Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '1999 Mercedes-Benz Vision SLR' started by LanciaDeltaIntegraleS4, Aug 12, 2002.
we need automatic rim-shots (sp?) for smartass comments haha.
Yeah yeah, whatever mercedes.
Benz will never make this car. It looks too cool. The closet benz has ever come to making a car that doesn't look like every one of their other's is the SL500.
They'll never make this.
Is the engine placement actually considered front midship (like in the G35) or are you just being a smartass and telling us that the firewall and part of the engine is behind the front axle?
no, I'm pretty sure most of the engine sits behind the front axle. I dont have proof, but i'm sure I've seen it somewhere.
yes, it is possible to get very stable cars in a front engine. however, it's very hard. usually, this is accomplished by using a transaxle.(the tranny mounted at the rear.) the best example of this is the Porsche 944.
in any case, I don't think this Vision SLR is any threat top speed wise to the Mclaren. also, the Mcleran suspension is based on Formula 1, so it handles much better.
If you put this and Mclaren f1 on the track,then Mclaren f1 will beat the SLR.
All mid-engines road cars has rearward weight distribution,only front engine cars will have 50:50
WD.But if you've driven them both,you will find that
the MR cofiguration will have a much better feel and
agility.FR is much more stable,good for SLR,a confortable
superfast Grand Tourer.
um the MClaren F1 is NOT an impressivly handling car. and unless you know otherwise I beleive the SLR is also F1 inspired in chassis tuning considering McLaren and Mecedes are have been F1 racing partners for a while now.
Actually, Benz will make this car.. A 'test' car is already out there.. Cant you see the spy pics.. Down payments are already being taken in..
HotBoxer, have u ever driven a McLaren F1?....no, so dont say it doesnt have good handling
the only magazine ever to test a true McLaren F1 is british magazine Autocar, R&T tested the crappy american-street-legal version which was nowhere near as good
Autocar gave the car the following ratings
Performance: 5 out of 5 (0-60 3.2, 0-100 6.3, 1/4 11.1)
Fuel Economy: 4 out of 5 (23mpg cruising)
*HANDLING: 5 OUT OF 5*
Ride Quality: 4 out of 5
Brakes: 3 out of 5
Interior: 4 out of 5
Space/Comfort: 4 out of 5 (compared to other 200mph cars)
Noise Levels: 3 out of 5
Safety: 5 out of 5
Value: 5 out of 5 (just think about how good the car must have been for it to have been given full marks for value even when it costs $1m)
grand total: 5 out of 5 - the best supercar ever made
says it all really
well said mr..!!
Does "Autocar" have a Website?
I never said it handled badly, I said it wasn't impressive which its not because there are tons of cars that handle better. Try reading my posts smart guy.
A transaxle isn't actually the tranny mounted in the rear, though it can be. A transaxle is the transmission mounted in the same housing as the final drive (differential.) Many front engined, front wheel drive cars have transaxles. They're called transaxles because the transmission is mounted on the drive axle.
PS-This is my last post as a Senior Member! I think i'll have to get an avatar now that I'm a Guru.
who knows if this can or cant rival the mclaren f1. its never raced the mac.
How noncommittal of you. Nice sig, by the way; few among us have full-page statements that we repeat with every post.
this car is no where near a mclaren, but it's a nice car. Daimler Crysler/Mercedes going downhill ever since well...the merge...this may be a step towards comeback
how does upgrading engine power, technological systems, styling consitute as "going down hill"? Just wondering how a new car like the SL which has mosly drive by wire systems as being poor or less advanced than they used to be. If anything Chrystler products are getting better with the merger.