bravo 35 Report post Posted November 11, 2008 Today's "Super Wheels". The article on the new Mercedes AMG SL65 AMG "Black" lists engine output from the 6 litre v12 as both 493kW and 450kw in the very next paragraph. That's a 10% reduction in power in about 4 sentences. The factory claims 493kW. The rest of the article is also rubbish. Qoute from page 5: "Want to make your Honda go faster? Add a sports pedal or 16-inch alloys..." How about a Type-R badge aswell? I hear they are equally effective at bumping HP as a set of pedals or rims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest SamSpargo Report post Posted November 11, 2008 Agreed. Alistair Sloane has a lot to answer for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
darkwolf 0 Report post Posted November 11, 2008 Today's "Super Wheels". The article on the new Mercedes AMG SL65 AMG "Black" lists engine output from the 6 litre v12 as both 493kW and 450kw in the very next paragraph. That's a 10% reduction in power in about 4 sentences. The factory claims 493kW. The rest of the article is also rubbish. Qoute from page 5: "Want to make your Honda go faster? Add a sports pedal or 16-inch alloys..." How about a Type-R badge aswell? I hear they are equally effective at bumping HP as a set of pedals or rims. Write in tell them how useless that person is and that you could do the job far better. Give them an example of how a reveiw should be done. Worst case scenario you wasted some of your time, which from your post is what you were doing reading the garbage that guy wrote anyway. Best case scenario you get a job as the herald Car Reveiwer and maybe you can save the NZ public from reading that sorta crap. I can think of worse ways to spend your days than getting to drive some flash new cars that you didn't have to pay for Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 35 Report post Posted November 11, 2008 I think the last car review by the Herald that actually involved their reporter sitting in the actual car was probably never. I normally only flick through anyway, but the AMG caught my eye, then as I flipped the page after realising it was nonsense I saw the sub-headline for the Honda and had to do a double take. Utter garbage. I could do it better, but I can't think of a worse job than being a writer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
briancol 3 Report post Posted November 11, 2008 I think the last car review by the Herald that actually involved their reporter sitting in the actual car was probably never. I normally only flick through anyway, but the AMG caught my eye, then as I flipped the page after realising it was nonsense I saw the sub-headline for the Honda and had to do a double take. Utter garbage. I could do it better, but I can't think of a worse job than being a writer. Aaah, but think of all the great cars you would get to drive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steve R 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 bit off topic, but i saw a 2009 SL65 AMG sitting in the rapid radio work shop the other day, getting 60k worth of alpine F1 gear installed. very very hot car in the flesh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 35 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 LOL there goes all of merc's efforts at weight saving! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Driftit 2078 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 bit off topic, but i saw a 2009 SL65 AMG sitting in the rapid radio work shop the other day, getting 60k worth of alpine F1 gear installed. very very hot car in the flesh. Seriously? The factory gear is good enough. What a waste of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pjay 8 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 bit off topic, but i saw a 2009 SL65 AMG sitting in the rapid radio work shop the other day, getting 60k worth of alpine F1 gear installed. very very hot car in the flesh. Yah, off k ay? Sex being installed in sex Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jamez 2147483647 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 Yah, off k ay? Sex being installed in sex hahahah cant beat sex being installed in sex ever Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
briancol 3 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 Actually Bravo, I have just reread this item and I think you might be a little confused. The way I read it is the new motor has 12% larger turbos and I think that the difference in output is the difference between the standard motor and this new one with bigger turbos. Thats the way I read it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
elmarco 56 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 I could do it better, but I can't think of a worse job than being a writer. Proctologist? Dentist? I can think of loads worse than writing! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alex 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 I read it as the standard SL65 AMG is 450kW but this new "black" SL65 AMG is 493kW after being given to AMG for further tuning ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 35 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 (edited) You'd have to really stretching the imagination there! They don't make a non-AMG SL65. The non-AMG car is called a SL600 (v12) or SL500 (v8). The SL55 SL63 and SL65 are the AMG models. The SL63 didn't have a v12. So unless they are trying to say the motor without the turbos is the lower figure, but then I don't read it that way. Or maybe the "black" version is the higher figure, but then again it doesn't say that either. In retrospect this is probably what they meant, but I've had to read it a few times to get that. Still utter rubbish. The 6-litre V12 engine in the SL65 develops 493kW (670bhp) at 5400rpm and 1000Nm of torque between 220-4200rpm. And that's with a torque limiter - without it, says AMG, torque would be up around 1200Nm. The company says the super-coupe sprints from zero to 100km/h in 3.8 seconds and on to 200km/h in 11 seconds. Top speed is an electronically limited 320km/h, or a touch under 200mph. The V12 engine in the SL65 AMG generates 450kW. New turbocharges developed specially for the Black Series SL65 are 12 per cent larger, and the optimised wastegate ducts permit increased air throughput and an even more impressive display of power in all engine speed ranges, says AMG. Edited November 12, 2008 by bravo Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
westy 614 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 You'd have to really stretching the imagination there! They don't make a non-AMG SL65. The non-AMG car is called a SL600 (v12) or SL500 (v8). The SL55 SL63 and SL65 are the AMG models. The SL63 didn't have a v12. So unless they are trying to say the motor without the turbos is the lower figure, but then I don't read it that way. Or maybe the "black" version is the higher figure, but then again it doesn't say that either. In retrospect this is probably what they meant, but I've had to read it a few times to get that. Still utter rubbish. Its probably a bad translation. The Herald's all cut and paste press releases anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jjs 64 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 You'd have to really stretching the imagination there! They don't make a non-AMG SL65. The non-AMG car is called a SL600 (v12) or SL500 (v8). The SL55 SL63 and SL65 are the AMG models. The SL63 didn't have a v12. So unless they are trying to say the motor without the turbos is the lower figure, but then I don't read it that way. Or maybe the "black" version is the higher figure, but then again it doesn't say that either. In retrospect this is probably what they meant, but I've had to read it a few times to get that. Still utter rubbish. You read it wrong buddy. There is an SL65 AMG and then a SL65 AMG Black Series. Two very different cars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bravo 35 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 I know man, and that is what I said they probably mean - It doesn't say that though does it? Not very clear. Which was my point to begin with - sh*t article, sh*t paper. sh*t paper... - now there's an idea. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
$toffz 0 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 More Herald dribble Now in for the Maserati. " Among a host of smaller changes, there's a larger, 4.7-litre engine alongside the 4.2 for Quattroporte S, and a retuned variant of the same engine for the GranTurismo S, its 323kW and 490Nm making that car the most powerful Maserati ever made." What? never heard of the Maserati MC12? Damn site more power than the above. Granted ii is heavily based on the Enzo, but its still a Maserati. Surely any auto reporter worth his/her salt would know this? Or am I being a bit pedantic here? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Palazzo 477 Report post Posted November 12, 2008 It's not clearly written when they give two power figures for a car with one name, they should have defined it better. I would love to drive either, had an S55AMG with 368kw for the weekend and it was magic. On topic, of course the Herald is sh*t, what other paper has to print a list of retractions for the previous days mistakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
