferrari cars straight out of the factory. I suppose they should be compared to the SL 55 AMG. Maybe one of the older ones, say the F40.

TWOTOOMANY

 

But the definition of a stock car is one that isn't altered after leaving the factory. The Stradale has both engine and suspension upgrades, would you consider it modified? Would you consider a 575 modified if it had the Fiorano package?

 

Ah, I wrote up my last post before seeing this.. Sorry!

 

The guy in the Merc AMG was definatly not trying.My M5 whoops my mates 355 and an AMG SL will destroy my M5.

 

Sometimes the driver accounts for who " whoops" Who. How can any possibly compare a BMW with a Ferrari in fact HOW DARE YOU.

 

Adrian,

You need to speak to Andy with the 348 about a nitrous system for your 355

The F40 at Brands Hatch could not belive what went past him

All in good fun !

 

the achilles heel of the sl55 is its weight, which almost equilizes the the two cars, but the sl55 is still only slight quicker,,,, the rest is up to the drivers...

 

"What's the point in buying a performance car if it doesn't outperform the basic 'country club car'?"

-----------------------------------------------------------------

this is a good question.