M3 vs SLR

[eeeboy]

so I ran into a Mercedes SLR... when the guy revved his engine, my car vibrated and shook like it was scared! he took off and I felt like I was in a civic...It was actually funny

[Kyoshi71]

Originally Posted by eeeboy

so I ran into a Mercedes SLR... when the guy revved his engine, my car vibrated and shook like it was scared! he took off and I felt like I was in a civic...It was actually funny

Did you feel insecure?

[I M STIG]

The sad thing is, the SLR isn't even THAT fast. I mean, I've never seen a 0-60 time faster than 3.6 or 3.7 seconds. It's quick, but it's quickest when the SLR is actually racing from a roll. The SLR is nothing a Z06 can't beat from a dig, or a ZR1 from either a dig or a roll. A GT-R would destroy it and make it look like the useless turd it was. Any modern Ferrari would embarrass the piss out of it, too. As well as any current Lambo.

Crazy that an M-DCT M3 can hit 60 mph in as little as 3.9 seconds, which is only .2-.3 tenths slower.

[ajvee]

Actually drove the SLR for about 45 minutes and it is an absolute brute! The sound it makes on full throttle is nothing short of life changing. I have no doubt it would kill a stock M3 in a straight line. However, it is a car where you feel the weight and the 4 speed auto is a horrible letdown.

[Kyoshi71]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

The sad thing is, the SLR isn't even THAT fast.

Really?

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by Kyoshi71

Really?

It's not really as impressive as some make it out to be. I mean, it's fast, but it's not half million dollars fast. It was also rather heavy and had a slow gearbox. It was rather quick once it was moving.

If you've heard one, it actually sounds pretty great, though, I will say that.

[bimmerj]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

The sad thing is, the SLR isn't even THAT fast. I mean, I've never seen a 0-60 time faster than 3.6 or 3.7 seconds. It's quick, but it's quickest when the SLR is actually racing from a roll. The SLR is nothing a Z06 can't beat from a dig, or a ZR1 from either a dig or a roll. A GT-R would destroy it and make it look like the useless turd it was. Any modern Ferrari would embarrass the piss out of it, too. As well as any current Lambo.

Crazy that an M-DCT M3 can hit 60 mph in as little as 3.9 seconds, which is only .2-.3 tenths slower.

lol, I had a paragraph, but deleted it. Not worth answering you! The only time a GTR passes an SLR, is when the SLR is parked.

[hobbangman]

pussy

[gthal]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

Crazy that an M-DCT M3 can hit 60 mph in as little as 3.9 seconds, which is only .2-.3 tenths slower.

One magazine test in perfect conditions and not repeated... with a roll out. A more repeatable and true time is in the 4.2 range... still very fast nonetheless. Besides, 0-60 is as much about traction as anything in cars with this much power. A better measure is the 1/4 mile or, better yet, 60 to 150mph.

[Nine]

Originally Posted by bimmerj

lol, I had a paragraph, but deleted it. Not worth answering you! The only time a GTR passes an SLR, is when the SLR is parked.

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by bimmerj

lol, I had a paragraph, but deleted it. Not worth answering you! The only time a GTR passes an SLR, is when the SLR is parked.

Like I said, from a roll, an SLR is fast. From a dig, no... You've proven my point. Go ahead, post more videos to prove me right...

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by bimmerj

lol, I had a paragraph, but deleted it. Not worth answering you! The only time a GTR passes an SLR, is when the SLR is parked.

Motor Trend for the SLR 722:
"Compared with the standard SLR, acceleration has improved from stunning to simply outrageous. Flatten the throttle, and the 722 blurs time and space; if you could unpaste your head from the seatback, you'd find the horizon in your lap. Mercedes claims the 722 will hit 60 mph in just 3.6 seconds (versus 3.8 for the standard SLR) and sprint from 0 to 124 mph in only 10.2 (down from 10.8). Zero driving talent is required: Thanks to that mountain of supercharged torque, that self-shifting slushbox, and electronic traction control, all you have to do is stomp on the gas. Accompanying the speed show is a roar that'll have all wildlife within a two-mile radius fleeing for cover."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1qBvW8GyX

Motor Trend for the 2012 GT-R:
"Under a full 20 psi boost blitz with the new launch control (aka R Mode Start Function) engaged, all 530 twin-turbocharged horses and 448 pound-feet of thrust catapult a motionless all-wheel drive 2012 Nissan GT-R to 60 mph in a blistering 2.9 seconds. The car that in 2007 changed a number of performance reference points is changing them once again."

Read more: http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...#ixzz1qBwaOHec

0-100 for the SLR: 7.6-seconds.
0-100 for the GT-R: 7.4-seconds.

The GT-R also weighs the same, has less power and torque, but does have a better gearbox and launch control.

I'm in no way a fan of the GT-R. Personally I think it's too much computer. I've never liked the SLR because it was too much of a Mercedes, not enough McLaren.

[Onurleft]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

The sad thing is, the SLR isn't even THAT fast. I mean, I've never seen a 0-60 time faster than 3.6 or 3.7 seconds. It's quick, but it's quickest when the SLR is actually racing from a roll. The SLR is nothing a Z06 can't beat from a dig, or a ZR1 from either a dig or a roll. A GT-R would destroy it and make it look like the useless turd it was. Any modern Ferrari would embarrass the piss out of it, too. As well as any current Lambo.

Crazy that an M-DCT M3 can hit 60 mph in as little as 3.9 seconds, which is only .2-.3 tenths slower.

You couldn't be more wrong. They have run 10.80's@128's with just drag radials completely stock.
That puts it right there with
Ferrari 458
Z06
997.2 Turbo S

A 128 trap much higher then even the 13' GTR and it's a car that was developed over 10 years ago.

Not to mention it can turn despite the weight. Those things posted incredibly quick track times faster then cars like the Ford GT, F430, GT3 RS, 599. The 722 is also a nice improvement over the original model

[Slow_335i]

AwesomeBMW2 you're trying too hard to prove that's wrong...

[DARK_M3]

Originally Posted by eeeboy

so I ran into a Mercedes SLR... when the guy revved his engine, my car vibrated and shook like it was scared! he took off and I felt like I was in a civic...It was actually funny

Your car still looks way better regardless than that long snouted beast!



Well hey... they gotta put all that "M3 shaking" engine somewhere right?

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by Onurleft

You couldn't be more wrong. They have run 10.80's@128's with just drag radials completely stock.
That puts it right there with
Ferrari 458
Z06
997.2 Turbo S

A 128 trap much higher then even the 13' GTR and it's a car that was developed over 10 years ago.

Not to mention it can turn despite the weight. Those things posted incredibly quick track times faster then cars like the Ford GT, F430, GT3 RS, 599. The 722 is also a nice improvement over the original model

With drag radials... The Z06 has been known to run faster than that with drag radials.

This video proves that:

It was done in 2009 and the description states: "This pass of 10.74 129.50 is the current record for a bone-stock C6 Z06 running drag radial tires." Imagine the ZR1 with drag radials and a perfect launch. Not sure if that Z06 is an '06-'07, or '08-'09. In 2008, if I'm not mistaken, is when they made the suspension tweaks, so it was actually a bit quicker to 60, through the 1/4, in the top speed, and also around the track.

If you do standard tires vs standard tires, the GT-R is still just as fast through the 1/4.

The '12 GT-R, according to MT, does it in 11.2 sec @ 122.7 mph
The '05 SLR, according to MT, does it in 11.60 sec @ 127.2 mph

You can all keep going on and on about this, but I'm just going to keep presenting numbers that show the SLR isn't as badass as everyone make it out to be. Hell, the Diablo VT 6.0 was faster to 60, and it was also 4 years older. The Murcielago was just as quick, and cheaper. The Enzo was faster and was 200K more. The Carrera GT was similar speed, and the same money. Also better looking and had better engineering.

The SLR is a quick car, but not that fast. The McLaren F1, with similar horsepower and torque, but far less weight, was WAY quicker to 60 mph, through the 1/4 mile, and had a higher top speed... it was also more than 10 years the SLR's senior.

Would anyone else like to keep going?

We can always throw in a 911 Turbo S, which costs less than the McLaren and is still faster in every way... Or we can talk about the SLS AMG, which costs a shit ton less and is just as fast in NEARLY every way. It also has the same 1/4 mile time.

[I M STIG]

Originally Posted by Slow_335i

AwesomeBMW2 you're trying too hard to prove that's wrong...

I'm really not trying that hard to prove everyone wrong. Most of this stuff comes from all my days in high school either beating off or reading car magazines. I'm using my knowledge of past car magz in this current situation.

[Onurleft]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by AwesomeBMW2

The '12 GT-R, according to MT, does it in 11.2 sec @ 122.7 mph
The '05 SLR, according to MT, does it in 11.60 sec @ 127.2 mph

This is the only thing that matters in the argument of what is "faster" not what is quicker, which it isn't with the same 60ft time

We can always throw in a 911 Turbo S, which costs less than the McLaren and is still faster in every way... Or we can talk about the SLS AMG, which costs a shit ton less and is just as fast in NEARLY every way. It also has the same 1/4 mile time.

These cars are trapping 124-128, what a stock SLR does.

Trying to argue cars with AWD are faster because of its 0-60 makes no sense at all when comparing it to an SLR with over 600hp/580ft/lbs and rear wheel drive. It can't put the power down on the OE tires, nor can really any car at that power/weight level with rwd.
The Z06 was driven at one of the fastest/driest tracks in the nation in negative DA. That's very rare, and not the conditions or track the SLR was run at. They are very very close and a C6Z is incredibly fast

I'm using knowledge from first hand experience, not magazine racing which ignores important variables like test conditions

Here's an SLR with a few bolt on's

[I M STIG]

[QUOTE=Onurleft;11620951]

This is the only thing that matters in the argument of what is "faster" not what is quicker, which it isn't with the same 60ft time



These cars are trapping 124-128, what a stock SLR does.

Trying to argue cars with AWD are faster because of its 0-60 makes no sense at all when comparing it to an SLR with over 600hp/580ft/lbs and rear wheel drive. It can't put the power down on the OE tires, nor can really any car at that power level with rwd.
The Z06 was driven at one of the fastest/driest tracks in the nation in negative DA. That's very rare, and not the conditions or track the SLR was run at. They are very very close and a C6Z is incredibly fast

I'm using knowledge from first hand experience, not magazine racing which ignores important variables like test conditions

Most magazines do forgo the testing conditions, this is true.

A stock GT-R traps right around the same. I'm not sure what your argument really is there. Would you like to take an SLR versus a GT-R and see who wins? From a dig, the GT-R will easily hand the SLR its ass. From a roll, the GT-R most likely isn't winning, and probably not coming close, in that regard. The supercharged 5.4-liter V8 is just too much against the twin-turbo V6.

Also, plenty of cars with similar power and power to weight ratios, even with rear-wheel drive, can be launched well. That's why companies are adding launch control systems to their cars, to make it seamless.

Having driven the GT-R, never the SLR, but going on educated knowledge from fellow auto journos who have, it just wasn't anything special. From a roll, with that supercharger (that motor in general), it was quick as shit. But the car as a whole wasn't worth the money.

And you're saying a car with that much power is hard to launch properly with stock tires, which is true, but you should be adding power to weight ratio to that. The SLR was heavy, but with lots of power to compensate. The Z06/ZR1 are light, with lots of power each.

Realistically, we could go 'round and 'round for the rest of the year. Simple point is, the SLR isn't AS quick as its cost would have you believe. It was just expensive and, at the time, seemed great, but not as great as its rivals from Ferrari and Porsche. The interior is absolute shit, but the paint is brilliant. The brakes and motor work well, and it has a good chassis. The SLS AMG is just as good for less, though, plain and simple.

A few bolt ons? That's a damn Renntech SLR! It's got a new ECU, pulley, and dual intercooler pump upgrades. This all increases the power by 94 hp and 140 lb-ft of torque... Obviously it's going to do that.

[sensi09]

The SLR is a properly fast car. Who cares what a GTR puts up, that doesn't make the SLR slow.

For a similar argument, a GT2 and 458 can approach or exceed the performance of a carrera GT or enzo and for a fraction of the price, but it doesn't make these cars slow. Mind you, you are also comparing cars that are almost 10 years old so of course they won't be as fast as today's supercars.

[Erhan]

How many cars do you know sound better than SLR? That car has the best engine sound ever. Thunder of the V8, shriek of the supercharger...

[mdosu]

you guys have it all wrong. The SLR is a piece of shit. The best hypercar is the VW Golf TDI, bitches.