Plenty of cars are trying to do the "Schizo" thing these days, and if you read my blog back in October asking What Makes a Great Car? you know that, IMHO, being multi-talented is a key ingredient. The 2009 Mercedes-Benz SL63, like many AMG products, is undeniably multi-talented -- even moreso than any recent SL I've driven.
I've been a big fan of this model since the 2003 redesign, when its sleek looks and retractable hardtop made it about the best convertible on the market. The car has seen only moderate changes since then, and some might argue it's past due for a full makeover, but to my thinking the car truly redefined itself -- and the segment -- that year, and as such the SL can sail along on that paradigm shift for at least a decade or more.
The retractable hardtop and capable (if not truly sporty) performance gave this car "schizo" status six years ago, but the AMG versions (SL55 being the first) furher exaggerated the concept of a luxury convertible with coupe-like serenity (when the is top up) and exotic-car performance when standing on the throttle (top up or down).
The newest car has further added to the personality disorder by offering up a meaty -- no, make that borderline obnoxious -- exhaust snarl, a multi-adjustable transmission with four settings, and an adjustable suspension (Sport or Comfort) and three stability control settings. In fact, you could dive into the controls near the shifter and keep yourself entertained for hours trying out different combos on your favorite backroad. Trust me, I know from which I speak.
Then, after enjoying the pull of its 518-horsepower, 465 lb-ft V8 engine (0-60 in 4.6 seconds), you can set everything to "fat cat" mode, put the top up, and jump on the freeway for 80-plus mph crusing while the leather seats massage your lower back.
The most impressive aspect of this vehicle has to be the new AMG Speedshift MCT ("Multi-Clutch Technology") transmission. It offers seven speeds, six wet clutches, 100 millisecond shifts and a Race Start function that is essentially a computer-controlled launch for maximum thrust using minimal skill. The race to build the best transmission is making for some great drivetrains these days, and as usual with competition the consumer gets full benefit.
Using the paddle shifters on the steering wheel is fine, but I actually found it best to put the tranny in "Sport-Plus" mode and let it worry about gear choice while I concentrated on gas, brake and steering activity. It never failed me and the rev-matched downshifts, along with that barking exhaust, made the total experience as much fun as I've had in an M-B product.
I've got four minor nits to pick with this car. 1. Steering feel still isn't what I'd expect from a $140,000 German two-seater. 2. The isolation from the engine made it tough to know where it was in the powerband and I kept hitting the rev-limiter with the tranny in "Manual" mode (ergo my preference for using the Sport-Plus setting). 3. With this much technology surrounding the shifter it felt a bit odd to have to push down on a Parking Brake pedal and pull a lever to release it. The $60,000 BMW X6 I drove two days earlier had an electronic parking brake, so M-B needs to upgrade this item. 4. The COMAND interface is still somewhat clunky, and having to use a four-way, push-botton controller (versus the iDrive-like wheel in the S-Class) only emphasizes the issue.
None of these are deal breakers if you otherwise like this car -- and there's more to like about this SL than ever before.
By jaguar8
on June 2, 2008
07:22 AM
I hate this car! It looks like a Bass Fish on steroids...
By blackadder5639
on June 2, 2008
08:55 AM
Karl, while I think being multi-talented is great, I also admire very focused cars that excel or (better still) best the competition at what they do......an example would be the Nissan GT-R.
I still like the idea of a mechanical parking brake. I always like it when I feel "in touch" with the car's mechanism. Besides, I think I would be more likely to forget to use an electronic partking brake, and it is more likely to break down.
I couldn't help but ask "518 hp and it could do 0 to 60 in only 4.6?"
Otherwise the Mercedes SL seems like a car I would love to take for a spin, or own if I could come up with the $$$ for it!!! :) I like the way Mercedes keep raising the bar in their top-end S models!
By ewilfong
on June 2, 2008
08:56 AM
I don't like the styling, either. It's harsh and angular and looks like it's just trying too hard. I lost interest in MB several years ago, and I can't seem to get it back. Oh well.
By sabastian
on June 2, 2008
09:27 AM
I have a few problems with this car:
Looks: It's ugly. The pre-facelift was much better.
Interior.: I'm looking at your picture of the shifter and seeing blank buttons! I might expect this on some bottom-rung Civic , but an AMG Mercedes should have all the toys.
Price: This thing is pretty firmly in R8/911 Turbo/ Vantage territory. I know that none of those cars have the power of the SL (though the Porsche is close), but those other three just seem more special somehow.
By louiswei
on June 2, 2008
09:46 AM
Gotta agree with Karl on this one, if I am in the market for a luxury GT convertible then the SL will be my choice. BMW 6-series has nothing on this car...
By chavis10
on June 2, 2008
10:52 AM
This car is ugly and overweight. MB just keeps adding horsepower to compensate for the huge mass in this compact vehicle. The interior is a joke and if it were installed on a "lesser" automobile, it'd be ripped apart. The head unit/nav system is MB circa 2002 and yet you hear very few complaints of its ancient roots. This is the ulitmate car for people to show off their income and for that, it's perfect I suppose. I guess what really baffles me is how it's pretending to be sporty when it is anything but. I'd rather pilot the CL version or better yet an S65 AMG such as the one I saw on Friday. Those cars are insanely fast but never pretend to be anything but fast luxury cars.
By ddastardly
on June 2, 2008
12:20 PM
Is that legally parked? On a bend on a hill in the middle of the road! Anyway, nice picture. I actually prefer it post facelift.
By 1487
on June 2, 2008
02:23 PM
Its heavy, overweight and increasingly ugly. The interior shares its look with the last gen C class and current CLK and is very dated at this point. The nav screen is too low and too small the overall look is just average. Saying a $110k car is nice is like saying a $5m home is spacious. It ought to be nice for that amount of money. I'm much more impressed with a car like the Genesis than I am with a very expensive low production car like SL which gives you more or less what you'd expect from an overpriced luxury coupe.
By editor_karl
on June 2, 2008
04:33 PM
"Is that legally parked? On a bend on a hill in the middle of the road!"
Legally acquired car photos and good photos rarely go hand-in-hand.
By tysalpha
on June 2, 2008
08:59 PM
What's the AMG SL cost nowdays? About $120K? At that price it should do everything exceptionally.
And honestly, it's beyond even "aspiration" for most of us. This car is "if I win the lottery I'll have one in my 6-car garage." Sure it's fun to gawk at the oh-so-German button overload, but practically speaking I'd rather read more about cars in the $20K-45K range.
By chavis10
on June 3, 2008
03:46 AM
tysalpha- SL550 is $97k; SL63 AMG starts at $133k and the SL65 starts at $192k.
By tysalpha
on June 3, 2008
04:37 AM
Thanks Chavis. Yep... that's beyond aspirations for me. At least realistic ones. ;)
What's with the $60K price premium to go up 0.2 liters? Is the 65 supercharged but the 63 isn't?
By vacagrande
on June 3, 2008
06:22 AM
A car like this needs to be stunningly gorgeous (Alfa 8C, AM Vantage, Jag XKR) and this car just isn't at all. Barely above hideous. Still, a lot of people will buy it just for the status of the thing.
By mrryte
on June 3, 2008
06:51 AM
"Barely above hideous. Still, a lot of people will buy it just for the status of the thing."
Precisely. When you're spending big bucks for this thing, your main concern is exclusivity not looks or practicality.
That said; with 518 HP/465 ft-lbs under the hood, the best this thing can do in 0-60 is the mid 4s?
By chavis10
on June 3, 2008
06:59 AM
tysalpha- don't be fooled by MB's nonsensical nomenclature!! The 63 AMG's displacement is larger than the 65's!!
The previous SL55 had a supercharged 5.4L V8 based on the corporate 5.0L V8. This new 63 is a clean sheet naturally apsirated 6.2L V8 developed exclusively by AMG. It's fairly high tech for a Benz V8 since it's a DOHC configuration with VVT.
The 65 AMGs have a 6.0L twin turbo V12 with 604 hp an electronically curtailed 738 lbs-ft of torque (it really makes 884 lbs-ft). This engine is based on the standard 5.5L V12 used in the CL/S/SL600 and Maybachs but has a longer stroke and more boost. This is an old school SOHC design with three valves per cylinder and fixed valve timing. It makes peak power at only 4800 rpm and doesn't rev much beyond that point. It's power characteristics are more akin to a diesel rather than a high performance gas engine.
By estreka
on June 3, 2008
04:27 PM
If I'm in this price range for a GT, I'm probably going to look at a Jaguar XKR or a Maserati GT, both of which are considerably cheaper.