I cant see what is so strange about those numbers. The 0-100 numbers conform to what was to be expected from other tests. Apart from the Vanquish(where Ford seems to have failed seriously in getting it to accelerate) the SL 55 is the slowest car. This is probably due to it's Automatic gearbox and it's high weight. Aerodynamics should be a very small factor in 0-100 performance.
From 0-200 the difference between the 911 GT2 and the SL is still 0,6 seconds . The GT 2 power/weight advantage that made it much faster to 100 has started to evaporate due to it's much worse drag coefficient. Both cars have approximatly the same height and width so the frontal area should be almost the same. The GT2 is at this point a little bit slower than earlier test suggest it should be but it's still faster than the SL. The SLs automatic gearbox has had to shift gears three times in the 13,7 seconds so if it has slower gearchanges than a good driver with a manual gearbox. How much could the diffrence be? 0,2 seconds/ gearchange? In that case 0,6 of the 13,7 seconds could have been lost.
The 0-100 and 0-200 times of the SL shouldn't be controversial. Are they?
Where the SL 55 seems to have a large comparative advantage seems to be between 200 and 300. I am not technically educated so please correct me if i say something stupid. At these speeds the weight of the car becomes much less important than aerodynamics so the weight of the SL shouldn't be such a big factor anymore? correct? And the large aerodynamic advantage it has should start to play a bigger role. The drag coefficient of the GT2 is 18% higher than the SLs(and it has approx. the same frontal area) and the Murcielagos(that has a 0,33 when standing still but 0,36 when pushed and the rear nostrils and rear wing are extended) is 24% higher(the frontal area of the 23cm wider and 16cm lower Murcielago should be the same or marginally lower than that of the SL). The automatic gearbox of the SL only needs to change gears once or twice between 200 and 300 so the loss of time using the numbers above should be 0,2 to 0,4 second out of the 18,8 seconds. That the more power full SL and much more aerodynamic SL should be much faster than the GT2 between 200 and 300 doesn't seem strange does it? The large aerodynamic advantage should mean that it's comparative advantage should be at higher speeds and according to the test data it is so. If it had a very large power advantage over the GT2 shouldn't it have pulled away before 200 and not sometimes after that speed?
Sl 55 200-300 in 18,8 seconds
Murcielago 200-300 in 22,8 seconds
These are the only numbers that makes me think "Can this really be correct? Is the SL really faster than the Lamborghini?" Is it possible that the Lamborghini(4th,5th and 6th seems very close) driver needs to shift gears three times between 200 and 300 and that the Mercedes gearbox only once and that this could explain part of the diffrence? Could this in combination with a 24% higher wind resistance and only a 22% hp advantage and lower torque be the explanation?