SLK/R171: I need advice
03-06-2006, 07:48 PM
#1
Almost a Member!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I need advice
After 12 years in my career and now in my VERY early 40's, I find myself in the position where I can finally afford a nice roadster. This being my long time dream, I find myself in a quagmire of decisions. I started my search looking at the Boxster. I have always wanted a Porsche, but the boxster has a rep for being the modern 914: A porsche for those who cant afford a Porsche. This is when I found the SLK series. So now I have been looking hard at the SLK 280 (I dont need the speed of the 350). My lease on my old car will end in about 60 days so I went and did a test drive this weekend. I HATED the automatic tranny! Anyways, as I said I can afford the SLK but I find myself wondering if the car is worth 46K. Why, other than prestige and a bit sharper looking, is the SLK a better choice than the $10k cheaper Honda S2000? The S2000 has more HP (again not that big of a concern) and is far cheaper to repair if something goes wrong. Maybe I am asking you to warm my cold feet here but do your best to educate me.
03-06-2006, 08:40 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: ivyland,pa
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
slk 350
Vario roof, vario roof, vario roof, Mercedes three pointed star, more dynamic design, slightly nicer interior(imo) = $ 10,000. You decide. I have the 350 with the "manual" and love the car. I'm sure I would love the s-2000 too, but the roof did it for me. And if I got the s-2000, I would be just driving a "Honda". Call me vain.
03-06-2006, 08:48 PM
#3
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55///AMG The MONSTER on the block
Originally Posted by Crosis
After 12 years in my career and now in my VERY early 40's, I find myself in the position where I can finally afford a nice roadster. This being my long time dream, I find myself in a quagmire of decisions. I started my search looking at the Boxster. I have always wanted a Porsche, but the boxster has a rep for being the modern 914: A porsche for those who cant afford a Porsche. This is when I found the SLK series. So now I have been looking hard at the SLK 280 (I dont need the speed of the 350). My lease on my old car will end in about 60 days so I went and did a test drive this weekend. I HATED the automatic tranny! Anyways, as I said I can afford the SLK but I find myself wondering if the car is worth 46K. Why, other than prestige and a bit sharper looking, is the SLK a better choice than the $10k cheaper Honda S2000? The S2000 has more HP (again not that big of a concern) and is far cheaper to repair if something goes wrong. Maybe I am asking you to warm my cold feet here but do your best to educate me.
Honda makes great vehicle. However, there's no comparison in my opinion between the SLK and the Honda 2000. The 2000 looks like an old Austin Healey. The SLK is a beautiful, refined, unique vehicle. Is the SLK 280 worth $46k? The vario roof probably adds $10-$12k. Yes, it's worth it and you see so few of them on the road. They're exclusive. I considered a Audi TT vert. Could have saved $15,000. Cute car but it looks like a square box compared to the SLK. The old technology manual folding fabric top sucks, period. Very few cars compare to the SLK.
Last edited by -1-; 03-06-2006 at 09:02 PM.
03-06-2006, 08:53 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Virginia USA
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55///AMG The MONSTER on the block
Originally Posted by bmwnomore
Vario roof, vario roof, vario roof, Mercedes three pointed star, more dynamic design, slightly nicer interior(imo) = $ 10,000. You decide. I have the 350 with the "manual" and love the car. I'm sure I would love the s-2000 too, but the roof did it for me. And if I got the s-2000, I would be just driving a "Honda". Call me vain.
BMWNOMORE - I was posting my reply as you were posting yours. Similar response, must be true.
03-06-2006, 08:58 PM
#5
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SF CA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 SLK55 AMG, del Sol VTEC
I was in the same situation last year. I had always wanted a high performance roadster, and got to a point where I could have any car I wanted within reason (i.e., no Zondas and such).
My other car (which I still have and still love) is a Honda del Sol VTEC, the predecessor to the S2000. While the S2000 is a better car than the del Sol in just about every respect, they are spiritually similar. Two things about the Honda made me choose the SLK55: once you go hard-top convertible, you can't go back; athough Honda engines are technological marvels, they don't make any power until you wind them way up, and never make much torque. Low End Power + High Torque + Hard Top Convertible = SLK55.
The S2000 handles better than the SLK, has a better gearbox, and the interior is about 80% as nice. However, if you want power and refinement, the SLK is the way to go. If you want ultimate handling, then an MX-5 or an Elise would be a better choice than the S2000. Actually, come to think about it, I think the Elise dominates the S2000 in every respect (except maybe for reliability and safety).
There are several frequent posters on the other forum (some of whom hang out in the R171AMG forum here) who went from S2000s to SLK55s. You might ask them.
My other car (which I still have and still love) is a Honda del Sol VTEC, the predecessor to the S2000. While the S2000 is a better car than the del Sol in just about every respect, they are spiritually similar. Two things about the Honda made me choose the SLK55: once you go hard-top convertible, you can't go back; athough Honda engines are technological marvels, they don't make any power until you wind them way up, and never make much torque. Low End Power + High Torque + Hard Top Convertible = SLK55.
The S2000 handles better than the SLK, has a better gearbox, and the interior is about 80% as nice. However, if you want power and refinement, the SLK is the way to go. If you want ultimate handling, then an MX-5 or an Elise would be a better choice than the S2000. Actually, come to think about it, I think the Elise dominates the S2000 in every respect (except maybe for reliability and safety).
There are several frequent posters on the other forum (some of whom hang out in the R171AMG forum here) who went from S2000s to SLK55s. You might ask them.
03-06-2006, 10:27 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ SLK
SLK, hands down. I have three friends who owns a S2000, has a better gearbox and handles better and that's about it. Everybody thinks my SLK cost 4X mores than the S2000. You get alot more "oohhh and ahhhs" than the S2000. Even my friends think my SLK is better than their S2000 but they don't have the money to spend on a SLK. You will get a lot more respect with the SLK. And the hard-top is second to none.
03-06-2006, 10:43 PM
#7
Almost a Member!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The one I test drove had fine handling. I dont think that part is going to be a concern for me. When you say the S2000 has a better gearbox, what do you mean? Is there any known problems with the manual 6-speed on the SLK?
Trending Topics
03-06-2006, 10:53 PM
#8
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: mymbonline
Posts: 4,276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mymbonline
Originally Posted by Crosis
The one I test drove had fine handling. I dont think that part is going to be a concern for me. When you say the S2000 has a better gearbox, what do you mean? Is there any known problems with the manual 6-speed on the SLK?
i havent driven a slk w/ a stick but i drove a s200 and that box has to be one of the best ever, if not the best.
he's talking about feel, etc... not quality
03-07-2006, 01:23 AM
#10
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Look, I know this is a MB forum but here's the truth:
* If you wanted a Boxster you should get one - MB does not make a car that can do what the Boxster S can do (or the Cayman S). There is no question about that. The Boxster will outperform any MB in all aspects - it may not be faster from 0 to 60 (or whatever speed) but in all-around performance it will outperform a Benz. It is one of the very best handling cars made. It has a chassis and steering feel and brakes that are in supercar territory.
* The Honda S2000 is an excellent sports car - very very good car especially for the money. It will handle with a Boxster but the brakes aren't as good and it has very low torque. It's fun to drive if you know how to keep the revs up high (which is where its torque/power is). The S2000 is the bargain of the bunch. It's the smallest of the three inside.
* The SLK is an excellent car. The SLK55 is a fast excellent car. But it will not handle as well as the Boxster S (or Cayman S). I love the car but they're not the same - not at all and for most people that's really OK. The SLK is a great car for most people. If you want a car that handles like almost nothing else and has balance and incredible steering feel and outstanding brakes, get the Boxster S. If you want a car that can cruise (tour) with the best of them and put the top down while offering hardtop quiet and comfort, get the SLK.
Drive 'em all and decide what you really want. They're all great but they do different things well. Good luck!
* If you wanted a Boxster you should get one - MB does not make a car that can do what the Boxster S can do (or the Cayman S). There is no question about that. The Boxster will outperform any MB in all aspects - it may not be faster from 0 to 60 (or whatever speed) but in all-around performance it will outperform a Benz. It is one of the very best handling cars made. It has a chassis and steering feel and brakes that are in supercar territory.
* The Honda S2000 is an excellent sports car - very very good car especially for the money. It will handle with a Boxster but the brakes aren't as good and it has very low torque. It's fun to drive if you know how to keep the revs up high (which is where its torque/power is). The S2000 is the bargain of the bunch. It's the smallest of the three inside.
* The SLK is an excellent car. The SLK55 is a fast excellent car. But it will not handle as well as the Boxster S (or Cayman S). I love the car but they're not the same - not at all and for most people that's really OK. The SLK is a great car for most people. If you want a car that handles like almost nothing else and has balance and incredible steering feel and outstanding brakes, get the Boxster S. If you want a car that can cruise (tour) with the best of them and put the top down while offering hardtop quiet and comfort, get the SLK.
Drive 'em all and decide what you really want. They're all great but they do different things well. Good luck!
03-07-2006, 02:39 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: North UK
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK55 AMG, BMW X5 3.0d Sport
OK, Well I guess I'm in a good position to answer this one as I have had an S2000, SLK350 and just latterley purchased an SLK55. I was also 40 last week !
The S2000 has the most amazing gearbox and engine, delivering a great rush or top end power. The roof is noisy when up, the car has no driver aids and in the rain the lack of traction control can be frightening. Hugely reliable Japanese car. It is however very plastic in comparison with the SLK.
The SLK has the most amazing roof, think of the car as a tin top with the rigidity that the roof brings, it has great torsional stiffness with the roof isdown as well. As the car is viewed as a tin top the residual values are less seasonal. Outstanding mercedes quality with a great feel to the interior. The 350 is only just marginally quicker than the 280 and is the smart car to buy for the best residual. The residual of the 350 has been affected since the 280 was launched. If you are like me tho, the biggest regret would be not buying a 55 (Used if it helps ur budget). Its not a top speed thing as they are all limited anyway, but the torque and sound of the 55 is a life changing experience. Just unbelievable...but auto only
Not sure if this helps,but when I had my S2000 I thought nothing would touch it, I've moved on now.....
The S2000 has the most amazing gearbox and engine, delivering a great rush or top end power. The roof is noisy when up, the car has no driver aids and in the rain the lack of traction control can be frightening. Hugely reliable Japanese car. It is however very plastic in comparison with the SLK.
The SLK has the most amazing roof, think of the car as a tin top with the rigidity that the roof brings, it has great torsional stiffness with the roof isdown as well. As the car is viewed as a tin top the residual values are less seasonal. Outstanding mercedes quality with a great feel to the interior. The 350 is only just marginally quicker than the 280 and is the smart car to buy for the best residual. The residual of the 350 has been affected since the 280 was launched. If you are like me tho, the biggest regret would be not buying a 55 (Used if it helps ur budget). Its not a top speed thing as they are all limited anyway, but the torque and sound of the 55 is a life changing experience. Just unbelievable...but auto only
Not sure if this helps,but when I had my S2000 I thought nothing would touch it, I've moved on now.....
03-07-2006, 06:14 AM
#12
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: WB NC
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote from my buddy who has a brand new Boxter S last Sunday Afternoon" I wish Porsche had a fold down hard top" With that said I think MB has a nice "overall package" and is nothing to be ashamed of. The key to getting the MB is get it with the options you want and the color combo as well. It will keep you happy for a long time and based on everybody's feedback be reliable as well.
03-07-2006, 06:53 AM
#13
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
Some reviews have pitted the SLK 55 against a Boxster S, and the SLK won...
But it really depends on driver feel and what you use it for.
Your life long dream has been to own a Porsche. Well, go with the Porsche. Hey, you could get a second hand convertible 911 for the price of a Boxster! And Porches seem to be relatively reliable these days, so you surely won't be disappointed.
The S2000 is also a wonderful car because it has qualities few other cars can touch.
And finally, the SLK is good for its own reasons as well. The vario roof makes it the quietest convertible around.
I've driven all three cars, and I own an SLK 55 for a reason.
There are people who have driven all three cars, and own an S2000 or a Boxster instead. Preferences are just that, go drive 'em all, and then make up your mind. Buy the car you feel most at one with.
But it really depends on driver feel and what you use it for.
Your life long dream has been to own a Porsche. Well, go with the Porsche. Hey, you could get a second hand convertible 911 for the price of a Boxster! And Porches seem to be relatively reliable these days, so you surely won't be disappointed.
The S2000 is also a wonderful car because it has qualities few other cars can touch.
And finally, the SLK is good for its own reasons as well. The vario roof makes it the quietest convertible around.
I've driven all three cars, and I own an SLK 55 for a reason.
There are people who have driven all three cars, and own an S2000 or a Boxster instead. Preferences are just that, go drive 'em all, and then make up your mind. Buy the car you feel most at one with.
03-07-2006, 08:01 AM
#15
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
06 SLK55 AMG Firemist/Blk
Originally Posted by Easy-SLK
OK, Well I guess I'm in a good position to answer this one as I have had an S2000, SLK350 and just latterley purchased an SLK55. I was also 40 last week !
The S2000 has the most amazing gearbox and engine, delivering a great rush or top end power. The roof is noisy when up, the car has no driver aids and in the rain the lack of traction control can be frightening. Hugely reliable Japanese car. It is however very plastic in comparison with the SLK.
The SLK has the most amazing roof, think of the car as a tin top with the rigidity that the roof brings, it has great torsional stiffness with the roof isdown as well. As the car is viewed as a tin top the residual values are less seasonal. Outstanding mercedes quality with a great feel to the interior. The 350 is only just marginally quicker than the 280 and is the smart car to buy for the best residual. The residual of the 350 has been affected since the 280 was launched. If you are like me tho, the biggest regret would be not buying a 55 (Used if it helps ur budget). Its not a top speed thing as they are all limited anyway, but the torque and sound of the 55 is a life changing experience. Just unbelievable...but auto only
Not sure if this helps,but when I had my S2000 I thought nothing would touch it, I've moved on now.....
The S2000 has the most amazing gearbox and engine, delivering a great rush or top end power. The roof is noisy when up, the car has no driver aids and in the rain the lack of traction control can be frightening. Hugely reliable Japanese car. It is however very plastic in comparison with the SLK.
The SLK has the most amazing roof, think of the car as a tin top with the rigidity that the roof brings, it has great torsional stiffness with the roof isdown as well. As the car is viewed as a tin top the residual values are less seasonal. Outstanding mercedes quality with a great feel to the interior. The 350 is only just marginally quicker than the 280 and is the smart car to buy for the best residual. The residual of the 350 has been affected since the 280 was launched. If you are like me tho, the biggest regret would be not buying a 55 (Used if it helps ur budget). Its not a top speed thing as they are all limited anyway, but the torque and sound of the 55 is a life changing experience. Just unbelievable...but auto only
Not sure if this helps,but when I had my S2000 I thought nothing would touch it, I've moved on now.....
03-07-2006, 09:11 AM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 1,174
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ SLK
Originally Posted by Crosis
The one I test drove had fine handling. I dont think that part is going to be a concern for me. When you say the S2000 has a better gearbox, what do you mean? Is there any known problems with the manual 6-speed on the SLK?
03-07-2006, 01:35 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: SF CA
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 SLK55 AMG, del Sol VTEC
Originally Posted by MagicMtnDan
Really? I'd like to see them - please post links.
http://tinyurl.com/r7zqq
Sports Car International magazine July 2005 Issue
Couldn't find it online
