I'm happy they put "cheesey" Chrysler emblems on the XF... now i'm driving a brand new ~$55,000 (?) "Mercedes" but i only paid $24,500 from my local dealer!!!

And, to me, the XF is 100 times better looking than any SLK! Or C-class, or E, or even CLK for that matter. I would never buy a SLK because they are too small and, frankly, come off as a "chick car" to me... like a BMW Z3, Mini Cooper, or Mazda Miata... But, maybe that's just me.

But, i would love to have a:

SLR McLaren 5.4 V-8SC engine ($455,000) 0-60 in 3.6sec
E55 AMG 5.4 V-8SC engine ($76,720) 0-60 in 4.2sec
CLK55 AMG 5.4 V-8 engine ($79,400) 0-60 in 4.8sec
C55 AMG 5.4 V-8 engine ($54,620) 0-60 in 4.9sec

Serious stock performance! All conversions would be faster than a stock SRT-6 (4.9sec), because the XF is lighter than all the above Mercedes models.

Is anyone else besides me wondering how there is such a massive difference in performance (price too) between the E55 and SLR when both have the "same" engines?!? Can the E55 simply be chipped & tuned to match the SLR's dyno numbers?

I wonder what a turn-key C55 AMG 5.4 V-8 engine lists as? And, how much the Super Charger conversion that the E55 has adapted would cost? Also, curious what the warranty numbers are for these factory Mercedes engines?

How much heavier are the V-8 engines? How much heavier is the new SLK?
a.) car weight?
b.) engine weight

new SLK350 3.5 V-6 engine ($53,325) 0-60 in 5.4sec

Looking at the numbers, the 5.4 V-8 seems like the "economical" (tongue in cheek) choice for a conversion. The possibility of adding the stock Mercedes Super Charger, and also the possibility that the engine may be even further tuned (as evidenced by the SLR's performance numbers) make the conversion extremely intriguing. Not to mention the factory engine warranty! I believe Mercedes has a considerable mileage/year warranty.

But, would a heavier V-8 really hurt the driving feel of the XF as compared to a lighter V-6? Probably not, huh?

Intriguing, nevertheless...