SLK55AMG

That makes sense...... have you considered running costs for both? how do they match up? Over here in the UK the Merc would cost me a lot more to run due to more frequent service interval but mainly due to extra fuel costs.

We are currently paying $7/US Gallon so it costs me $100 to fill up!!!!!

lisamcgu

Gosh! Here in HB, CA, we are an oil town, so we get a break on gas prices at some of the local pumps, and yet I still complain about gas prices - I won't anymore!!!

phoenix55

I was in a similar situation, deciding between a 987S or a 55. I had a Boxster 2.7 for the last 5 years, and I was very happy with it. When it was time to change, a 987S was the obvious choice, so I tested it. Unfortenately , I had a test drive in a SLK55, and then, the 987S did not have the same magic anymore. Somehow, it did not feel so special as the original Boxster. Better, faster, more refined, and better handling (just!), but not for a great margin, specially compared the the "jump" to the SLK55.

For my money, the SLK55 is the better car, the speed, the noise, the exclusiveness, are second to none. The 987S is a great car, but after the last 5 years, I wanted something...better! The 987S is better, but the SLK55 is better in a different order of magnitude IMHO.

I also had some problems with the Porsche styling (I was probably the only one that prefered the old one, but it is a personal opinion), the design of the interior (actually, I should have said lack of design!, IMHO) and extermely arrogant dealerships (experience in 4 different ones in 3 countries, and I think is some kind of Porsche corporate standard! They are not enthusiat focused, rather nouveau rich focused)

I don't pretend to start a flame war, I just think that choosing a car is a personal decision, and the factors to consider have different weights for each person. Therefore, lap times, horsepower figures, etc. are just telling part of the story to different people. Just buy the one that makes you happier.

IdriveFast

o really now?!?!?!

SLK55AMG

Read the previous few posts.....

cntlaw

Damn, it is not going to be your last car.
It is tasteless to buy two SLK in a row.
Go for the Boxter S NOW, feel what it is like, play it for a year or two
Sell it and get the SLK63 new V8 410hp; or you might even stay with Porsche forever! A 997 Turbo will be cool.
I am going to sell my C55 and move to a E90 or a GTI for a yr or two;
then I will move to 2006 Cayman, 2006/7 M3 E90, or a 2007 W204 AMG V8.

cnt

pazu

i think most of the members here got the same qestion before they decided to go for the slk55......

GREAT POSTS ...THX

benz-aficionado

Track-Challenge is the biggest waste of time website I have ever seen. You get these 13 year olds from VW Vortex always quoting stupidity about how M3's beat everything from SLK's to Enzos. The fact is that none of these cars are raced against eachother, never tested on the same days by which temperature and humidity differences grossly affect performance, and finally the M3 and the Boxster are these peoples wet dream, so they always win.

The SLK 55 handles nearly as well as a boxster S on the track. 99% of the people buying these cars drive them on the road not the track. On the road the SLK 55 will get from A to B faster every time. I don't care how many turns are in between, that 1 second difference from "track challenge" is irrelevent on the street and is more than made up for by the SLK's 1 second 0-60 advantage, 2 second rolling start advantage, 2 second quarter mile advantage, and 6 second top gear 80-120mph advantage.

One of these cars is a perfomance car, do you know which one it is?

The SLK 55 is far more comparable to a Porsche 997. It's power, it's speed, and it's handling. While the boxster hasn't changed much this year, Benz put the SLK in an entirely diiferent league. The boxster's closest competitor's are the Z4, Miata, and S2000 - not the SLK 55.

SLK55AMG

The information found on track challenge is every bit as valid as 0-60 or 1/4 mile figures found in magazines...... conditions are never the same for these sorts of tests so they are only a guide.

And as for track times being irrelevant I guess thats down to personal opinions..... to me a track time is much more revealing than a straight line acceleration test, a track time gives you some idea of the overall capabilities of a car rather than just how quick it is between stop lights.

If the SLK55 and Boxster S were racing on track I'd suspect the AMG would win...... its superior speed in the straights would get it in front and then it would hold up the Boxster in the corners.

benz-aficionado

So getting around the track 1 second faster is worth giving up a V8 with all that power?

Based on that logic, a Lotus Elise would have been an even better choice over the boxster s. With a couple grand in mods, you'll beat an F430 around the track. I can name quite a few cars that will out track a boxster s for even less money. The boxster was never meant to be a track star, it was meant to be a great roadster - and it is, but...

People can make up every excuse in the book, bottom line: the boxster s should have more power.

steve-p

The best thing about the SLK55 is that it isn't a Boxster. They are ten a penny round here.

superduper

SLK55 ///AMG all the way!!!! To me, Porsche = old man

SLK55AMG

Who said anything about buying a track car? If I was after a track car I wouldn't have a Boxster S either (nor the AMG)...... we all choose a car based on certain criteria...... when I made my decision between the 987S and the SLK55 the Porsche won, the fact that its 6 seconds quicker (8:18 Vs 8:24) round the ring than the AMG was very low on my list of criteria but it did contribute to the final choice....... bigger things like lease costs, depreciation, luggage space, handling, how good the gearbox is etc. were the major factors for me.

The SLK55 is a fantastic car but the gearbox ruined it for me..... if it had a manual I would probably be driving one now.

How much more power do you think the Boxster should have?..... it wouldn't take much to match the AMG in a straight line.

jmejones

The last 5 years the Boxer has lost out to a my C5, SL Brabus, 2004 Viper SRT and now the 2005 SLK55. I just can't seem to get over the girlie quotient I feel when I sat in the Boxer or looked at others in it. I loved the handling. I just didn't feel like it captured enough brut strength in the car I wanted. Part of the reason, I got rid of the SL. Poor handling.

I must say if you add up my last 3 cars and keep the best things, throw out the bad, you would get the 55. It's a perfect blend:
- Hard top conv.
- exotic car power
- nimble handling
- rich, cutting edge looks
- Ferrari quickness

All this for less than I paid for the last 2 cars I've had...as you can tell I'm a happy camper.

steve-p

Unfortunately, even if it had 1000 bhp, it would still be just another Boxster to me.

SLK55AMG

Thats a fair comment...... there are loads of Boxsters around (I'm in London) but I still don't see many of the new shape so mine is rare and common at the same time!

On the other hand my car is parked on the street so its a little less obvious than the AMG...... we have lots of cars stollen to order round here so (touch wood) an AMG would be more of a target than a Boxster.

Juke-box

how did that happen? I live in Canada, and i bought my SLK 350 with Amg package and a bunch of options and it came out to 92,000 CDN including tax. When i went to price a boxstere S, it was over 100,000 with similar specs. There's a big difference, as my car is not even a 55. But the price i paid is about 10k more than the base price of the 55.

But you have very valid arguements, and i would have bounced for the boxster if it wasn't for horrid Canadian winters, and the fact that when i bought my car, the new boxster wasn't out yet.

anyways, for the chap that is considering the 2, i would say go with the Boxster, as it is a Porsche, and you already have a Mercedes. why not try something new? the new Boxsters are very nice and improvements on the interior are good too. but you might miss the trunk and room in the SLK compared to the Boxster.

SLK55AMG

Doesn't the Boxster have more trunk space than the SLK when its roof is down? If I remember correctly the Boxster and SLK have 280 litres trunk space when the SLK has its roof up but around 70 litres less with it down?

Juke-box

oops...maybe you're right.

but somehow when i went to the dealer to look at the trunk, the slk seemed to have more roon than the boxster. and my golf clubs barely fit into the slk.

SLK55AMG

Apologies..... I was nearly right..... now that I've found my old SLK brochure it has 300 litres with roof up (with tirefit option) and 208 with it lowered. Assuming that the tirefit option is something that means you don't carry a spare wheel I'd guess that anyone without that option would loose 20 litres making it the same as the Boxster again.

The SLK trunk space is all in one chunk (Boxster has two trunks) so its probably more versatile but the Boxster benefits from not having to worry whats in the trunk when you drop the roof.

bloflin

?, on the SLK you don't have to "worry", if the "cover" is not in place, the top won't lower.

Or did you mean, worry about getting something big (but fits) back out, with the top still down?

Bux

at the end the boxster owner is going to feel like a ***** when the slk55 smokes him

slvrstar

with the new f1 body design of the slk, no doubt that i'll get the slk.

Bux

especially with the nurburgring suspension option

Juke-box

you'd have to be hardcore to get that option, as i'm sure it will cost as much as my left nut, furthermore, the AMG suspension is already stiff for daily driving. i would not consider having other suspension setups if you are going for 'daily driveability' and never tracking it. The boxster handles better just b/c it is more car that the slk imho.