Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Merc1 Yeah I'd have to see that. For Car and Driver to test a SL600 with a Maybach engine and not admit it for it to be disclosed at Road and Track would have been big news. I remember the road test and just chalked it up to equipment error or just a fluke since no one else has been able to match that 3.6 sec 0-60 time. |
I was under the impression it was using a Maybach engine and Car & Driver admitted it..
However i just found this quote on Mbworld:
"As to the numbers: from the test of the SL600 and this, both by C&D, the *stock* TT12's seem to be producing about 540-550 horsepower, which as C&D pointed out would indicate that the motor is in fact the same motor as the Maybach (which *is* rated at 540 horsepower), not "detuned" as MB suggests."
So i apologize, i wasn't exactly right.
But aside from that i've just looked at the times provided by Car & Driver and comparing them to a test done by Auto Motor Und Sport: I'm thinking you're right, it does have something to do with their launch technique. I'll say Car & Driver's test was done without any funny bussiness.
Car & Driver SL600:
0-60 mph: 3.6
0-100 mph: 8.6
Auto Motor Und Sport SL600:
0-62 mph: 4.1
0-100 mph: 8.9
So i retract my comment about the SL600, however i still stand by my opinion that Car & Drivers figures are a little strange at times.
Here's the orignal SL600 article For anybody interested
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Merc1 When you say that R&T's data matches the Euro magazines, which data are you talking about. I don't see how 0-60 times could match 0-62 mph times of the Euro magazines. |
Now obviously European magazines use 0-100 km/h and American magazines use 0-97 km/h. I don't recall saying they were identical, i said they are very close or near identical: For instance:
Road & Track: Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06
0-60mph: 3.9
Sport Auto: Chevrolet Corvette C6 Z06
0-62 mph: 4.0
But other than that the braking figures for instance: the Corvette C6 Z06 brakes pretty much on par with the F430 from 62mph (Sport Auto) No surprise that the two vehicles stop from 60mph in a near identical time for Road & Track (113ft for the F430 and 109ft for the Z06).
More:
F430: 0-100: 8.1 for Road & Track / 8.4 for Sport Auto Murcielago 6.2: 0-100: 8.7 for Road & Track / 8.9 for Sport Auto SLR: 0-100: 7.5 for Road & Track / 7.7 for Sport Auto Carrera GT: 0-100: 7.0 for Road & Track / 7.1 for Sport Auto DB9: 0-100: 11.0 for Road & Track / 11.2 for Sport Auto RS6: 0-100: 11.0 for Road & Track / 11.3 for Sport Auto
And if we compare Road & Track 0-100 mph time of 10.8 for the Bentley Continetal GT we see it lines up with Auto Motor Und Sports 10.9 second run.
All the above figures are pretty damn close in my opinion. Of course they aren't always identical, it did take Road & Track's Z06 8.8 seconds to hit 100 mph while it took Sport Auto's 8.0 seconds dead. Most of the time the two magazines have similar figures. Now technically 0-160km/h is actually 99 mph, but we're talking about a 1 mph (1.61 km/h) difference and in my opinion that's not a big enough difference
If it adds, lets say for example, 2 tenths of a second we can see Sport Auto figures are even closer to Road & Track's
Anyways, for the most part we are talking about a few tenths of seconds..
If i haven't convinced you, you've got to trust me, i know my numbers
Anyways the real issue of this debate is that fact that the E63 Touring with an extra 50 or so kilograms of weight hit 60 mph in the same time as the CLS63, and amazingly beat the CLS63 to 150 mph despite carrying that extra weight (23.5 seconds vs 23.8 seconds) Now obviously those two times are pretty much identical, i have no problem with that, but i think people expected the Touring to do the 150 mph operation in about 25 seconds due to the extra weight it's carrying. I assume Beemer Boi's speculation was that Car & Driver stole the figures from the CLS63 AMG test and modified them a bit. I personally a little stumped. We'll never know though and that's why i want to see what a magazine like Sport Auto can do.