Which one is better. slk 32 or the slk 55?
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
From: los angeles
2006 s2000
Which one is better. slk 32 or the slk 55?
Me and my friend with a slk 32 were debating which one was better the slk 32 or the new slk 55. I have my own thoughts but I would like to hear what other people are thinking.
slk 32 V6/kompressor Vs
slk 55 V8/NA
slk 32 V6/kompressor Vs
slk 55 V8/NA
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 828
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
SLK32
Define 'better'.
The steering in the R171 is better than in the R170. The interior ergonomics are better in the R171 but feel much cheaper.
The R171 blends into the background much more than the R170.
We will have to see performance wise. In both cases traction is going to be a big issue, more so in the SLK55 with its greater torque. From a standing start it will be all about the driver. If I find an SLK55 that beats me I will just have to order a chip & pulley.
The steering in the R171 is better than in the R170. The interior ergonomics are better in the R171 but feel much cheaper.
The R171 blends into the background much more than the R170.
We will have to see performance wise. In both cases traction is going to be a big issue, more so in the SLK55 with its greater torque. From a standing start it will be all about the driver. If I find an SLK55 that beats me I will just have to order a chip & pulley.
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
I thought it was interesting that manufacturers quoted 0-60 was slightly faster for the 32 (at 4.8 seconds) and 4.9 seconds for the 55. When I heard that figure, that relieved me because that was my only concern about the new model, that is might kick the old model's rear in terms of the 0-60 performance (own a 2004 '32)
Again, defining 'better' is a personal judgment.
For me, I love the old dials...reminds me of my uncles old SL
Love that its 1/10 of a second faster
Like that it is bare bones, few gimmicks, very 'basic' car -- technology wise
Don't like the new electronics appearance because its very 'C-class'
BUT, I know there are advantages to the newer model...1/3 more trunk space. Funky top drop a la new SL. That Airscarf sounds cool. The new gadgetry provides much, much more information than the old 32 which is very basic. There are a lot more options, DVD nav, remote roof, better stearing/seat memory/adjustment. The wheelbase is longer, the vehicle is larger, so there is more room (I'm right at the edge of comfort being on the tall side).
Its a tossup in reality. You could go both ways, it just boils down to bias at the end of the day (in my opinion).
For me, there is serious fear factor with buying a new model. My Dad did it with the S Class, I did it with the c coupe...mucho problemo.
Its such a tough call. I'm curious about the pricing of the SLK 55 though.
Again, defining 'better' is a personal judgment.
For me, I love the old dials...reminds me of my uncles old SL
Love that its 1/10 of a second faster
Like that it is bare bones, few gimmicks, very 'basic' car -- technology wise
Don't like the new electronics appearance because its very 'C-class'
BUT, I know there are advantages to the newer model...1/3 more trunk space. Funky top drop a la new SL. That Airscarf sounds cool. The new gadgetry provides much, much more information than the old 32 which is very basic. There are a lot more options, DVD nav, remote roof, better stearing/seat memory/adjustment. The wheelbase is longer, the vehicle is larger, so there is more room (I'm right at the edge of comfort being on the tall side).
Its a tossup in reality. You could go both ways, it just boils down to bias at the end of the day (in my opinion).
For me, there is serious fear factor with buying a new model. My Dad did it with the S Class, I did it with the c coupe...mucho problemo.
Its such a tough call. I'm curious about the pricing of the SLK 55 though.
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 828
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
SLK32
Don't put too much stock in MB's qouted accleration figures. They are usually conservative. The only real measure is to run an SLK32 against a SLK55. Of course 0-60 is only one measure how do they compare from say 20-70 or 50-90? These are more common occurences in the real world.
Newbie
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Berlin Germany
SLK 32 AMG
I struggle to see where the progress has been made between the SLK32AMG and SLK55AMG. The 32 is faster (0-100km/hr 4.8s vs 4.9s), has higher power to weight ratio (233 bhp/tonne vs 231 bhp/tonne), is more fuel efficient (average 11.2 l/100km vs 12.0 l/100km), has larger boot where it matters (with the roof up, 348 litres vs 300 litres) and most importantly, to my eyes has the more attractive and well balanced styling and wheel design. Where does the 55 score more highly? I think the interior looks more modern and attractive and I like the 4 exhaust tailpipes. On balance though, there is no chance I would be persuaded to part with my 3 year old 32 and £25 000 in order to have a new 55. There needed to be a quantum leap forward, as the new SL achieved over its previous model. Disappointingly, the new SLK just hasn't delivered this in my opinion.
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
From: LA
Uber 202
There's no replacement for displacement, the modified 320 motor is pretty much already tweeked. Not much more you can do to get big hp. You can get a few here and there, but thats about it. I'd take the n/a V8 and slap on a blower. Can you say 500hp beast? 
Trending Topics
Almost a Member!
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
From: Cheshire, UK
SLK55 AMG
Hi Folks!
I ain't really sure where you guys are coming from with 0-60mph figures!?! UK MB figures are as follows:
SLK32 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 5.2 secs
SLK55 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 4.9 secs
They are the official figures released in the UK. I'm sure both figures are lower in real life but from all accounts the SLK55 is definitely a quicker car than the SLK32.
I think both cars are excellent and both have different pro's and con's.
In my opinion you can only give a true judgement if you have driven both cars.
Best regards
Mark
I ain't really sure where you guys are coming from with 0-60mph figures!?! UK MB figures are as follows:
SLK32 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 5.2 secs
SLK55 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 4.9 secs
They are the official figures released in the UK. I'm sure both figures are lower in real life but from all accounts the SLK55 is definitely a quicker car than the SLK32.
I think both cars are excellent and both have different pro's and con's.
In my opinion you can only give a true judgement if you have driven both cars.
Best regards
Mark
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 828
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
SLK32
Originally Posted by MikeL
There's no replacement for displacement, the modified 320 motor is pretty much already tweeked. Not much more you can do to get big hp. You can get a few here and there, but thats about it. I'd take the n/a V8 and slap on a blower. Can you say 500hp beast?
Sure, slap a blower on the SLK55 and you will have more power, at what cost installed, $18k? Of course actually getting all that power to hook up will take lots of practice. I can spin the tires through the entire 1st gear if I want.
Newbie
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
From: San Diego, CA
2004 SLK32
Originally Posted by Marky-Mark
Hi Folks!
I ain't really sure where you guys are coming from with 0-60mph figures!?! UK MB figures are as follows:
SLK32 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 5.2 secs
SLK55 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 4.9 secs
I ain't really sure where you guys are coming from with 0-60mph figures!?! UK MB figures are as follows:
SLK32 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 5.2 secs
SLK55 AMG: 0-62.5mph = 4.9 secs
SLK55 AMG: 0~60 mph = 4.9 s listed on the MBUSA site
They are the official figures released in the UK. I'm sure both figures are lower in real life but from all accounts the SLK55 is definitely a quicker car than the SLK32.
I think both cars are excellent and both have different pro's and con's.
In my opinion you can only give a true judgement if you have driven both cars.
In my opinion you can only give a true judgement if you have driven both cars.
Super Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 802
Likes: 1
From: No specific place
SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by 430
Define 'better'.
The steering in the R171 is better than in the R170. The interior ergonomics are better in the R171 but feel much cheaper.
The R171 blends into the background much more than the R170.
We will have to see performance wise. In both cases traction is going to be a big issue, more so in the SLK55 with its greater torque. From a standing start it will be all about the driver. If I find an SLK55 that beats me I will just have to order a chip & pulley.
The steering in the R171 is better than in the R170. The interior ergonomics are better in the R171 but feel much cheaper.
The R171 blends into the background much more than the R170.
We will have to see performance wise. In both cases traction is going to be a big issue, more so in the SLK55 with its greater torque. From a standing start it will be all about the driver. If I find an SLK55 that beats me I will just have to order a chip & pulley.
i really dont like the R170, handling is not even close to a sport car feel, even the 32 , i bought a boxster S instead, loved it , as much as bmw M roadster, but still preffered the bmw
Super Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 828
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA
SLK32
I drove both the Porsche Boxster S and the BMW M Roadster. I loved the roadster, great fun car. The Boxster was fantastic also but needed some more grunt.
I prefered the M Roadster to the Boxster. But the SLK32 was purchased for a couple of reasons over both of those choices: 1) Hard Top, 2) The HP/Torque and 3) it was an automatic (not my choice but as a hard fought compromise with the wife).
The SLK32 is not a sports car nor is the SLK55, they are both GT's.
I prefered the M Roadster to the Boxster. But the SLK32 was purchased for a couple of reasons over both of those choices: 1) Hard Top, 2) The HP/Torque and 3) it was an automatic (not my choice but as a hard fought compromise with the wife).
The SLK32 is not a sports car nor is the SLK55, they are both GT's.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
From: Silicon Valley, CA
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 430
I drove both the Porsche Boxster S and the BMW M Roadster. I loved the roadster, great fun car. The Boxster was fantastic also but needed some more grunt.
I prefered the M Roadster to the Boxster. But the SLK32 was purchased for a couple of reasons over both of those choices: 1) Hard Top, 2) The HP/Torque and 3) it was an automatic (not my choice but as a hard fought compromise with the wife).
The SLK32 is not a sports car nor is the SLK55, they are both GT's.
I prefered the M Roadster to the Boxster. But the SLK32 was purchased for a couple of reasons over both of those choices: 1) Hard Top, 2) The HP/Torque and 3) it was an automatic (not my choice but as a hard fought compromise with the wife).
The SLK32 is not a sports car nor is the SLK55, they are both GT's.
The SLK55 (slightly modified) is the F1 Pace Car. It is a sports car, not a GT (like a Mustang, or a GTO, or Bently GT, etc). There is a difference.
-Matt
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 68
From: San Francisco, CA / Middlebury, CT
600 SWB
I generally agree...
The SLK32 is a great car with wonderful driveability. Its only drawback is that it lacked extreme road feel relative to M cars and Porsches. It is definitely a better day to day car than a track one. It has more than what most people will ever need as far as power and handling.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
From: Silicon Valley, CA
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 430
I won't argue with calling either a roadster. But they are not sports cars. A Mustang, GTO and Bently GT are even further from sports cars than the SLK.
I guess a drop top vert C6 Vette with an Auto is also, "not a sports car"? Insurance firms will beg to differ with the above position as well.
Pls enlighten us what characteristics of a sports car the new SLK55 lacks (I'd advise against mentioning a Tiptronic 7 Spd tranny since Ferraris & Porsches also employ these "controllable transmissions" - ergo shift points). I'm just curious - I've been around & owned multiple sports cars - your points should be interesting.
-Matt
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
From: Silicon Valley, CA
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 430
Check out the latest R&T review on the SLK55. The last paragraph or so agrees with my point that the SLK55 is not a sports car.
1) The R&T review is an SLK350, not the AMG SLK55.
2) The article reaffirms that even the 350 is a sports car
3) Here is the only reference to the SLK55,
"On sale in early 2005, you can expect Corvette-league performance from its successor, the SLK55 AMG, with 5.4 liters of whomping V-8 shoehorned beneath its hood."
The SLK55 is a sports car, a serious one to boot. I'm still waiting for you to post the attributes of the SLK55 which make it a "non sports car". Where are you getting this "non sports car" idea for the SLK55 - it makes no sense.
-Matt
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
From: Silicon Valley, CA
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by 430
Dec. 2004 R&T, pg. 37, last paragraph.
..."the SLK55 is not a sports car but a grand touring car, in the strictest sense of those words."
..."the SLK55 is not a sports car but a grand touring car, in the strictest sense of those words."
-Matt
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
C43, SLK32, CLK63 Black Series
I was very disappointed by the interior materials in an SLK350. The interior of doors look like painted pressed foam. The SLK55 may have different materials, I sure hope it does. The SLK55 is definitely larger than my '32 and I do like the ergonmics plus the ability to get a GPS. Also, the '55 has a true manual transmission mode and a less intrusive ESP/ASR system.
People talk about the lack of feed back from an SLK32 but that is easily remedied with spring and dampers and 18" wheels. My 32 is on the edge of communicating too much, I feel it if I run over a piece of paper. Also, the press never forgave MB for the SLK230 even when the 32 came out.
The '32 is easier/cheaper to modify but the '55 has more potential with the larger displacement. I think in a couple of years when the '55 has depreciated 10 to 15K, and it will, it will be pretty compelling. However, now you can get a '32 for mid to upper 30's, add 5K in mods (ecu, pulley, springs) and have a pretty sweet ride with almost 400 hp. A '55 is going to be 20-30K more optioned out.
I agree with those who said that you need to define better. Each has its strengths.
People talk about the lack of feed back from an SLK32 but that is easily remedied with spring and dampers and 18" wheels. My 32 is on the edge of communicating too much, I feel it if I run over a piece of paper. Also, the press never forgave MB for the SLK230 even when the 32 came out.
The '32 is easier/cheaper to modify but the '55 has more potential with the larger displacement. I think in a couple of years when the '55 has depreciated 10 to 15K, and it will, it will be pretty compelling. However, now you can get a '32 for mid to upper 30's, add 5K in mods (ecu, pulley, springs) and have a pretty sweet ride with almost 400 hp. A '55 is going to be 20-30K more optioned out.
I agree with those who said that you need to define better. Each has its strengths.
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 195
Likes: 26
From: Canada
The SLK32 is weak - LAST WEEK.
Out with the old and in with the NEW. The new car is clearly better is virtually all aspects.
Huge improvement in the 7-G tronic transmission - the SLK32 can't even come close here)
Huge improvement in handling - again not even close
Style/Design - it's a personal opinion but one thing is for sure - THIS CAR TURNS HEADS and causes JAWS to drop to the ground.
Engine - I personally think the SLK350's V6 is a better balanced engine for this car. Some tuning and it can definitely turn out to be a beast. If you compare the SLK350 with the SLK320 - Not even close, the new R171 beats the old model HANDS DOWN.
Out with the old and in with the NEW. The new car is clearly better is virtually all aspects.
Huge improvement in the 7-G tronic transmission - the SLK32 can't even come close here)
Huge improvement in handling - again not even close
Style/Design - it's a personal opinion but one thing is for sure - THIS CAR TURNS HEADS and causes JAWS to drop to the ground.
Engine - I personally think the SLK350's V6 is a better balanced engine for this car. Some tuning and it can definitely turn out to be a beast. If you compare the SLK350 with the SLK320 - Not even close, the new R171 beats the old model HANDS DOWN.
Super Member
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
From: UK
987S
Check out the following comparison of the two......
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=38%26Car2=84
Having driven both but not owning either I hope to be unbiased...... and my opinion is that the SLK55 AMG is light years ahead of the old SLK32...... the major difference is in the superior handling of the 55.
And who cares if its classed as a sports car or not...... it obviously IS one!
http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1=38%26Car2=84
Having driven both but not owning either I hope to be unbiased...... and my opinion is that the SLK55 AMG is light years ahead of the old SLK32...... the major difference is in the superior handling of the 55.
And who cares if its classed as a sports car or not...... it obviously IS one!
Junior Member
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
From: Rowlett, TX
SLK32 AMG Kleemann Custom
I want to agree with everyone.
One reason you redesign a car is to make it better......but my question is......The car is $12k more expensive than the SLK32 $67,000.
Not worth the money in my opinion. $58k and you can have a Corvette Z06 and there is no unmodded SLK that will touch it.
I currently have my car scheduled to go into Kleeman here in Tampa and have the Stage I (ECU, Pully....396 hp, 392 tq) Kit installed and will get the car back Friday for the long weekend for the 4th of July.
Let a SLK55 wanna play....they'll be doing nothing but looking at my bumper.
Also getting my stock AMG rims done. We are polishing the outer ring and powder coating the center spokes black to match the car.
My question to everyone is.......Would it be beneficial to upgrade the suspension?? How much better is a $2200.00 suspension compared to the AMG suspension??
I spoke with Renntech and they told me NOT to do the suspension......just looking for some opinions.
Thanx for listening and I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
One reason you redesign a car is to make it better......but my question is......The car is $12k more expensive than the SLK32 $67,000.
Not worth the money in my opinion. $58k and you can have a Corvette Z06 and there is no unmodded SLK that will touch it.
I currently have my car scheduled to go into Kleeman here in Tampa and have the Stage I (ECU, Pully....396 hp, 392 tq) Kit installed and will get the car back Friday for the long weekend for the 4th of July.
Let a SLK55 wanna play....they'll be doing nothing but looking at my bumper.
Also getting my stock AMG rims done. We are polishing the outer ring and powder coating the center spokes black to match the car.
My question to everyone is.......Would it be beneficial to upgrade the suspension?? How much better is a $2200.00 suspension compared to the AMG suspension??
I spoke with Renntech and they told me NOT to do the suspension......just looking for some opinions.
Thanx for listening and I can't wait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
