Mercedes SLS AMG

Seems McLaren and AMG do their best work on their own:











Technical specifications:

Engine
No. of cylinders/arrangement: 8/V, 4 valves per cylinder
Displacement: 6208 cc
Bore x stroke: 102.2 x 94.6 mm
Rated power output: 571 hp (420 kW) at 6800 rpm
Rated torque: 650 Nm at 4750 rpm
Compression ratio: 11.3 : 1
Mixture preparation: Microprocessor-controlled fuel injection, HFM
Power transmission
Drive: Standard drive
Transmissions: AMG SPEEDSHIFT DCT seven-speed sports transmission
Ratios
Final drive: 3.67
1st gear: 3.40
2nd gear: 2.19
3rd gear: 1.63
4th gear: 1.29
5th gear: 1.03
6th gear: 0.84
7th gear: 0.72
Reverse: -2.79
Chassis and suspension
Front axle: Aluminium double wishbone suspension, anti-dive, coil springs, gas-filled shock absorbers, stabiliser
Rear axle: Aluminium double wishbone suspension, anti-squat and anti-dive systems, coil springs, gas-filled shock absorbers, stabiliser
Braking system: Composite disc brakes, internally ventilated and perforated at the front; disc brakes, internally ventilated and perforated at the rear; electric rear parking brake; ABS; Brake Assist; 3-stage ESP
Steering: Rack-and-pinion power steering with parameter function, steering damper
Wheels: Front: 9.5 J x 19; rear: 11 J x 20
Tyres: Front: 265/35 R 19; rear: 295/30 R 20
Dimensions and weights
Wheelbase: 2680 mm
Tread front/rear: 1682/1653 mm
Overall length: 4638 mm
Overall width: 1939 mm
Overall height: 1262 mm
Turning circle: 11.9 m
Boot capacity: 176 l
Kerb weight acc. to DIN Kg: 1620 kg
Payload (basis ready-to-drive according to EC): 240 kg
Perm. gross vehicle weight: 1935 lg
Tank capacity/incl. reserve: 85/14 l
Performance and fuel consumption
Acceleration 0-62 mph (0-100km/h): 3.8 s
Top speed: 200 mph / 317 km/h (electronically limited)
Fuel consumption NEDC comb.: 21.4 mpg
CO2 emissions: 314 g/km

hello my new favorite merc

Now that is a goddamn Mercedes!

I like it.

I'm glad you saved me the effort of posting this, since I was just coming on to do so.

However, my reason for posting it was because I think it looks like utter dogshit. Busy, retro, dischordant fugly. I dislike it to an astonishing degree.

I was about to say. This thing is horrid.

FUGLY. WTF is up with that front fascia?

WOW, that rules.

Talon wrote:FUGLY. WTF is up with that front fascia?

It's awesome, that's what.

dare i say too much power though? around 400 bhp would be more appropriate imo.

and pretty light for a merc. arent the SL55's and such over 4000lbs?

Aristotle wrote:hello my new favorite merc

mine is still this :

pukefest

That this is awesome. You naysayers don't know what's up.

funny how mercedes is now going retro.

i would like to see a pic of the outside without the opened doors.

honor m4n wrote:

Aristotle wrote:hello my new favorite merc

mine is still this :

That GTR is a work of art. Stare at that picture for 10 seconds, then quickly scroll up and look at that first pic above. How can you still say that thing is good looking? It's an abortion...

thewalrus wrote:That this is awesome. You naysayers don't know what's up.

+1

Ugly and Automatic. Double Fail.

reminds of the enzo. not pretty, but looks just vicious, and for that reason its awesome.


and i dont think the clk-gtr is particularly special looks wise. it just happens to be probably the fastest point to point road car ever built, because its not really a road car at all.

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:
and i dont think the clk-gtr is particularly special looks wise. it just happens to be probably the fastest point to point road car ever built, because its not really a road car at all.

+1

Its an aerobatic airplane, amirite?

Pennzoil GT-R wrote:reminds of the enzo. not pretty, but looks just vicious, and for that reason its awesome.

+1
Badasses are rarely ever pretty.

speaking of ugly bad asses. that car has an awfully bad ass. it's ugly. looks like a solstice.

I think the back looks disjointed but the front looks great IMO. Plus turbofrog hates everything that isn't rwanda.

lolwut!

That is amazing. Maybe not beautiful or my first choice, but a unique design I would love to spot on the road.

front would be a 100% hit without the headlights..but overall, great looking car

all the retro design haters now love the merc retro design? wtf?

i think the front looks like a dodge or some other american car. seems nasty fast though.


and i agree with pennz: the gtr is anything but pretty.

VS wrote:I think the back looks disjointed but the front looks great IMO. Plus turbofrog hates everything that isn't rwanda.

I just don't bother commenting on things I like.

I like it and I don't like it. It was Mercedes attempt at a retro design and they combined too many modern Mercedes-esque touches to the exterior. The grille I see a retro look, the headlights throw it off. The gullwings look excellent. The rear end would look a lot better if it didn't have that trunk lid.

Turbofrog wrote:

VS wrote:I think the back looks disjointed but the front looks great IMO. Plus turbofrog hates everything that isn't rwanda.

I just don't bother commenting on things I like.

+1

I wonder what BBZ thinks about this car.....

It looks pretty good overall, but there are some angles where it looks poor, and others where it looks fantastic. I bet it's one of those cars where photos don't do it justice.

you guys are homos. that thing will rape small children like the fucking sierra leone.

speaking of "GTR", "vicious-looking", and "anything but pretty":



but it's definitely badass, no?

Turbojett wrote:you guys are homos. that thing will rape small children like the fucking sierra leone.

repost?

big_jesus wrote:all the retro design haters now love the merc retro design? wtf?

i think the front looks like a dodge or some other american car. seems nasty fast though.


and i agree with pennz: the gtr is anything but pretty.

WHO? WHO DOES NOT LIKE RETRO???

Actually, I think that back angle looks like a Viper convertible, thanks to the open doors giving it a similar C-pillar.

Swerve wrote:

big_jesus wrote:all the retro design haters now love the merc retro design? wtf?

i think the front looks like a dodge or some other american car. seems nasty fast though.


and i agree with pennz: the gtr is anything but pretty.

WHO? WHO DOES NOT LIKE RETRO???

Actually, I think that back angle looks like a Viper convertible, thanks to the open doors giving it a similar C-pillar.

Well the test mules did wear Viper sheetmetal......

ascona wrote:

Turbojett wrote:you guys are homos. that thing will rape small children like the fucking sierra leone.

repost?

you're a homo just for being a tard like that and not having a damn sense of humor.

Turbojett wrote:

ascona wrote:

Turbojett wrote:you guys are homos. that thing will rape small children like the fucking sierra leone.

repost?

you're a homo just for being a tard like that and not having a damn sense of humor.

no u