Official Details Of Next Generation SL-Class -MB Press release-

[Alx]

This is offical MB Press releae with real info and pricing.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I agree about the Carrera S but not a 650i so prove it. No one has tested the FL SL so until then you are just BSing like usual. The SL is a different class of car than a 911.

First I was talking about the M6 witch normaly should have superior handling to rival or just about (almost) every Mercedes product because it is a BMW.
But here goes my extended explanation:

The first SL was the W194 300 SL sportcar (only) based on the 300 S.
Max Hoffmann convinced the MB to make a street legal version, thus the W198 300 SL coupe (Gullwing) was born. This car was never made to make money. So as to lose less money the Merc boys decided to build the roadster. The 300 SL roadster was more luxurious and confortable and no longer had the dreaded rear axle. Alas this camed at the price of the driving dynamics.
But with the 300 SL roadster and the 190 Pagoda the SL line turned from products competing with the likes of Ferrari, Maserati, Jaguar to sedan choped coupes. The high quality 230 SL and 280 SL were no rivals for the likes of the E-Type, 250 GTO, Miurna, but that was MBs plan.

So now what about me speaking about a car not even tested.
Well here goes:
- the core Mercedes Benz were quality, luxury, comfort, even a greater degree of practicability.
- those of BMW were diferent. Since the '60s their idea was to put in their sedans/cars the driving dynamics of a sport car.
To build a car who is adressed to the driver. Ofcourse this, until recently (and even now) meant sacrifices. The rear passanger space and/or trunk space were usually compromized for the sake of RWD and weight distribution; the AWD system on X5 was a disater off road but the truck would handle great like a RWD car.

Making the driver feel good was BMWs task, while pampering the passanger was MBs main task.

Some time ago the choise was easy. You wanted premium german driver's car you went for BMW (sport sedan) and/or Porsche (sport car), but not MB, for MB was not a sport driver's car maker.

BMW and Porsche were/are defined by cars such as the 328, 2002, CSL, 356, 550, 911. While MB by the likes of 550K, 770K and the 600.

To say a BMW(/Porsche) will have superior driving dinamics to a MB launched/tested yet or not does not mean you are a bullshiter or a profet, but just a person with a little bit of MB knowledge and common sense (this unless we are talking about it's an exception).

If you bum-man can imagine as something normal for MB to equal/surpass BMW when it comes to handling (driving dynamics), then you have a greater imagination and/or a diferent perception of Mercedes Benz then I do.

So my point is considering the price and MB weaknesess, its traditional values/stenghts - quality, luxury, comfort - better be top nouch to justify this prise (hickes).

 

[bum-man]

I'm sorry IE but that does not prove your point at all. You can give me history lessons all day about past Mercedes prerogatives but I doubt you can predict the future. So, since the press release mentioned the facelift has improved handling for a car that already handled well, I don't believe you are in the position to say the Beemer has 'far better handling' then the SL; which it never did in the first place.

 

[LaArtist]

Preach

 

[SDNR]

It is true that the SL is not quite aiming for the same market as the 911 - it's not really a true sports car - it's a luxury GT - originally the SL (Superleggera) was a lightweight sportscar much like the Mazda MX5 (Miata in the US) - but over the years it became a heavier GT type of car - the Porsche 928 was closer to what the SL is all about.

 

[Merc1]

Whats going on here? We're comparing he SL to a M6 or 911? Nonesense. They're different cars.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I'm sorry IE but that does not prove your point at all. You can give me history lessons all day about past Mercedes prerogatives but I doubt you can predict the future.

1. You don't have to predict the future. I just have to have a little of common sense. It's perfectly normal (or at least used to be) for an older BMW to have better handling that a newer MB. I was/is also normal for an BMW to have a better track time over an MB, unless the Benz have more HP and torque (somethimes even so).

2. And about "past MB prerogatives", I'm sorry but I do not understand you. Those "past Mercedes prerogatives" created the MB identity/image/mistique/succes story.
So what you are telling me MB should kill (well they are doing that already) it's own identity/image/mistique for what ?!
So that some jurnalist (or you) can say that a MB handles just as good or as a BMW.
BMW have becomed a succes story by creating it's own identity/image/mistique and sticking to it. They succeded by being BMW
not by being the other Mercedes with the propelar on it.
So should MB forget those "past MB prerogatives" and become the other
BMW (or Volvo) ?!

So, since the press release mentioned the facelift has improved handling for a car that already handled well, I don't believe you are in the position to say the Beemer has 'far better handling' then the SL; which it never did in the first place.

I sorry but who is BSing now.

Merc1 and Roberto you are both right. But my point was that that comfort, luxury and quality be top nouch ((considerably) better than the M6 and 911) so as to justify the price hike.

 

[bum-man]

1. You don't have to predict the future. I just have to have a little of common sense. It's perfectly normal (or at least used to be) for an older BMW to have better handling that a newer MB. I was/is also normal for an BMW to have a better track time over an MB, unless the Benz have more HP and torque (somethimes even so).

2. And about "past MB prerogatives", I'm sorry but I do not understand you. Those "past Mercedes prerogatives" created the MB identity/image/mistique/succes story.
So what you are telling me MB should kill (well they are doing that already) it's own identity/image/mistique for what ?!
So that some jurnalist (or you) can say that a MB handles just as good or as a BMW.
BMW have becomed a succes story by creating it's own identity/image/mistique and sticking to it. They succeded by being BMW
not by being the other Mercedes with the propelar on it.
So should MB forget those "past MB prerogatives" and become the other
BMW (or Volvo) ?!

You have some wierd ways to put words in peoples mouths.

Let me ask you this then. If you think Luxury and comfort is the only thing that a Mercedes should have why in the hell do you come into this thread bitching about the handling? Really IE you are only shooting yourself down each post you make.

I sorry but who is BSing now.

Oh I'm BSing now? At least I have some current fact to back my claim up, not some cockamamy history lesson.

 

[Imhotep Evil]

You have some wierd ways to put words in peoples mouths.

Let me ask you this then. If you think Luxury and comfort is the only thing that a Mercedes should have why in the hell do you come into this thread bitching about the handling?

I never said MB should have only have luxury and confort. Over the decades MB cars have comed from modest handling cars to good/very good handling cars, (a lot) better the (overwhelming) majority.
Nevertheless they are not BMWs, nor should they (try to) be.

Look for examle the stupid TV stunt MB made.
Insted of just saying, MBs are amongst the safest in the world, MB is an inovator/pioneer in safety they went on to make a big fuss that they are the
king, emperor and God of safety. As if they were trying to sell Volvos.

So what I'm saying is that there is a diference between
getting rid of weaknesses/ adding other secundary atributes to a brand and
stealling the identity of some else (making their primary/first and foremost atributes your primary/first and formost atributes, even at the expense of old ones ).

Basicaly MBs should be amongs other (traditional atributes), (very) good handling and (very) safe cars, but let BMWs be "Ultimate driving machine" and Volvos be "Safety".

At least I have some current fact to back my claim up, not some cockamamy history lesson.

So what you're telling me is that MB has created some "Ultimate Driving Machines". Well then I going to love the cars and hate Mercedes Benz.

But now here is my IMO.
I belive that this cars while fine are/(will be) overpriced (from a consumer perspective).
Why:
- MB outsells BMW when it comes to cars over 60000-70000 euros/dollars
- these cars have a good reputation
- to compensate for the loss of revenue due to decline in core models (C and E klasse)
- to mantain/improve profit (margins) caused also by rises in raw materials
- and let's not forget the time and money wasted on Smart, Maybach and the SLR.
- now since bringing the new C and E and improving productivity/flexibility cannot be done over night and without sacrifices, MB will IMO milk some of its consumers (overprice some cars (probably costing over 60000 USD/Euros) in some markets), for a while at least.

 

[Merc1]

I never said MB should have only have luxury and confort. Over the decades MB cars have comed from modest handling cars to good/very good handling cars, (a lot) better the (overwhelming) majority.
Nevertheless they are not BMWs, nor should they (try to) be.

Look for examle the stupid TV stunt MB made.
Insted of just saying, MBs are amongst the safest in the world, MB is an inovator/pioneer in safety they went on to make a big fuss that they are the
king, emperor and God of safety. As if they were trying to sell Volvos.

So what I'm saying is that there is a diference between
getting rid of weaknesses/ adding other secundary atributes to a brand and
stealling the identity of some else (making their primary/first and foremost atributes your primary/first and formost atributes, even at the expense of old ones ).

Basicaly MBs should be amongs other (traditional atributes), (very) good handling and (very) safe cars, but let BMWs be "Ultimate driving machine" and Volvos be "Safety".




So what you're telling me is that MB has created some "Ultimate Driving Machines". Well then I going to love the cars and hate Mercedes Benz.

But now here is my IMO.
I belive that this cars while fine are/(will be) overpriced (from a consumer perspective).
Why:
- MB outsells BMW when it comes to cars over 60000-70000 euros/dollars
- these cars have a good reputation
- to compensate for the loss of revenue due to decline in core models (C and E klasse)
- to mantain/improve profit (margins) caused also by rises in raw materials
- and let's not forget the time and money wasted on Smart, Maybach and the SLR.
- now since bringing the new C and E and improving productivity/flexibility cannot be done over night and without sacrifices, MB will IMO milk some of its consumers (overprice some cars (probably costing over 60000 USD/Euros) in some markets), for a while at least.

Several things with this post. Mercedes is about safety just as much if not more than Volvo considering they were first with crumple zones and basic safety features that every other car on the road today uses. Secondly, which "stunt" are you talking about? If you're talking about the Distronic thing then it wasn't MB doing the stunting, it was a idiot editor at a magazine. That whole thing was not sponsored or done by Mercedes. Only when they realized it was going to happen with or without them did they try to particpate.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

Several things with this post. Mercedes is about safety just as much if not more than Volvo considering they were first with crumple zones and basic safety features that every other car on the road today uses. Secondly, which "stunt" are you talking about? If you're talking about the Distronic thing then it wasn't MB doing the stunting, it was a idiot editor at a magazine. That whole thing was not sponsored or done by Mercedes. Only when they realized it was going to happen with or without them did they try to particpate.

M

They should have just stoped that thing before it happened, period. And shouldn't have made that big of a fuss in the first place.
The debate Volvo vs. MB is long and pointless. The simple matter is Volvo beat MB in the positioning of the brand.
IBM is THE computer company, but they did not invented the computer, nor were they the first on the market with a computer (be it the mainframe, micro, or personal computer). They positioned themseves as the computer company.
Like so Volvo positioned themselves as THE Safety Car Company since the late '50s. So here is the catch, MB is wasting time and money trying to ocupy a slot that is already taken. In the minds of people this uber fuss about safety from MB does not give people the idea -great I'll the super safest car the MB-, what it does is create confusion, is tells the -MB = Volvo (clone)- .

But now we're really off topic.

 

[LaArtist]

HAHA man their marketing as the safest brans is a lie.. a good one.. and a good move..
anyone that knows anything about cars knows that MB has better safety..

 

[yomomwhat]

IBM is THE computer company, but they did not invented the computer, nor were they the first on the market with a computer (be it the mainframe, micro, or personal computer). They positioned themseves as the computer company.

er..........10 years ago may be.............

Like so Volvo positioned themselves as THE Safety Car Company since the late '50s. So here is the catch, MB is wasting time and money trying to ocupy a slot that is already taken. In the minds of people this uber fuss about safety from MB does not give people the idea -great I'll the super safest car the MB-, what it does is create confusion, is tells the -MB = Volvo (clone)-

WTF are u smoking? MB just wasting money? by creating pretty much every safety innovation out there......they were first to fit airbags, abs, esp, er....presafe....er....distronic....er....crumple zones.....er....seat belt tensioners even i think......so er....volvo....yea tell us about volvo...please i would love to hear....the only safety thing i have seen about volvo is them rolling one of their cars off a cliff....and i don't know really what safety feature that was meant to describe...

 

[bum-man]

I don't know how Mercs are percieved in Europe as far as safety. I do know here in the U.S. they are still regarded as 'tanks' when it comes to safety, especially the older ones.

 

[Merc1]

They should have just stoped that thing before it happened, period. And shouldn't have made that big of a fuss in the first place.
The debate Volvo vs. MB is long and pointless. The simple matter is Volvo beat MB in the positioning of the brand.
IBM is THE computer company, but they did not invented the computer, nor were they the first on the market with a computer (be it the mainframe, micro, or personal computer). They positioned themseves as the computer company.
Like so Volvo positioned themselves as THE Safety Car Company since the late '50s. So here is the catch, MB is wasting time and money trying to ocupy a slot that is already taken. In the minds of people this uber fuss about safety from MB does not give people the idea -great I'll the super safest car the MB-, what it does is create confusion, is tells the -MB = Volvo (clone)- .

But now we're really off topic.

I don't know what you're talking about here. Mercedes has positioned themselves as the safety brand since the 50's also. Are you forgetting who pioneered crumple zones, ABS and other things? To say Mercedes isn't known for safety is ridiculous. Mercedes isn't trying to "position" themselves as the safety company, they're already there! Along with Volvo. When it comes to safety these two are mentioned more often than any of the others who have come lately to the caring about safety.

For the last time....the test you speak of was conducted by a MAGAZINE, not Mercedes. Mercedes didn't raise any fuss about it, the MEDIA did after the test failed. That whole episode was not of Mercedes' doing. If someone wants to go out and do an idiotic test of Mercedes' cars without their permission MB can't "stop" them. I can buy a Mercedes or rent one and do whatever I want with it, Mercedes has absolutely no control over that.

At this point it seems you're just MB bashing as usual because you're not making any sense and you're grosely ignoring the FACTS.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

God I'm loosing my mind in here.

No MB positioned thenselves as the "engineered like no other" company, Volvo positioned themselves as "The Safety Company" (until the '90s), BMW positioned themselves as "Ultimate Driving Machine"(/"Sheer Driving Pleasure"/ "Joy of Driving").

People (the majority) percive Mercedes Benz cars as (very) safe. But when you say safety (+ cars) the (first) thing that comes to people's minds is Volvo, not MB.

The fact that MB pioneered crumple zones, ABS and other things is irelevant, just as irelevent as who pineered the 3 pointed safety belt the ESP and whatever safety device.
Perception is Reality, that is how things work for most people. The fact is that we around here are entusiats and think and know things others don't.

 

[Merc1]

I don't know where you're from, but Mercedes is most definitely throught of as being a safe car and one of, if not the leader in safety, again right along with Volvo. To say Mercedes isn't thought of as a safe car or a safety minded company and to say all their many advances in safety are irrelevant is totally ridiculous. In the U.S. Mercedes is known for safety just as much as they are for their "engineering". I suspect this is the case everywhere else, except for your neighborhood.

REGULAR people look at Mercedes as a safety leader also, you can ask anyone on the street this! Totally absurd to even think otherwise!

It is a tossup depending on who you ask, Volvo isn't always the first name to come to mind for Joe Regular walking down the street!

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

I don't know where you're from, but Mercedes is most definitely throught of as being a safe car and...

I never said MB wasn't a safety leader.

one of, if not the leader in safety, again right along with Volvo.

Wrong, that that's Volvo's position. MB is (very) safe, Volvo= (incarnation of)
Safety.

To say Mercedes isn't thought of as a safe car or a safety minded company and to say all their many advances in safety are irrelevant is totally ridiculous.

I never said that.
People do not know how many safety feature a car has, who inveted them and how do they work. They just know a car is safe.

In the U.S. Mercedes is known for safety just as much as they are for their "engineering". I suspect this is the case everywhere else, except for your neighborhood.

MB "engineering" implied among others safety too, not just quality and technological inovation.
And MB is known for safety in my neighborhood too.

REGULAR people look at Mercedes as a safety leader also, you can ask anyone on the street this! Totally absurd to even think otherwise!

I never said otherwise.

It is a tossup depending on who you ask, Volvo isn't always the first name to come to mind for Joe Regular walking down the street!

M

It's true. Volvo isn't the first name to come to mind for Joe Regular walking down the street, but it is so when you mention safety. T
That unless we are talking about a biased MB fan.

 

[Merc1]

This whole debate and your stance is pointless. It doesn't really matter who is thought of being the safesty in the grand scheme of things, people who know cars know that a Mercedes stands for safety, among other things. Period.

M

 

[Imhotep Evil]

This whole debate and your stance is pointless. It doesn't really matter who is thought of being the safesty in the grand scheme of things, people who know cars know that a Mercedes stands for safety, among other things. Period.

M

I could say yours is.
Just about everybody knows MB stands for safety among other things. But Volvo stands for safety first and foremost .
It does matter who is thought of being the safesty in the grand scheme of things. Because that is their position (Volvo) in the heads of the people the main reason that helps them sell their cars.