tof

Mercedes-Maybach S600

Wheelbase: 132.4 in.
Length: 214.6 in.
Curb Weight: About as much as two S2000s, 5400 lbs (C/D estimate)
Engine: 12 cylinder bi-turbo
HP: 523 @ 4900 RPM
Torque: 612 lb-ft
Price: $190,275 (MSRP)





Honda S600

Wheelbase: 79 in.
Length: 130 in., Less than the Maybach wheelbase
Curb Weight: About as much as half an S2000, 1576 lbs.
Engine: 4 cylinder naturally aspirated
HP: 57 @ 10,000,000 RPM
Torque: What's that? Oh. 38 lb-ft.
Price: $45,000 for Condition 1 (restored, better than new), per Hemings valuation tool

dlq04

Big, heavy, ugly vs too small and no torque - even British sports cars had torque, but not much HP. I've no desire for either one.

tof

Must come from sticking the intake and exhaust manifolds on the same side of the head.

I would love to do "Cruisin' the Coasst" in an S600. If someone gave me a new Maybach I'd sell it and pick up a very low mileage 91 NSX with the dealer installed "Comptech Performance" pachage and a late model Cayman S, and pay off AJ's student loan with the leftover cash.

S2KRAY

Not a big Benz fan. The S600 is cute but not for me. For 45K there are better options out there like a 2013 Boxster I saw on line.

ralper

I'd take the Honda, it's my kind of car. I do think that 10,000,000 rpm is a bit much, even for a Honda.

I have no use for the Maybach. I don't even understand why cars like that exist.

RMurphy

Bwahahaha! Good catch.

boltonblue

so the maybach S600 is a bit over the top,
But they are wonderful; cars Rob. These are the MB-Maybach not the huge maybach's of a few years ago.
Bascially it is just a really nice S-class.

dlq04

No, actually it was due to small bores with a long stroke..... just the opposite of American muscle cars.

tof

Guys, I was kidding...

...about the 10,000,000 RPM.
(Dude, VTEC don't kick in till 7,400,000 RPM, Yo!)

...and about the source of torque on old English sports cars.
I never understood why ANY of the old cars had intake and exhaust on the same side of the head. I know a lot of I-6 and even some I-8 engines did as well. Was it easier to cast that way? Or did it take a genius to invent the cross-flow head?

As to bore and stroke, I knew the old English cars had under-square designs but I always thought the muscle car engines did as well, for the same reason: torque. But a quick bit of web research shows that most, if not all small block Chevy and Ford Windsor engines were short-strokers. I guess lack of precision manufacturing and/or material quality is to blame for the low redlines in old Detroit iron. You know your stuff, sir.

skunkworks

I can guess…The automotive world hasn’t always been about performance; in past years many of the manufacturer’s engine drivability issues and cost of manufacturing were paramount.


From my readings a reverse flow head had a lesser manufacturing cost for both the casting and machining complications. The air/gas mixture was better atomized with the heat of the exhaust manifold shortly after startup. In addition, the combustion chamber efficiency was enhanced with a better swirl that promoted combustion. Oddly enough, a smaller intake runner mandated by the side-by-side port design may have produced better throttle response.

There is no doubt a cross flow head will win out from a performance perspective.


gary