SLR: success or failure?

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by F50Fanatic, Oct 20, 2009.

  1. Back in 2005 there was a thread on which supercar is the worst and a lot of people voted the Mercedes SLR. If I remembered correctly, among all the well-known 200mph exotic cars built in the last 25 years, the SLR is the only one that received 4 stars from EVO, while all the other ones received 5 stars. If I'm not mistaken, SLR is also the only 200mph production car made in the past 25 years that did not appear on EVO's top 100 driver's car list. For the same price, the Carrera GT is quicker than the SLR. There are cars that are cheaper yet offers performance comparable to the SLR, like 599GTB, ZR-1, Gallardo Balboni and Murcielago LP640/LP670.

    In my opinion, SLR can be considered one of a kind among exotic cars (599GTB is a high performance car, but not an exotic in my opinion). SLR is front-engine instead of mid-engine. Unlike most of its mid-engine rivals, it offers decent luggage space. It is also one of the most drivable supercars, with performance that are easier to access than most other cars in its category. It was (and most likely still is) the fastest automatic car in the world. Considering the car good or bad is all up to personal taste and preference.

    What do you guys think?
     
  2. definitely failure, i mean who likes driving a slushbox and wtf do i need comfort and luggage space for i'm not some sort of tosser
     
  3. still one of my favorite GT/supercars, that can be a daily drive, excellent for distant trips, #$%#ing fast, and to me it looks just amazing, with that long hood...
    sure you wouldn't enjoy driving it as much as a zonda or something as btutish, but the sound is surely of a supercar...

    on my top 10 list
     
  4. oh and looks like a dildo in side profile i forgot
     
  5. hated it at first, been growing on me

    SLS should have had the SLR rear end
     
  6. economic success

    success as a driving machine, maybe not

    the brakes are supposedly shit
     
  7. in my eyes, it was a failure. could have been so much better
     
  8. MB made cashmoney on it, so they were winrars.

    I think the final product compared to its original intent (~1500 pounds lighter, much more ballsy, etc) it was a failure. it was basically just an expensive AMG SL. Im not a big fan of AMG SL's either.
     
  9. Total failure.
    Too big, and its a Mercedes.

    -karl
     
  10. It seems a lot of people are missing the point that it's more of a hyper-GT than something to directly compete with Enzos, Murcis, Zondas etc.

    Plus, to me it still has one of the best sounding engines. A Spitfire for the road...
     
  11. It's not sporty enough to be a real sports car and it's not luxurious enough (plastic interior) to be a high end GT car.
     
  12. I think most people more than missed the point of the SLR. They saw the name McLaren and were expecting an F1 for the 21st century, but that's not what it was ever intended to be. Most people seem to forget that even though it may not tickle you like a Zonda, it's still a 200mph car that you can use everyday. It's very much a user-friendly hypercar. That's not something I think you can get anywhere else, save perhaps the Bugatti Veyron (which is too expensive to really compete with the SLR anyway). Overall, I'd say it was a success comercially, and a success for what it was, but it failed to capture the public's imagination to quite the extent it deserved.
     
  13. thanks for your well thought-out and insightful post!
     
  14. The 722 can't be used for everyday use from what the sources I've read say... It's uncomfortable, and doesn't ride smooth at all.

    But the SLR on the other hand is IMO what a supercar version of the SL class would be like.

    I see what Mercedes had in mind when creating it, and it is nicer to look at in person, but For the money I'd much rather have a Lambo.
     
  15. #15 Thebdm, Oct 20, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  16. ....But seeing as it is the most expensive Mercedes that was in production at it's time, and it didn't look like complete shyt. All the mercedes fanboys with enough money where definitely going to buy them....(football players, basketball players, rappers, rich of Dubai, could go on and on...)

    I'd say they could've done better, but as sales go this thing was a big success...
     
  17. It seems to be more of a status symbol than an enthusiast's choice.

    It's a very quick car, but I think the rich car enthusiasts are more likely to choose cars like Enzo and Carrera GT
     
  18. at first i didnt like the SLR but it grew on me its more of a 599GTB competitor with a better interior and exterior than the upcoming SLS.
     
  19. at first i didnt like the SLR but it grew on me its more of a 599GTB competitor with a better interior and exterior than the upcoming SLS.
     
  20. Under rated

    it sounds like a monster, give me a 722 edition over a 599 anyday
     
  21. ugly, dildo hood, under performing, over priced
     
  22. Would much rather have the SL65 Black.
     
  23. Under-performing? What are you smoking?
     
  24. "Car and Driver achieved a 0-60 mph (100 km/h) time of 3.6 seconds, and a quarter-mile time of 11.6 seconds at 125 mph (201 km/h) C&D suggests the times may be even lower if temperatures were lower. Motor Trend tested the SLR and achieved a 0-60mph time of 3.6 seconds in April 2006. Car and Driver achieved top gear acceleration 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph times of 1.7 and 2.4 seconds, which are the fastest ever recorded by the magazine in a production car. The SLR also pulled 0.97 g on the skidpad.

    January 2005 Road and Track tested the car in their July 2005 Road Test and reached 60 mph (97 km/h) from a standstill in 3.5 seconds. The 0 - 100 mph (160 km/h) sprint was achieved in 7.5 seconds and a quarter mile run was completed in 11.5 seconds at 126 mph (203 km/h).

    In June 2004 the SLR was tested at Nardo and performed the 0-100 km/h (62 mph) exercise in 3.8 seconds, 0-200 km/h (124 mph) in 10.3 seconds and 0-300 km/h (190 mph) in 30.4 seconds.[citation needed] Their 400 metre and kilometre times were 11.4 seconds at 128 mph (206 km/h) and 20.6 seconds at 270 km/h (170 mph) respectively. They also reached its claimed topspeed 334 km/h (208 mph)."
     
  25. That's not even the 722 right?

     

Share This Page