You would like to add a Cd player to a 2003 SLK.

WHAT THE HELL? A 2003 car without a cd player is bad enough but a Mercedes-Benz sports model? %99 of the cars on the market here come with a cd player The %1 are a few cheap commercial utes and vans.

Dunno much about Corvettes except they have a extremely ugly rear end so I'd prefer a Merc.

 

What does a sport model Mercedes has to do anything with a cd-changer?
And what is wrong with not having cd-changers as standard equipment?
Cd-changers / players are useless for some people and they save a couple hundrd of dollars if they don't need it.
Even in Europe, only cassette players come standard. It cost 350 pound in the U.K. and 458.20 EURO in Germany.
This makes some people think they are getting ripped off, because it isn't "free".
But if it comes standard, then the people who don't want cd-changes/players would think they are also being ripped off, and it is true; because they are forced to pay for something they don't use.
This is the kind of benefit customers in large car markets enjoy.
Customers only wants to pay for things that they want, and manufacturers knows that.
But the cost would be too high if every customers wants their cars built differently.
So the larger the market, more individual options are offered.
Customers in smaller markets, like Australia, don't get this sort of benefit.

And..if you don't know much about the Corvette, then you should find more information about it before making any comments.

 

Frigginphool,

Try thinking out of your sandbox once in a while. Like every 5-year-old in the world you can't understand that a world beyond your eyesight functions separately to your own.

If you want "real" audio and/or video equipment in your car, you don't want what MB offers. Only you would pay for an MB CD player then upgrade it with something better.

Dunno much about you except that you have an extremely ugly front. Must have been the city bus incident?

 

the answer is they are the same.

The obvious car to compare the Maybach to is the 2004 Rolls-Royce Phantom. The Maybach and the Rolls are priced about the same, weigh about the same, have similar features and level of quality, the same buyers, etc.

It is far more interesting, however, to compare the Maybach 57 to a Chevrolet Corvette. These cars are radically different. The Corvette is an unabashed two-seater sports car with a high-performance engine, sports-car frame and suspension and a lightweight fiberglass body. The Maybach is a huge luxury auto-yacht. The Maybach 57 weighs almost 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg) more than the Corvette (nearly twice as much). The Maybach 57 is almost 4 feet (1.2 meters) longer than the Corvette.

And yet, look at the important performance figures*. In 0 to 60-mph (0-97 kph) acceleration, the Maybach 57 and the Corvette are equal -- 4.9 seconds. In 0 to 80-mph (0-129 kph) acceleration, the Maybach is actually one-tenth of a second quicker -- 7.8 seconds for the Maybach versus 7.9 seconds for the Corvette. (Note that a Porsche Boxster takes just a bit over 6 seconds to reach 60 mph -- the Corvette is a very quick car.)

In terms of braking, the Maybach 57 is actually better than the Corvette. Braking from 60 mph (97 kph), the Maybach takes 121 feet (37 meters). The Corvette takes 134 feet (41 meters). From 80 mph, the Maybach takes 212 feet (65 meters) versus 214 feet (65 meters) for the Corvette.

In the slalom, you would expect the Corvette to obliterate the Maybach, given that the Corvette is 3,000 pounds lighter and 4 feet shorter. But the speed through the 700-foot slalom is incredibly close -- 62.4 mph (100.4 kph) for the Corvette and 60.4 mph (97.2 kph) for the Maybach.

How is this possible? How can a huge car like a Maybach match a sports car like the Corvette in terms of performance?

 

You gotta lay off the Johnny Walker, bud. It's beginning to cloud your judgement. Corvette vs Maybach is a silly comparison, not an interesting one.

I think you're using stats from an aftermarket tuned Maybach 57, like from Brabus, and comparing them to a base Corvette with an auto trans. The Maybach with a twin-turbo stroked V-12 perhaps? The twin-turbo stroked V-8? Run your Maybach numbers against a Lingenfelter or Callaway twin-turbo stroked Corvette. Or even an unaltered factory Z06 (0-60mph in 4.2 sec). Try getting the road boat to keep up with any of those, especially through the corners. The factory Z06 has 1.0g lateral acceleration (base is 0.93g). The Maybach will roll or slide before it reaches 1.0g.

To put this in perspective, the Maybach needs somewhere around 650-700 hp to move that quickly. It will probably drink a gallon of gas about every 8 miles or so on the highway going to church. The Corvette Z06 has 405 hp and gets 28 mpg highway. I can get 32 mpg in mine. That's about the same mpg as the '01 Honda Civic I had.

People are still in the '70s-'80s mindset when they think of Corvettes. These were bad years for all cars but especially for American performance cars. The ZR1s of the early '90s and the C5 and C5 Z06 of today arose from that fog and are completely different cars from the ground up. The C6 is even better and faster. You cannot buy a better sports car for under $50K and you have to spend several times more to get the same from another manufacturer.

The Boxter is a slow car. A nice handling, but slow car. It's in a much lesser performance class. Boxter vs Corvette is just as silly as Maybach vs Corvette.

 

But we are comparing Mercedes to Corvette, and Maybach is the closest thing to it.
It starts with the engine. While the Corvette's engine is slightly larger -- 5,665 cubic centimeters (cc) versus 5,513 cc for the Maybach -- the Maybach's is a high-tech V-12. The Maybach engine has features such as:

Three valves per cylinder and overhead cams (compared to two valves per cylinder in the Corvette)
Variable valve timing
Variable-length intake manifolds
Dual turbochargers with intercooler that can produce 18.9 psi of boost
This all adds up to an engine that produces 543 horsepower compared to 350 horsepower for the Corvette. The extra horsepower means that the power-to-weight ratios of the two cars are nearly identical.
On the braking side, the Maybach is very well endowed. The Maybach has huge disc brake rotors at 14.8 inches up front and 14 inches in the back. The Maybach actually has six brake calipers instead of the normal four -- two calipers on each front wheel. The entire braking system is redundant and computer controlled so that the CPU can decide which calipers to activate and how much pressure to apply to each. Computer control also allows special software features to be added. For example, if your foot comes off the accelerator rapidly, the braking system notices. The braking system assumes that, a few milliseconds later, you will be hitting the brakes for a panic stop. So, during those few milliseconds, the computer can move the brake pads into position against the rotors to allow quicker brake activation.

To handle the slalom, the Maybach has another computer-controlled system -- the car has air shocks that can auto-level the vehicle during acceleration, cornering and braking. The shocks also have adjustable internal dampers to control the stiffness of the suspension.

The performance equation for the Maybach is simple: The engineers have brought every possible piece of technology into this car to make it behave like a sports car.

Still not convinced luggy?

 

Um, no, we weren't comparing the Corvette to a $500K car. Not me, at least.

You're using an older base Corvette's stats and comparing them to a warmed over new Maybach, which is what I already said. A new Z06 or base Corvette will outperform the Maybach. A Z06 or base Corvette plus another $50K to a tuner and you'll have an Enzo-killer and about $400K change to spend on your babe.

The Corvette has computer-controlled shock damping and yaw sensors for handling corrections and all that foot and hand movement sensing crap. It has 13" front rotors which is fine for the car's size unless you're going to race it. True for the Maybach as well.

SR-71s are fast and F-16s corner well. Do you think either car can keep up with one? It would be silly to compare, no?

 

A Maybach seems expensive, but if you look at the price per pound for various vehicles, it seems less outrageous. Here's a quick comparison:

Space Shuttle: Costs $2.1 billion, weighs 170,000 pounds = $12,000 per pound

Gold: Approximate 2003 spot price of about $400 per ounce = $6,400 per pound

Lear jet 45: Costs approximately $10 million, weighs 15,000 pounds = $650 per pound

High-end carbon fiber bicycle: Costs $3,000, weighs 20 pounds = $150 per pound

Segway: costs $5,000, weighs 80 pounds = $62.50 per pound

Maybach: Costs $300,000, weighs 6,100 pounds = $49.10 per pound

Harley Davidson VSRC motorcycle: costs $18,000, weighs 600 pounds = $30 per pound

USS Ronald Reagan (nuclear-powered aircraft carrier): costs $4.3 billion, weighs 90,000 tons = $24 per pound (plus, it comes with a 20-year supply of fuel already in the reactor)

Hummer 2: costs $52,000, weighs 6,400 pounds = $8.13 per pound

Ford Focus: costs $14,000, weighs 2,600 pounds = $3.57 per pound

 

sorry to saying somthing different......
just before all you guys & gals thinking.i just woundering is just the different between what times and where you are.....for using vette or benz. car not just a mechine is a art & perfomance. depand from which you looking for the different.....
any how is the $$$$$$$$$$$ tooooo...or want to earning more $$$$$$$

 

Oh, shut up!

... and speaking of pounds, have you been eating chesseburgers like I told you to?