SLK55AMG

No just that the Boxster roof has no affect on storage space so you don't have to even think about what you have in the trunk, or whether the cover is in place..... you can also go shopping and use all the storage space AND still have the roof down on the way home.

benz-aficionado

The boxster s has 236 ft/lbs of torque, while the SLK55 has 376 ft/lbs - that is a difference of 140 ft/lbs. Factor in the SLK's extra gear and you begin to realize that the boxster s needs alot more power to match the SLK's performance.

SLK55AMG

Yep to even get close to the torque the Box would need a 5 litre lump instead of its 3.2...... but that would result in a much heavier car that wouldn't handle as well.

On the power front the Boxster S would only need an extra 35BHP to match the SLK55s power to weight ratio...... unfortunately that would put it right in 911 teritory so Porsche will never do it unless in the form of a limited edition RS lightweight.

mtimmy

I would go for the 987s ....

btw... comparing them... one is the very BASE model of the Porsche

and the other one is the TOP of the line AMG version of Mercedes

they never can be fair.. to compare against each other...

I've own all 986, 996, R170 ....before, once you are in a porsche., you could never want to get out from it....

........ sooooooo I would vote for boxster

NateDawg

"A Boxster is like a Porsche with panties" - Ralphy - departed capo in The Sopranos

First, no disrespect to the Porsche Boxster. Granted, I don't think the boxster is a "porsche with panties" per se, but I understand what Ralphy (may he rest in peace) is saying. If you are going to get a porsche, I think the only car you buy is a 911 - period. Though I tend to believe that history will be kind to the boxster (i.e., it won't get 944 or 914 treatment), you just can't go wrong with a 911.

There is no right or wrong with respect to "which is better". Both are great cars and I considered both. Some things I considred:

I've never been a fan of soft top convertibles look wise, and since I live in Seattle, I'd have to deal with the soft top (or put on a somewhat clunky looking hard top) most of the year. The SLK IMHO looks just as good, if not better, with its hard top overhead.

The SLK is just better looking IMHO and you will definitely get more “nice car” comments with the SLK if that is important to you. I hereby shamefully admit that I love hearing comments and seeing nods of approvals. I've driven in porsche 911s and boxsters quite a bit, and you basically get the "so what -another porsche look" from folks around here (unless it’s a badged twin turbo). With the SLK, I'm constantly getting from valets, parking attendants and folks at the gas station a "Daaaaaaaamn - that is sweeeeeet". Though I’m 33, I still have quite a bit of 16 in me . In sum, curb appeal is important to me -thus the SLK wins.

Also, my driving style leans towards the SLK. I'm not one to hit turns extra hard. I'm more of a straight line guy who likes to tussle with corvettes, M3s etc. at a stop light. I'm a fairly cautious driver, therefore I don't need to be able to hit some soft turns at 90MPH with great handling. If you like to hit the mountain pass roads turning and swerving at high speeds with the top down, the Boxster S could be your thing. If you are more of a straight line guy who likes a nice challenge on I-5 and stop lights, I'd go towards SLK.

Just my 2 cents. Hope it doesn’t come off as a flame. I love the Boxster, but at the end of the day, I had to go with the SLK based on styling, curb appeal and my driving style.

SLK55AMG

NateDawg, fair post! The only thing I'd comment on is the notion that if you are going to buy a Porsche it has to be a 911....... its the same as the poor mans Porsche comments that Boxster owners often have to put up with (is the SLK the poor mans SL?). The 911 IS the reason Porsche are so well known but it doesn't follow that its their only good car...... I've never liked the 911 and when I drove a few it confirmed to me that I'd never aspire to own one...... however when I drove the 987S it was much more involving and exciting and it somehow clicked for me. The fact that the 987S is now on par (on track) with a 997 Carrera is just a bonus.

Falco

New to the boards, but i just came from a 02 911 C4 cab(2 days ago!!!) and i could have gotten the new 06 997 S that is just as fast or faster than the slk55 but the SLK one out. Why? 1) Looks(i live in LA and porsches are so common the look becomes diluted, 2) Exclusivity(see #1), 3) Interior appointments(SLK is way more luxurous without being too plush) and 4) Fun to drive(something about having 376 ft/lbs of torque attached to your right foot!!!)

Yes, the 987 and 997 have more "road feel" and are more "trackable" but at 8-9/10ths the SLK55 will have no problem keeping up in the twisties.

So...if you are going to the track regularly, Porsche it is. But for every day, right now the SLK55 is hitting every mark and is the winner.

Yellow R1

Pal, the accelerator is the RIGHT pedal, not the left (that would be the brake).

See ya,
-Matt

Falco

Yeah...see what not having a clutch is doing to me! :p My left foot just can't sit idle...its posessed :v


Note: edited to fix it!

benz-aficionado

Power to weight ratio's are only part of the story, the old SLK32 had a better power to weight ratio than the new 55 and yet the new 55 is 1/2 second quicker to 60. Torque and gearing is the reason the boxster needs waaaaaay more power to compete.

Low torque cars are a total hassle to drive. You have to constantly be on top of them to get any kind of performance out of them. If the guy in the minivan next to you decides to floor it, you have to drop two gears just to keep up. When the likes of nissan maximas and honda oddessy's have more power than your sports car, you have to ask yourself, is this really a sports car?

Have you ever driven a car where you just tap the gas and it lunges forward? It speaks volumes over a few tenths of a second saved around the track.

SLK55AMG

Yes I've driven a fair number of high torque cars (SLK55, SL55, RS6, S4 are notable ones). Torque is great but its not the be all and end all when it comes to sports cars, I prefer to work my car to get the best out of it (I had an S2000 before the 987S) and don't mind having to drop a few gears when needed...... we obviously see things differently on this front, you see being able to put your foot down and go as good while I see it as lazy, you see dropping a few cogs as a hastle while I see it as fun.

Cars with low torque can be just as fun to drive as a torque monster..... S2000, F360, F430 and a Formula 1 car are proof of that

I hope you aren't taking my comments as dissing the SLK55..... if you look at the rest of my many posts you won't find me slagging the car off as I really liked it. I didn't choose one because the Boxster handled better and had a great manual box...... one day I may decide to give a big torque auto a chance...... if I do the SLK55 (or 63) will be on the top of my list along with the Aston AMV8 and Jag XKR.

P.S. I assume you were joking with the Maxima and Odyssey comment

benz-aficionado

All joking asside, a maxima would have similar real world performance to a boxster s. The honda oddessy is a bit of a stretch, but if mr. mom decides to floor it off the line, you'd better hope you're still in first, otherwise he could pull on you.

Cars like the S2000, M3, and boxster all have low torque figures. They all can perform very well, but in day to day driving you are constantly struggling with that flat spot between idle and powerband. I guess some people don't mind this.

I don't mean to be coming down on you as well; I just don't think this was the right year to buy a boxster over an slk.

As for the last two cars you mentioned, the aston martin and the new jag, I would say those are as useless as it gets except for maybe range rover. Without getting into a long story, I will tell you that ford bought these failing brands to turn profits, not to make great cars. There is ZERO innovation going into these cars, nothing new, nothing cool, nothing fast, these cars are not leaders in any category - they should not be on anyone's list.

mtimmy

Please allow my apology if I am being offensive...

Have you ever driven a Porsche before?... Being in a oddessy , maxima and boxster is a completely different feeling,, I seriously suggest you to go TEST DRIVE one... (if you don't plan on owning)

Both SLK and Boxster S is a good car,,,... its up to how he feel and what he wants for it... for me I'll personally go for BoxsterS.

As for your last comment on new jags and aston martins.... ... I seriously doubt it.... as they not being innovative or being fast and on and on and on.... and most importantly..being and on any one's LIST!!!!!

Probabbly you are the only person in the forum...... or in the whole world dont' want a jag or a Aston...

IdriveFast

wouldnt you agree that the "low" torque of the 360, 430, and f1 cars are a LITTLE (a lot) different than the s2000 though? you are comparing a high revving i4, which high revving v8's and possibly a v12. even though the V8's and V12's are high revving with a low torque rating with respect to their horsepower rating, the torque is still alot, so they dont actually feel like they lack torque...where as the s2000 does not have alot

SLK55AMG

Maybe choosing the F430 was a bit too different but the F1 and F355/360 are still cars with relatively low torque.

Torque doesn't govern how fast a car accelerates..... horsepower does. Torque gives you in gear flexability. Torque isn't as good a guide to acceleration rates as power to weight ratios (and gearing).

If anyone can be bothered the following article explains the facts behind torque and horsepowers influence on acceleration:

http://www.yawpower.com/tqvshp.html

Torque Vs Horsepower arguements are always fun but before anyone jumps on my statement above please read the article and point out the scientific errors rather than simply stating an opinion that I'm wrong. :p

SLK55AMG

Your arguement seems rather far fetched to me..... as far as the Maximas real world performance it doesn't stack up against the 987S not even in a straight line, throw in a few corners and the lardy Maxima driver wouldn't even see which way the Boxster went . Forget about peak figures and consider weight as well, thats the only real way to compare cars on paper..... if you want to compare in real life you can put them on a track.

The Maxima has 169bhp/ton Vs the 987Ss 208, also it has 163ft/lb of torque per ton Vs the Boxsters 175

mtimmy

put a boxster s and maxima on track,..

the maxima probabbly couldn't see the boxster no more after turn one.

that guy is simply igorance... don't listen to him.,

PC Valkyrie

Very interesting debate in the thread about SLK55AMG vs Boxter S.

I think when the Cayman S officially becomes available, that will bring another player to the table from Porsche. In a way, the SLK has covered both the hardtop and convertible markets with a single car.

"The engine thus punches out 295 horsepower and 250 foot-pounds of torque, propelling the Cayman S from a standing start to 60 miles per hour (96 km/h) in just 5.1 seconds. The car reaches 99 mph (160 km/h) in a mere 11.7 seconds and gets to 124 mph (200 km/h) in 18.6 seconds. The car eclipses the quarter-mile sprint in 13.6 seconds and achieves a top speed on the test track of nearly 171 mph (275 km/h)."


However, there will be a more powerful competitor for the SLK55 in the future from BMW. It is very likely that BMW will produce a M version of the Z4 roadster and upcoming coupe. See the info below from World Car Fans.

"Only seven days since the Z4 Coupe Concept was revealed at the Frankfurt Motor Show and already we see these spy shots as evidence BMW is serious about production. The Z4 Coupe will give direct competition to the SLK AMG and the new Porsche Cayman S. The new roof will add some extra weight but BMW will be using lightweight materials to compensate. To be called the Z4 CS (Coupe Sport) it will receive six cylinder engines including the upcoming bi-turbo six cylinder engine and possibly a diesel engine in the future - no four cylinders. The M version will have the E46 M3 CSL engine tuned up to 410-420 hp and 4 tail pipes of course. M-styling will be distinctive. There is speculation of a CSL version with the M5/M6 V10 engine and even more usage of lightweight materials but highly unlikely. The three dimensional spoked wheels exclusively developed for the Z4 Coupe Concept will go into production in size 19x8. The wheels seen in these photos will be for the M version. The production version will be shown in January at Detroit Motor Show along with the face lifted Z4 Roadster and M Roadster. To be built in the USA it goes on sale summer 2006."

When the M version of the Z4 roadster or coupe becomes available, it will be a hard machine to beat. The typical BMW handling prowess with enough straightline speed to match/beat the SLK55. Maybe by then, there will be a SLK63?? or equivalent?

IdriveFast

im sorry, I know power to weight ratios and gearing dictate acceleration just as much as torque does. I was simply referring to your statement...

"Cars with low torque can be just as fun to drive as a torque monster"

it sounded like you were comparing the cars to the boxster as if their torque/horsepower/weight ratios were comparable, when they actually arent. Since those were all high revving, aggressively geared vehicles you mentioned, I just wanted to point out that the comparison was unfairly flattering to the boxster

but yea gearing has an enormous influence on acceleration, I never disputed that fact

edit: its just common sense that a high revving V8 in a 3200lb car vs a high revving I-4 in a 2800lb is just NOT comparable...at all...in terms of acceleration, torque, power/weight ratio...

SLK55AMG

IdriveFast..... no problem I wasn't having a go at you by the way. I'm rather surprised by some of benz-aficionados views but maybe he drives a torque monster himself/herself?

benz-aficionado what car do you drive?

benz-aficionado

Why is this so hard to believe? The numbers you post are too close for comfort. Let's say you have a passenger, or maybe the top down, or a rolling start. What happens then? You look silly, that's what happens. This would never be an issue in the merc, because it has enough power for all kinds of real world situations.

As for the Aston and Jag fans, please try and understand that these cars use off the shelf Ford components exstensively. I'm talking about mustang suspension, lincoln steering racks, and mondeo platforms. Ford parts. Does that compute? Ford is designing parts for twenty thousand dollar cars and then goes and uses them on Jags and Astons!

benz-aficionado

Cars I drive: SLK55, 73 vette (383, pro-charger, 6spd, fuel injected = torque monster)

SLK55AMG

They may look close to you but not to me..... to have the same power to weight ratio as the 987S the Maxima would need close to 330BHP..... which as I'm sure you know it simply doesn't have!

Surely the Boxster driver will only look silly if he is trying to beat the Maxima and fails...... if I'm cruising along and a ricer races me when I'm not interested does that make me look silly? If I'm wanting some fun I'm not going to be pi55ing around in the wrong gear am I? and if I'm in the right gear no Maxima would stand a sodding chance!

Are you sure about your facts? neither AMV8 or new Jag XK use a Mondeo platform as far as I know..... I stand to be corrected but please show me where it says that about the new cars..... does not compute

P.S. nice cars!

mtimmy

If thtas the case you are talking about off the shelf parts.,

then you must know Mercedes is using off the shelf Chysler parts.!

benz-aficionado

It's the other way around. Mercedes develops parts for $40 - 200k+ cars and then after 8 years uses them on chryslers rather than throwing them out. It's a major improvement for chrysler, and in turn MB economizes a little.

SLK55AMG: The boxster is a good car, I am not knocking it at all, I am just critical of the fact that porsche in general is not putting enough power into their cars lately. There is no denying the fact that alot of production cars are creeping up on the 300hp mark. The boxster is fast, sure it's even faster than a maxima, but when are we going to see a boxster that is WAY faster than a maxima? At close to $100k out the door, it should be way faster.