pazu

Is it hard to compare with a M3 to a SLK55? any of u guys "race" with a M3 before? thx

CDN-SLK55

This is easier than you might think. I have an M3 and there are two things that are wrong with this car. 6 cylinders and Bone Crushing Hard ride. That being said, the car is a blast to drive when you can get out on some good road, but the torque is too low. 262 lbs of torque and you can really tell at low RPM. It seems ok when you get your RPM's up around 6K but under that and it really lags. Over on the M3forum web site they asked this same question and of course all the Bimmer supporters jumped all over this question with how the M3 will blow the doors off the SLK55 but I really have my doubts. The M3 stock has a hard time getting under 13 in the quarter mile so I don't think you should have much issues with it in a straight line. In a track condition, it might be different because the M3 really corners great. The cars weigh almost the same (SLK lighter by about 10 pounds) so with the 7 speed, 40 more HP and 100 lbs more torque, not sure the M can keep up.

ALTANertive

I don't know which M3 forum you looked at, but most M3 owners will agree that in a straight line there cars will be smoked by an SLK55.
Also I think the ride is a bit too soft if anything, but that's just my opinion.

At one point I was considering both of these cars. They are very different. It comes down to your priorities and what you want in a car. M3 I think is better when it comes to steering and brakes. Although the does not have good steering feel by any means, it still "feels" better than the slk55. However, the brake feel is a significant plus over the slk55.

Cornering felt better in the M3 also. It all comes down to what your priorities are. 2 doors v. 4 doors. GT v. roadster. SMG/6sp v. Auto. etc. I don't claim to be an expert on either car, but I was seriously considering them and have driven both, so if there are any question I can try to field them.

slk55lvr

Did you buy either one?

Falco

Huh? Arent both 2 doors? M3 a GT?

Am i missing something...

LaZyC230K

I think people will say "wow" when you say you have an new SLK55. But in another way, i think an m3 is everywhere in the street, like they're not special anymore. I think the m3 handling will be a lil bit better then the SLk but i think the SLK is worth the money because the m3 is just getting old and boring.

ALTANertive

HAHAHA, nice catch. I was definitely I meant 2 seats versus 4 seats, or a very tight 5.

ALTANertive

No, I've since decided on a different car.

ALTANertive

Completely agree with the wow factor. M cars are always went to be understated. And M3's are more prevalent because used ones can be had for much less.

LETO

The M3 is a very fun car in a harsh brutal sort o way. It is a blast for the driver if you like to shift agressively. The ride is beyond bone jarring and is absolutely unpleasant for the passenger. The interior is drab in the sense that it is really not very diffrent from the 3-series (except for the nappa leather seats), if you have one with performace package, the CSL wheels are the best BMW OEM wheels IMHO. The car has very little curb appeal (as it is quite long in the tooth now), and only people who care will notice the difference between it's looks and a 330ci with some aftermarket lower bodywork (which there are a lot of).

The SLK is more poised than the M3, you can drive it in traffic at low speeds and hammer down whenever and take advantage of it's huge sweetspot (due to the 375ftlb of torque). The interior is way better than the M3. The car has significant curb appeal. The retracto top is almost a bonus!

Keep in mind the SLK55 is 13K (base price) more than the M3. But while the SLK55 looks like it cost more, the M3 looks like it cost less (till you open the hood up)

p.s note that the M3 cabrio is much slower than the coupe (and hence a hair faster than the slk350 as it is much heavier due to added support structure)

In a straight line the SLK55 will beat the M3

Shinigami

Two very different cars, but the two friends of mine who both have M3's, have told me after driving my car, that it was the better one of the two.

Dozer42

I'd think the SLK55 would be a touch faster than the M3 'vert due to the V8's torque and the 7g gearing.

The M3 is awesome, but it's getting just slightly dated. A better comparison might be the new M3 w/V8 that's coming out soon?

nishi

the only M3 worth considering is the 07 M3 with 400 HP and redline @ 8,250 ! but, the old one - hell no. I've raced SO many on I-84 East as well as Berlin Turnpike in CT, and they can't keep up with my stock SLK55 AMG!!!!

AMG_55

they r 2 different types of cars.
my brother has a m3 and i enjoy driving it, but for everyday ill stick w/ my clk

MJ1133

There not making an M3 in 07

jak112460

I don't see how the M3 can compare in performance in any catagory. I use to own a M3 with the SMG tranny and it's a slug. I would love to see a head up comparison. I just don't see how a M3 with 40 less hosepower and 100 ft pounds of torque less can even come close. Those guys on the M3 board are simply putting their egos where their brain is. Do the math on both cars. How can a car with that much difference in horsepower and torque win? If the cars are very close in handling then the SLK55 wins because it kicks *** in the straight aways. The M3 would have to be miles ahead in handling to beat the SLK55. It is NOT miles ahead and in fact it's older technology now. The new M3 will be a formidable opponent.

Dozer42

And torque and horsepower numbers don't always tell the story.

For example, the SLK55 and Corvette C6 'vert both have a 0-60 time of 4.3 seconds and do the quarter mile in about 12.7 seconds.

But the C6 is 200lbs lighter, has 45 more horsepower, more torque, .5 liters more, and is a 6-speed manual vs. 7 speed automatic.

jak112460

I believe the C6 vert is heavier than the SLK55. That being said, the horsepower and torque difference if negligable and I would contend that drivetrain horsepower loss is less in the SLK55. 100 foot pounds of torque is a lot to over come.

Dozer42

What weight do you have for each car? Everything I can find puts the C6 at 3200, and the SLK55 around 3400. My numbers could be wrong. Do you have a site that lists them accurately?

jak112460

I looked it up and the C6 vert is 198 pounds lighter. There has to be less drivetrain loss in the SLK. I would be surprised if aerodynamics were any better in the SLK.

Dozer42

Less drivetrain loss in an automatic over a stick shift? It's usually the opposite.

My guess would be more optimal gear ratios to keep the engine in the peak of it's powerband for longer, and snappy shifts quicker than many can row a 6-speed.

jak112460

Obviously gear ratios are important but the MB 7 speed automatic is a work of genious.I bet you anything that there is less drivetrain loss in the SLK55 than the C6. I bet the SLK55 has lighter weight engine and drivetrain components also.

r3v1ls

The SLK55 also sounds a lot better than the m3. Can't forget about that...

reggid

Why don't more people do them both justice and discuss which car has more straightline speed, which was not the main intention by neither of the respective manufacturers.

dsb

I think it's a given that the 55 is faster in straight line performance. I think it's also a given the M3 would be faster around corners. Track performance would likely depend on the track setup (longer, or tighter/shorter).

I don't understand you statement regarding "intentions." Who's to say MB didn't want a car with great straight line performance?