SLR dissapointment

[DwZX35]

Don't think I hate the SLR, but now that I read about it more, I dislike it more for the following reasons:

-5-speed automatic tranny (no manual option!)
-weighs almost 3800 pounds, way to heavy
-front engined (why?)

so mercedes i guess wanted to make some sort of overweight supercar for old dudes who have never had a 6-speed manual or a mid-engine supercar?

[fpv_gtho]

its near 1700kg weight is because of things like luxury appointments, tonnes upon tonnes of sound deadening. they gave it an auto transmission because their research showed that buyers of million dollar cars dont like to change gears if they dont have to, even million dollar supercars. putting an auto transmission on also provides more consistent times as it takes away an element of human error. they made it front engined because the cars sort of in its own supercar niche market. its something unique to get people interested in it for more than its power and speed. just like how ferrari relies on exotic styling to interest you in the car based on more than the performance sheets

[bum-man]

I think most people dont know that the 3800 pounds is with a full tank and driver included so you could easily slash around 300 pounds off the total weight. Most people think it is front engine just because the engine is near the front, but in fact the engine sits behind the front wheels actually making it a mid engined car but it still has 50/50 weight distribution so i dont know why you are complaining...the SLR was never intended to directly attack the Enzo or GT. I think if Merc and Mac really wanted to go head to head with Ferrari or Porsche they could pull it off rather effortlessly, but instead I think they just wanted to have the ultimate GT car that NOTHING can touch (by nothing I meant any GT car). besides merc already has an Enzo or GT KILLER...the CLK GTR!

[fpv_gtho]

its technically called a front midship engine layout like what the RX-8 has, and what makes you think the stated weight includes driver??

[SL500]

Don't think I hate the SLR, but now that I read about it more, I dislike it more for the following reasons:

-5-speed automatic tranny (no manual option!)
-weighs almost 3800 pounds, way to heavy
-front engined (why?)

about transmission,it has a 5-Speed Sequential
about front engined:
just remember 1955 300slr

[Alfahollic]

I Like the styling but dont like the idea of having a Supercharged V8 as the power. Much prefer a N/A V10 or 12 with a real gearbox.

[Misho]

Man, what disappointment r u talking about ? I dont want to repeat what was said before, but i think fpv_gtho pretty much answered ur concerns.
and yes, the car is technically a mid-engine layout as the engine is placed behind the wheels which could explain the long hood.
as for the supercharged V8 versus a N/A 12, i think that they placed extensive research on this issue and probably chose it for weight concerns or some other considerations, as long as it doesnt highly affect performance, which i dont think it does.
and u thought the McLaren F1 was a daily supercar ?? think again.

[bum-man]

not to mention the supercharged v8 would probably be a more reliable and more efficient unit than say a higher reving 10 to 12 cylinder unit. and yes 3800 pounds does include the driver and full tank it does make since doesnt it.

[Matra et Alpine]

not to mention the supercharged v8 would probably be a more reliable and more efficient unit than say a higher reving 10 to 12 cylinder unit. and yes 3800 pounds does include the driver and full tank it does make since doesnt it.

Why do you think that ?
THe higher pressures of a turbo fuel/air mix requires strong block and head and limits the lightening that can be done to piston and rods.
High revving engines are able to lighten all those parts.
HOWEVER< *torque* is the main reason for keeping a big engine ( ie not high revving )

[fpv_gtho]

not to mention the supercharged v8 would probably be a more reliable and more efficient unit than say a higher reving 10 to 12 cylinder unit. and yes 3800 pounds does include the driver and full tank it does make since doesnt it.

from what i can figure claiming weight figures with driver included is rather illogical. if its kerb weight theyre claiming thats just full tank of petrol and all the other liquids in the car.

[bum-man]

why would it be? i mean you have to have a person in the car in the first place to drive it and you would need petrol in the tank to even get anywhere. this and the fact that that weight would be completely ridiculous when the car weighs almost 3900 pounds and it is completely made out of carbon fiber (which happens to weigh around 30% less than steel)

[fpv_gtho]

including driver weight into the picture is too much of a variable, i mean just between me and my TWIN brother theres 50kg's difference

[bum-man]

ill try to dig up the article i saw it on...it may have been in one of the major magazines testing the car.

[Alfahollic]

not to mention the supercharged v8 would probably be a more reliable and more efficient unit than say a higher reving 10 to 12 cylinder unit. and yes 3800 pounds does include the driver and full tank it does make since doesnt it.

As "Matra et Alpine", it is clear to me that a forced induction engine is going to be under more stress than a N/A engine. Duh!

[jameswithington]

Whether you're disappointed by the SLR kind of depends on what you were really expecing it to be in the first place. When everyone heard that MB were teaming up with McLaren every seemed to be anticipating another F1, ie utterly uncompromising search for ultimate performance...blah blah blah. But that just isn't the case with this car. It seems to be more aimed at being the last word in sports GT cars. I imagine that is what they have managed to achieve with it, but frankly I'm not able to get that excited by it. MB seem to have shot themselves in the foot somewhat by releasing the CL65 AMG at roughly the same time. It might not be quite as exclusive or desirable but with the £100000+ you would save buying the CL instead of SLR I'm sure I could console myself somehow at not owning the 'ultimate' GT! The CL still has 600bhp, super luxury and even rear seats for your money. And if it's a more sporty 2 seater your looking for then an SL55 AMG is loose change money compared to the SLR. Also, the fact that MB/McLaren are planning to make several thousand SLRs takes away a little bit of their exclusivity/exotica appeal.

How many reviews have people read in the press? I've read a couple and they weren't exactly heaping the praise on it. Obviously it was outrageously fast and sounded great, as you would expect. But they both commented on the fact that the interior centre console is made of rather cheap looking/feeling plastic, something totally out of place in such an expensive machine, you don't even get that kind of cheapness in your standard everyday Merc! They were most damning about the carbon brakes however. Apparently they have awesome stopping power, but are completely un-progressive and lacking in feel; they are either fully off or fully on with nothing inbetween. Both reviews gave it 4/5 stars, but in both mags all the other modern supercars (Enzo, Carrera GT, Zonda, Koeniggseg) get the full five stars. Alas, it seems to be sitting at the bottom of the supercar class at the moment. Damn shame given the hype and anticipation.