Forgive us for saying so (i.e. we would still appreciate a test drive), but the Mercedes SLR McLaren could well be the Maybach of exotic cars. We're not saying the $495k (base) roadster's design, price or marketing was inherently flawed, but it's well known that McLaren designer Gordon Murray was unhappy with the front-engined, mid-weight layout from the git-go, and bristled at having to accommodate so much GT-ness (i.e. weight). Curmudgeons were less than impressed with the SLR's brake-by-wire system and its inability to make it into the finals of "Dancing with the Supercars." And then Paris Hilton bought one. And was photographed in it. And drove it drunk. And was jailed for same. Anyway, WardsAuto brings us up-to-date with the ill-fated SLR, revealing that the model's twin exhausts mean it can't be registered in five U.S. states (?). We also learn that "Mercedes declines to say precisely how many of the super cars will be built at the McLaren factory in Woking, U.K. But Greg De Smith, a marketing specialist for the product, says it will be 'substantially fewer' than 500 units." The number reflects Mercedes realization that it will not hit its initial target of 500 SLRs per year for seven years. A blessing in disguise for collectors, or the world's fastest albatross?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
So I checked the article, what exactly about the exhausts makes it not legal? They say its the “twin duals”, so would that make BMW’s M cars and Corvettes illegal as well? Because even in the hell that is Mid MO where I went to school, there were plenty of ‘Vettes and M cars.
Gonna be a lot of illegal cars. Mustang GT, new Evo, new STi, even the old Crown Vics with the Towing Package is going tobe illegal.
Such a tangled web.
As far as I know, the law in those states says that you cannot modify a factory stock exhaust to turn it into a dual exhaust even if you install a second cat. It doesn’t say that a production dual exhaust is illegal. I think ol’ Herb (Shuldiner) may be wrong.
We’ve got a call into Merc PR on the exhaust issue…
Good on you for that. I’d like to know why having factory stock twin duals (so quad tips) is illegal. Or if it is just the way it is set up on this car? Maybe the fact they exit around the front wheel and not out the back?
Maybe the fact they exit around the front wheel and not out the back?
That is probably the case; I was to understand that all exhausts must exit behind the passenger compartment.
Mocktard, sez who? Apparently not the Federal DOT, since they certified the car as legal.
I don’t see how individual states can write regulations that contradict DOT standards. Okay, there are state emissions regs (which of course are the subject of great legal controversy right now), but where the exhausts exit the car, if that’s indeed the problem, certainly isn’t an emissions question.
States have unsuccessfully tried to make their own aviation regulations, but the FAA has always successfully argued that they have no business doing so.
What about (its former corporate cousin) the Viper, whose exhausts also come out sideways.
Samir:
I think those still qualify as coming out behind the passenger cabin. On the SLR, they come out well forward. Still, I’d like to see the official reason why.
Perhaps being the conveyance of choice for the rich, dimwitted, drunk and pantyless is bad for MB’s pr. Or maybe it’s just the ‘drunk’ and ‘pantyless’ as ‘rich’ and ‘dimwitted’ are almost synonymous with Benz ownership.
Mocktard, sez who? Apparently not the Federal DOT, since they certified the car as legal.
Honestly I was thinking of SCCA Solo II “Street Prepared” rules section 14.10 H but a brief google comes up with Georgia’s Exhaust Code Title 40, Section 40-8-71 (a)(3) “exhaust emission point shall extend beyond the rear or outside of the passenger compartment” and potentially (a)(5) as well.
I just got off the phone with Rob Moran of MBUSA. Mr. Moran informs me that all these states require exhaust pipes to terminate aft of the doors. He also says that this isn’t much of an issue for SLR sales, as the “average” customer who lives in one of the affected areas has an out-of-state residence where they can register their SLR. Let’s not get into the legality of registering a car outside of your “primary residence,” as Mr. Moran also says he has an SLR which “might” be available for a chaperoned TTAC test drive. More good news: we’re in negotiations with Mr. Lieberman to write the SLR review, marking his possible editorial return to the TTAC fold.
Love to see Lieberman’s take on the SLR, although he may have exhausted his arsenal of superlatives on the RS4 review. Or maybe the SLR isn’t that good.
As for out-of-state registration and its legality: those that can afford the SLR don’t need to care about that minutiae. Remember, they are just a little more equal than the rest of us proles.
I think all those states have state income tax, so you can bet that buyers of $500,000 cars have a “primary” residence in Texas, Florida, or wherever just for the tax evasion.
Stephan,
The FAA has more authority than a lot of federal departments for a lot of reasons. It’s mostly a matter of practicality. Most commercial flights are interstate after all. States do have a lot of ways to affect air travel, and if they use any sense at all, they can affect what they need to.
What they can’t do is agree to terms to get federal funding for their airports and then renege on their side of the deal.
They also can’t change a lot of the things that in aviation are the equivalent to driving on the right side of the road. Which is about everything.
Lastly, most of the world agrees with this idea. English is spoken in about every ATC and Tower facility in the entire world.
Well, I certainly understand that, having been a commercial-licensed pilot for 40 years, but there’s certainly plenty of interstate automotive travel as well. What a mess it would be if Virginia said you only needed H-rated tires but Maryland insisted on V-rated. Or if New York had an 85-decibel drive-by limit but Connecticut allowed 90.
NickR: I resent that remark, as I am currently not (nor have I ever been) any of those things though, if you want to get into semantics, it kinda makes sense for dudes like us to be pantyless…
RF: Loverman? SLR review? Um, yes please!
S,
But it wouldn’t be a big deal at all. Tire companies create more variety of tires than there could likely ever be regulations. The only problem comes when states start trying to favor local manufacturers.
Interstate commerce prevents them from imposing their restrictions on non resident vehicles. So the reg would only be a pain in the butt to people in states who voted to be different. They have a right to do so.
You likely are aware that it is almost always the object of local governments to restrict ALL aircraft when they start meddling. Either over noise issues or trying to control travel for various reasons related to either tax grabs, NIMBYism, favoritism, or ignorance.
Car travel needs much less federal interference than air travel.
And I thought California has tought emission regulations….maybe in Ca rich people have the money to influence law makers to allow such car in the state…..people get pull over for having intake filters in their little hondas but something like this can roll freely….i will never understand all these rules and regulations.
Well, whoever drives an SLR, and where ever it is illegal to do so… you have to admit, it has the most astonishing sound of all supercars ever built.
This Spitfire-like growl is just amazing!