MB McLaren SLR Supertest...

[st-anger]

...so, the truth is near, after the CGT, #2 of the latest supercars completed the Sport Auto supertest, including 0-60, 0-125, lap times on NS and HHR...

so guys, time to make a guess on all that....

i´ll post the whole article asap... :wink:

but for now it´s your turn gentlemen: :wink:

http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v192/st-anger/SLR_0.jpg

[nejcdolinsek]

I am waiting anxiously for the article :D

[st-anger]

I am waiting anxiously for the article :D

MAKE A GUESS first :wink:
i´m curious how ppl rank the SLR....

[nejcdolinsek]

I am waiting anxiously for the article :D

MAKE A GUESS first :wink:
i´m curious how ppl rank the SLR....

Perhaps the Enzo????

[st-anger]

I am waiting anxiously for the article :D

MAKE A GUESS first :wink:
i´m curious how ppl rank the SLR....

Perhaps the Enzo????

are you serious :lol: :wink:

hey i mean it´s more or less a Mercedes :wink: .......faaaaar away from a Enzo...

[yg60m]

I am sure the SLR won't be far of the CGT ... if its brake don't caught in fire :wink: Seriously, i guess a 0-125 mph in about 10.8 seconds and a 0-100 mph in 7.5 s so not far of the CGT. For the Nurburgring i guess on a 7:40 minutes time .... wait and see :lol:

[st-anger]

I am sure the SLR won't be far of the CGT ... if its brake don't caught in fire :wink: Seriously, i guess a 0-125 mph in about 10.8 seconds and a 0-100 mph in 7.5 s so not far of the CGT. For the Nurburgring i guess on a 7:40 minutes time .... wait and see :lol:

...finally, i knew it´d be you...
to "your" times....well, we´ll see...... :wink:

[yg60m]

...finally, i knew it´d be you...
to "your" times....well, we´ll see......


LOL, you're playing with our patience :lol:

[st-anger]

...finally, i knew it´d be you...
to "your" times....well, we´ll see......


LOL, you're playing with our patience :lol:

:lol: you can practice a bit german in the meantime :wink:

[yg60m]

:lol: you can practice a bit german in the meantime :wink:


:lol: I had a subscription to Sport Auto 2 years ago but i gave up :lol: too much work for me to understand what they were saying, in fact i had enough with the times and Lap times, but it was expensive for just times ... :wink:
BTW, do they have an official site ? I know the AMS site but not the Sport Auto :?

[st-anger]

:lol: you can practice a bit german in the meantime :wink:


:lol: I had a subscription to Sport Auto 2 years ago but i gave up :lol: too much work for me to understand what they were saying, in fact i had enough with the times and Lap times, but it was expensive for just times ... :wink:
BTW, do they have an official site ? I know the AMS site but not the Sport Auto :?

no, unfortunatly no off. site.....i´d stop the one from AMS, hand the money over to SA and they should run a site instead of AMS... :wink:

[st-anger]

ok, now i´ve finished business, so some time left for JW... :wink:

so here´s the ( disappointing ) result:

:? unfortunately i´ve to add disappointing i definitely expected something more for the SLR...


NS: 7:52min
( CGT: <7:40min [ i´d say something around 7:30 ], Pagani Zonda S: 7:44min, MkI GT2: 7:46min, Lambo Murc.: 7:50min, GT3: 7:54min )

wtf, it´s only 2 sec faster than a GT3……a GT3 :shock:

HHR: 1:13,5min
( CGT: 1:08.6min , Zonda S: 1:11.8min, Lambo Murc.: 1:12min, GT3: 1:13.2min )

~ 5 seconds slower even on the small HHR course ( 2.6km )….sorry, but here only one or two seconds are quite a lot…

i know, i know we shouldn´t compare the CGT with the SLR, but test price of that car is 450k €+ and a GT3 outruns it…. yeah, yeah, i know, we can´t compare the GT3 with the SLR… :wink:

0-100kmh ( 0-62mph ): 3.9 sec
( CGT: 3.8sec [ again i´d say something around 3.5sec is more likely ), Zonda S and Porsche GT2: 3.8sec, Lambo Murc.: 3.9sec )

0-200kmh ( 0- 125mph ): 11.1sec
( CGT: 10.2sec [ it´ll do it in under 10sec :wink: ], Zonda S: 11.2sec, GT2: 12.4sec, Lambo Murc.: 12.8sec )

max g´s: 1.25g
(CGT: 1.35g, GT3RS: 1.4g, GT2: 1.35g, 550M 1.3g )

slalom 36m: 129kmh ( 80.12mph )
( CGT: 83.85mph )

evasive course 110m: 152kmh ( 94.40mph )
( CGT: 97.51mph )

braking ( warm ) 100-0kmh ( 62-0 mph ): 35m @ 11,0m/s²
( CGT: 34m @ 11,4m/s² )

so that´s some figures, i´ll try to translate the most important parts, hope i´ll have the time for it though…

...i´ll meet Horst v. Saurma at the end of this month and will ask him if there´s any chance that "he´ll get" an Enzo for the Supertest... :wink: :D

scan is on the way... :P

edit:

...ups forgot, just for the records:

air temp: 18°C
track temp: 35°C
air pressure: 1021mbar
all times measured with 2D-Datarecording ( no factory claims )

[yg60m]

Hum, really disappointed :( Even more if you look at the time they posted in Top Gear, it litterally outpaced the Murcielago (i let the Zonda aside as it was tested by the first Stig which was ,as it seems, slower than the actual which improved the Murcielago time by something like 6 seconds) so i would have imagine it much more faster on the Ring.

[st-anger]

http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_1-med.JPGhttp://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_2-med.JPG

:arrow:

hi-res scan_page1 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_1.JPG)
hi-res scan_page2 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_2.JPG)
hi-res scan_page3 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_3.JPG)
hi-res scan_page4 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_4.JPG)
hi-res scan_page5 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_5.JPG)
hi-res scan_page6 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_6.JPG)
hi-res scan_page7 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_7.JPG)
hi-res scan_page8 (http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/503/206SLR_SA_8.JPG)

[yg60m]

Thank you !! :D I like it in black.

[BADMIHAI]

I don't like it in black. It makes it look too much like a SLK. The times depend alot on the driver of course. I find it only natural for the CGT to have a faster time: the SLR is automatic, heavy, and more of a cruiser.

[st-anger]

I don't like it in black. It makes it look too much like a SLK. The times depend alot on the driver of course. I find it only natural for the CGT to have a faster time: the SLR is automatic, heavy, and more of a cruiser.

...the driver!!!!?
man, we´re talking about HvS !!!
i mean, of course you don´t know him, but i know him, and i can only tell you that: he´s definitely just some sec´s slower that WR and´s definitely the most experienced editor on the NS, hand´s down...
so no one except a hand full of ppl can clock a faster time on NS than HvS... :wink:

[sameerrao]

Hopeless times - Its a pointless car ...

Its clearly no supercar - Heck, Its not fast enough to justify the price premium over the CL65 or GT2 or many other cars...

And if the argument supporting it is that it supposed to be GT and not supercar - the 612 Scaglietti, Bentley GT and CL65 are better in this category - more room, nearly as fast.

Its too much Mercedes and too little Mclaren :( :(

Mercedes is all screwed up - the SLR costs more than the CL65 but has less power :? :?

** Edit ** Sorry forgot to thank St Anger for this article

[No.1]

Its too much Mercedes and too little Mclaren

You have summed it up perfectly. It is too germanic, without the McLaren badge it would just be another big Merc :roll:

[nejcdolinsek]

Finally! Thanx for the scan! :D

[nthfinity]

thanks for the review short, and times.
i too must say im quite disappointed, as i would've guessed it is faster by the TG times. but, the north loop is quite a demanding course... but 20+ seconds slower then the CGT is simply a sobering time compared to the other supercar here...

straight line numbers, however, do the car some justice...

[schnell318]

I knew it wouldn´t be a match for the CGT :lol:

[Sir_GT]

Hopeless times - Its a pointless car ...

Its clearly no supercar

i don't see how it cannot be defined as a supercar.

do you people REALISE how fast a 3.9 second 0-60 REALLY is? or what it means to be 1 or 2 seconds off the pace of a Zonda or a CGT on a track?

errrm, i'd say that's supercar territory. I think some of you are picking too many little points to focus on...the car is what it is. No one at Mercedes ever claimed that it will be the "King Of Supercars"....it's its own beast. So just enjoy it for what it is.

Hard to enjoy a 330,000+ quid ripoff mate...

I'll bet you that a caterham would destroy it...and that would be the ultimate slap in the face.

Blah. I'll just sit here and wait for the new M5 to make everybody freak out all over again. :) At least that one's worth the money.

[Sir_GT]

Lol. The caterham bit was a joke. That thing destorys the Murci anyway. No point in comparing it.

RS6? Ehhh... I'd like to see what a lightweight sedan with a good center of gravity, 500bhp and good torque can do. :)

[sameerrao]

Sir_GT wrote:
everso wrote:
sameerrao wrote:
Hopeless times - Its a pointless car ...

Its clearly no supercar


i don't see how it cannot be defined as a supercar.

do you people REALISE how fast a 3.9 second 0-60 REALLY is? or what it means to be 1 or 2 seconds off the pace of a Zonda or a CGT on a track?

errrm, i'd say that's supercar territory. I think some of you are picking too many little points to focus on...the car is what it is. No one at Mercedes ever claimed that it will be the "King Of Supercars"....it's its own beast. So just enjoy it for what it is.


Hard to enjoy a 330,000+ quid ripoff mate...

I'll bet you that a caterham would destroy it...and that would be the ultimate slap in the face.

Blah. I'll just sit here and wait for the new M5 to make everybody freak out all over again. At least that one's worth the money.


you mention a Caterham, however a Caterham could take MANY cars, including other supercars....so that still doesn't address the issue of saying "the SLR is not a supercar"...y'know? Supercars aren't generally judged as "money for value"....they fit in a market which is all to their own really. There aren't so many strict guidelines to follow.

PS. there's no need for the new M5, the RS6 is already out


My point was that the Mercedes is quoting supercar prices but is taken to the cleaners by a number of cars costing 1/3 to 1/2 its price (even if we keep the Caterham R500 out of the equation).

Lets see the list of cars that beat it to 60 mph...
- Ford Gt - 3.8 sec - $150K
- Lamborghini Murcialago - 3.6 sec - $270K
- Porsche 911 GT2 - 3.6 sec - $180K
- RUF Rturbo - 3.8 sec - $210K
- Caterham R400 - 3.9 sec - UKP 29K
- Caterham R500 - 3.6 sec - UKP 35K
- Pagani Zonda C12S - 3.7sec - UKP 350K
- TVR Cerbera - 3.9 sec - UKP46.5K

The SLR has no unique USP to bring to the table

- Is it a track star with F1 experience - like the Enzo - Nope - it is not fast enough, raw enough, too heavy
- Is it the ultimate GT - Well the Ferrari 612/Bentley GT/ DB9 cost lot less are nearly as fast and heck of lot more comfortable ...

It is a car that tries to be the best at everything and fails miserably. I really wish that Merc had let Mclaren take more responsibility.....

Ask yourself if you had $400K to spend on car - why would you buy an SLR???

It is at most worth maybe a 20% premium on the CL600 but thats it....

[st-anger]

Sir_GT wrote:
everso wrote:
sameerrao wrote:
Hopeless times - Its a pointless car ...

Its clearly no supercar


i don't see how it cannot be defined as a supercar.

do you people REALISE how fast a 3.9 second 0-60 REALLY is? or what it means to be 1 or 2 seconds off the pace of a Zonda or a CGT on a track?

errrm, i'd say that's supercar territory. I think some of you are picking too many little points to focus on...the car is what it is. No one at Mercedes ever claimed that it will be the "King Of Supercars"....it's its own beast. So just enjoy it for what it is.


Hard to enjoy a 330,000+ quid ripoff mate...

I'll bet you that a caterham would destroy it...and that would be the ultimate slap in the face.

Blah. I'll just sit here and wait for the new M5 to make everybody freak out all over again. At least that one's worth the money.


you mention a Caterham, however a Caterham could take MANY cars, including other supercars....so that still doesn't address the issue of saying "the SLR is not a supercar"...y'know? Supercars aren't generally judged as "money for value"....they fit in a market which is all to their own really. There aren't so many strict guidelines to follow.

PS. there's no need for the new M5, the RS6 is already out


My point was that the Mercedes is quoting supercar prices but is taken to the cleaners by a number of cars costing 1/3 to 1/2 its price (even if we keep the Caterham R500 out of the equation).

Lets see the list of cars that beat it to 60 mph...
- Ford Gt - 3.8 sec - $150K
- Lamborghini Murcialago - 3.6 sec - $270K
- Porsche 911 GT2 - 3.6 sec - $180K
- RUF Rturbo - 3.8 sec - $210K
- Caterham R400 - 3.9 sec - UKP 29K
- Caterham R500 - 3.6 sec - UKP 35K
- Pagani Zonda C12S - 3.7sec - UKP 350K
- TVR Cerbera - 3.9 sec - UKP46.5K

The SLR has no unique USP to bring to the table

- Is it a track star with F1 experience - like the Enzo - Nope - it is not fast enough, raw enough, too heavy
- Is it the ultimate GT - Well the Ferrari 612/Bentley GT/ DB9 cost lot less are nearly as fast and heck of lot more comfortable ...

It is a car that tries to be the best at everything and fails miserably. I really wish that Merc had let Mclaren take more responsibility.....

Ask yourself if you had $400K to spend on car - why would you buy an SLR???

It is at most worth maybe a 20% premium on the CL600 but thats it....

plz guys don´t talk about the price when talking about car in that category...
the price is nothing...really...
it´s just to have a SLR, 90% of the customers won´t ever experience the limit of their SLR....it´s for those who doesn´t want an ordinary CL65, 612, or whatever, it´s expensive, it´s special, it has the looks and it´s rare, that´s it....
especially the SLR is definitely NOT supposed to perform in the same league as sportscars like Caterham, Lamborghini, of Ferrari....
cars like the CGT or Enzo are supposed to clock sub 4sec 0-60 and a low 7 on the NS, the SLR is THE grand turismo to have for a wealthy 30 year old, not an "ordinary" 612 or Bent GT...
you´ve to see it from the marketing side too, not only performance counts... :wink:

[Sir_GT]

Eh? Was that post supposed to be a bit sarcastic?

Because if I remember correctly, Mercedes was trying to build the ultimate supercar, whilst mclaren wanted to chase their own record. (set with the McLaren F1)

Thanks to Mercedes, both failed miserably though. :lol:

[amanthapar]

no guys im sorry..
i have to agree with u..

the SLR has automatic gearbox , cruise control everything u actually need in a car too much actually that just goes to show its a car for its own purpose not the same as an ENzo or Carrer GT .. those cars are hardcore .. this is not ,.. its not ment to be.. after all it has a merc Badge!!
so to sum it up the SLr is great..! a truly supercar with super market stuff..
and dont worry abt the price of the SLr (they make 500 a year.. current waitlist is 3 years so merc has no problem with the car they make... )

[amanthapar]

SIR GT...
if they wanted to make it a ultimate supercar dont u think merc is not that dumb to lose the auto gear box and shove off 300 Kg of that car????
every1 here looks at the SLR the wrong way.. ITS definietly a supecar (if pagani and koenig was called one this was 3 secs faster around the track ) and 3.8 sec to 60 is respdectable..
yeah it is a supercar but NOT AN ENZO or carrera gt.. A MERC SUPERCAR PERIOD.
i quite like it .. given to take the enzo, carrera and slr
i would take the enzo first , slr second and carrera gt third...

[amanthapar]

OH ST ANGER

BANG ON !!
yeah no one sees what a car is meant to be for..