SLK/R171: SLK350 vs S2000
MB has always made small and cheap cars in Europe, like A class and such... and it always has been a special brand. It's just that they don't want to bring those smaller Benz to America as they see no market for these McDonald's-Eating-Fat-Americans.
its a much more timeless design and has a smoother look giving it a european beauty simple yet elegant lines. The SLK is a nice design too but it has alot more flaws then the Boxster namely the nose and the amg kit on the front makes the car look even worse.
And finally, what flaws? majority of people will say the AMG kit will bring the true beauty of this car. may be you looked at some other kit rather than AMG.
no hate here. believe me i love those porsches too. as matter of fact, i fell in love when i sat in 997 last week.
my 2cents...
anyways, if i am comparing Slk with S2000, I'll choose SLK hands down.
Last edited by termigni; Feb 7, 2005 at 12:16 PM.
You folks have been fortunate to run into pleasant ones.
Couple years ago, my wife and I went into a LA dealership. We had just spent most of a day at Pasadena volunteering at the RoseParade float decorations and therefore dressed in grubby wares. Since my wife at that time was looking for a SUV, and we were looking at whether a ML or X5, we visited this DownTownLA MB dealer. Got the most cold and rude treatment. There were tons of sales people on the floor and no one wanted to help. After corning a very relunctant sales person, and asked to take one for a test drive, the response was ... all the MLs are sold or reserved by other customers.
We went out and bought a X5 that same day.
i ended up selling my s4 after 5 months of horrible experience (from both audi and the dealer)
I've always wanted to drive an S2000 and I hear they are soo much fun to drive. I love the SLK but without driving the S2K, it won't be anything more than a biased opinion. I think the S2K just has that amazing simple yet hot japanese style to it. The SLK has a really unique look compared to other roadsters you see on the roads. Also, the comparison is all based on the desire for a convertible. If I was in the market for a convertible, I would probably want to drive it with the roof off as much as possible, and the fact that the SLK has AIRSCARF only drives one towards the car that will give a more improved enjoyment of top-down driving. It's as if it's no longer an apple-to-apple comparison.
Had this been the R170 vs. S2K, I would have chosen the S2K for sure! There are enough goodies about the S2K that would eliminate the desire for a hardtop.
...of course, this is ALL just an opinion...
The only way to really compare 2 vehicles is to set looks aside and other factors that are generally opinionated, because you can never reach an absolute group consensus if you base everything on these types of factors. Opinions vary from person to person, but there are certain properties that stay the same. For example, price. If you are on a budget and purchase solely based on price, it's obvious the cheaper car wins. This is the kind of thing that can't be argued.
So instead you have to look at it's purpose. Why are we buying this car?
Some would purchase for:
-performance
-luxury
-comfortability
-practicality
-price
-reliability
-modifiability (is this a real word?)
-alternative to what we already drive
...more...
It all depends on the buyer. I know you've already made the purchase, but maybe this will help future buyers?? Ask yourself why you're purchasing this car and maybe try to rank it in order of importance. This usually helps me when trying to decide.
The minute you throw in things like style and looks, the arguments will go on for hours about which is the better car (and anything else in life).
Last edited by B4TM4N; Mar 14, 2007 at 07:00 PM.



