Don't forget the UK (when it comes to measuring speed).

I don't think you guys understand how C&D gets their test results. They use the brake-torque method which will always get the lower numbers with cars with the kind of torque these mega-engined Mercedes have.

When was it officially disclosed that the SL600 they tested was using a Maybach motor?

Road and Track is a good magazine for sure, but why would U.S. magazines need to match European ones? They use different test methods and they measure 0-62 mph which does make a slight difference. Motor Trend, Car and Driver and Road and Track don't get the same figures on a regular basis so why would anyone think they're copying each other?

Again, like I've stated before Car and Driver's 5-60 mph time is the real-world numbers if you want those type of numbers.

M

I did not know this

I believe it was in the article section of one of the magazines released by Road & Track. I'll take a look for it.

Nobody is saying they need to match European magazines because they most certaintly do not, but from my experience Road & Track's figures have always lined up with European figures, something which i have not seen with Car & Driver. Now of course i am not saying European magazines are the bench mark, but they are my bench mark.

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.

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.

M

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

- ONLY REGISTERED AND ACTIVATED USERS CAN SEE ALL LINKS - CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

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.

Well I don't dispute that C&D times are quicker than everyone else's, but you have understand the way they obtain the numbers. Also, if you look at their "street start" numbers which is 5-60 mph, those times are much more realistic. As far as the difference in numbers we're splitting hairs here (SL600 test excluded).

As far as the touring numbers, the previous E55 Touring was faster than the E55 sedan in their testing also. I think it the traction advantage of the wagon myself, but then there is a location, temperature, miles on the engine, etc. etc. etc. Car and Driver used to have a TV show in which they showed exactly how their testing was done so I trust them.

I guess barring that SL600 episode I really don't see why there is any reason to doubt what C&D comes up with, they use the best method possible for getting 0-60 times, the brake/torque or drag method. Their figures are "strange" they are correct for the method they use to get them. Again, see their street start times, much closer to what the average joe can get out of their car.

M

So i suppose the the launch "brake/torque" technique really does wonders, because i can see the street start times are more what i expected. I assume Car & Driver is the only magazine to do acceleration tests in this fashion, so i guess that's why they seem strange to me. I prefer the other method, even though it appears to be a little slower, it's more common among magazines


As you said, many other factors could have led to these figures, weather, track temp, track surface and a whole bunch of other stuff. All i can say is lets see what some of the other European and American magazines record for figures

According to R&T the M5 achieved a 4.1....how do you explain that? Do you think that is a legitimate time?

Mortal people like us will never achive such low times, neither with a M5 or a E63 on the streets. Im also certain that these times wasnt done the first time they meassured the car, they probably did a lot of attempts before they finally got the time 4.0 or 4.1 seconds to 60 mph.

Im sure your right...I would never quote that time though if I was arguing about cars. I always tell people that the M5 is at about 4.5 and the E63 at about 4.4 because its an average between times like 4 flat and what the factory times say.