Xeon

Hmm..have been reading a lot of racing stories, but any of you guys in C230 coupe raced a SLK 230 before? or any SLK 230 raced a Coupe? Those 2 cars share the same engine, and should be pretty tight...any idea how the result will be, if the skills of thr drivers are the same?

Mike T.

Based upon specifications, the SLK should clean up - it is about 150 kg (330 lbs) lighter and has a smaller frontal area. It's rated by M-B as being 0.7 seconds faster than the C 230 K from 0-100 km/h (old 5 speed model).

Perhaps the C Sportcoupé would have an advantage at high speeds due to better aerodynamics, but that point is moot in North America, as the C is limited to 210 km/h whereas the SLK is not.

Black230

In my household we have both my C230 and my aunt's SLK 230 and I can say that both seem about the same. THe SLK seems quicker off the line due to it's smaller size and weight reduction but somehow loses pep at hgigher speeds where the C-COupe seems to cut through the wind like knife through butter at anything above 65 mph

Secondly, I don't think my aunt will be willing to drag race me :-)

Xeon

i myself has a slk230 in malaysia....same blue color!...haha..but i can't compare them because of the vast difference in road condition, and also, i can't really remember the performance....

but i think..from my experience....the slk really does accelerate faster.....also...at high speed..it is less stable then the coupe...cos of the weight?...but...i reached higher speed in the slk then the coupe....maybe cos of the limiter?

vadim

Mike, with a 5-speed tranny the Coupe's 0-100 time would also be lower

KJ-TypeR

But overall, the 6-speed is faster. (I know Vadim knew this, I'm just finishing his point off)

I don't care about 0-100 times as much as 1/4 mile times.

If I drag race someone, it definitely doesn't end at 100 km/h.

viper

SLK versus C230K would be very close depending on the skill of the driver. Since the two vehicles share the same powertrain I imagine a lot of SLK owners were complaining to MB about the huge price differential. Which also makes it easier to justify sticking the 1.8 engine in the coupe for 2003. I believe the SLK retains the 2.3 engine for 2003.

Mike T.

I got the figures in my previous post from a 1999 Canadian market SLK brochure, and the figure I listed was for the 5 speed manual transmission. But the Automatic 0-100 km/h time is the same.

According to www.mercedes-benz.de, the current SLK indeed still has the 2.3 L engine and of course is available with the 6 speed manual. That version is a tick quicker than the 5 speed manual was, according to M-B: 0-100 km/h is now rated at 7.2 s for the manual SLK; the auto is still at 7.3.

The Cd figures for the cars are:
0.34 SLK
0.29 C Sportcoupé

Apparently the weights of the vehicles are closer than I suggested last night:
1500 kg C Sportcoupé
1385 kg SLK

Top speeds of both models are rated at 240 km/h, presumably the lower frontal area of the SLK compensating for its worse Cd.

So it's clear that the SLK would have a perceptible advantage over the C 230 K at the lower speed ranges, and if the C 230 K ever catches up to the SLK in rate of acceleration at higher speeds, it'd be too far behind to matter.

The difference will be even more accentuated with the advent of the new 1.8 L C 230 K, which is nearly a full second slower from 0-100 km/h. It makes me wonder when the SLK will be getting the same 1.8 L engine. Surely it does not make economic sense for Mercedes-Benz to keep the old iron block 2.3 L engine in production just for one model.

benggolf

the C32 Coupe is coming soon!

viper

MB could easily keep the 2.3 in production exclusively for the SLK since the the SLK is a more profitable vehicle. Don't be surprised if the 2003 SLK re-design has the 2.3 in some modified form.