Autocar comparison test: SLK55 loses bad
03-05-2006, 12:35 AM
#1
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
C55 AMG, 135i, 911 GT3, GLE43 AMG
Autocar comparison test: SLK55 loses bad
Hi all. Found this article from Autocar comparing the Cayman S vs M3 CS (competition package) vs SLK55 AMG vs RS4
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
Last edited by PC Valkyrie; 03-05-2006 at 12:41 AM.
03-05-2006, 01:29 AM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 3,220
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes
on
6 Posts
W203 slightly modified
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
Hi all. Found this article from Autocar comparing the Cayman S vs M3 CS (competition package) vs SLK55 AMG vs RS4
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
Hold on .... you are talking about ride. But you mention a track report. The two in my mind are not the same. For better track performance I would want slightly wider track tyres than stock AMG rims. For ride quality I would buy an S class and just float down the road.
The car has too much power for the stock tyres. On a track you would expect it to let loose. For a normal street car it is something else altogether I see nothing wrong with it on a street. It is an angry car with a bad temper.
03-05-2006, 03:05 AM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG
Originally Posted by benzmodz
Hold on .... you are talking about ride. But you mention a track report. The two in my mind are not the same. For better track performance I would want slightly wider track tyres than stock AMG rims. For ride quality I would buy an S class and just float down the road.
The car has too much power for the stock tyres. On a track you would expect it to let loose. For a normal street car it is something else altogether I see nothing wrong with it on a street. It is an angry car with a bad temper.
The car has too much power for the stock tyres. On a track you would expect it to let loose. For a normal street car it is something else altogether I see nothing wrong with it on a street. It is an angry car with a bad temper.
your answer is very logical!
03-05-2006, 02:42 PM
#5
Super Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, CA
Posts: 770
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'93 RX-7, SLK55
Originally Posted by PC Valkyrie
Hi all. Found this article from Autocar comparing the Cayman S vs M3 CS (competition package) vs SLK55 AMG vs RS4
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
http://www.speedtv.com/articles/auto...wmodels/22346/
As expected, the AMG car didn't win, but I was surprised how poorly it did (according to the article).
I can't tell if they pushed the "ESP Off" button to increase the threshold before the stability control and traction control kicks in when they did their track test, but they complained that the intrusive system really affected the track performance. The lack of "feel" and the poor quality ride were some of the other contributing factors....
Is the ride that bad in the SLK55? I haven't ridden in a SLK55, but I've heard that it is quite a bit stiffer than the C55.
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino?
Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen. Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
Last edited by Yellow R1; 03-05-2006 at 02:45 PM.
03-05-2006, 03:33 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: sac, calif.
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'06 slk55
Yeah... Whatever
Interesting read.
Matt, nice write up too.
No doubt the Cayman is a great car. I'm sure it does alot of things extremely well. Some day I might find myself in the seat of a Porsche. However, these cars are apples and oranges. Based on the criteria, one could easily 'beat' the other.
This was some of my criteria when purchasing the vehicle:
1) lots of fun
2) looks good
3) open air driving if possible
4) exclusive
5) powerful
6) solid feel
7) great sound
8) great handling
I think the slk55 meets all of these. I bet the Cayman is better at 9/10ths+ driving, but who drives that hard all the time? Not I. The slk55 with it's good looks, convert hardtop, power, exhaust, etc makes for the better car IMO.
Matt, nice write up too.
No doubt the Cayman is a great car. I'm sure it does alot of things extremely well. Some day I might find myself in the seat of a Porsche. However, these cars are apples and oranges. Based on the criteria, one could easily 'beat' the other.
This was some of my criteria when purchasing the vehicle:
1) lots of fun
2) looks good
3) open air driving if possible
4) exclusive
5) powerful
6) solid feel
7) great sound
8) great handling
I think the slk55 meets all of these. I bet the Cayman is better at 9/10ths+ driving, but who drives that hard all the time? Not I. The slk55 with it's good looks, convert hardtop, power, exhaust, etc makes for the better car IMO.
03-05-2006, 04:19 PM
#7
Super Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 593
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
That article reveiwed the cars primarily for track use & when they did take them on the road, they were British roads. I'm convinced the vast majority of British roads are 2 lanes wide, have zero run off area, have almost no straights, are riddled with pot holes, and are always wet! This type of driving environment contrasts the SLK's primary purpose - wider, straighter, smoother, more pleasant climate/open air motoring.
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino? Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen.
Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino?
Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen. Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
Trending Topics
03-05-2006, 10:11 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AMG
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
That article reveiwed the cars primarily for track use & when they did take them on the road, they were British roads. I'm convinced the vast majority of British roads are 2 lanes wide, have zero run off area, have almost no straights, are riddled with pot holes, and are always wet! This type of driving environment contrasts the SLK's primary purpose - wider, straighter, smoother, more pleasant climate/open air motoring.
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino? Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen.
Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino?
Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen. Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
very nice review from Yellow R1 ...
SLK 55 not just kills the Cayman S , but also Carrera S ... but the carrera S has grunt at least... It has similar power and felt he could have a chance... It was interesting though! (Tiptronic S)
03-06-2006, 05:35 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Boston
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL 6.1 Brabus, E55, SLK55
Originally Posted by Yellow R1
That article reveiwed the cars primarily for track use & when they did take them on the road, they were British roads. I'm convinced the vast majority of British roads are 2 lanes wide, have zero run off area, have almost no straights, are riddled with pot holes, and are always wet! This type of driving environment contrasts the SLK's primary purpose - wider, straighter, smoother, more pleasant climate/open air motoring.
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino? Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen.
Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
The SLK is a sports car, the Caymen is a borderline track car. There is a difference & its up to the Buyer to choose where he/she is going to be driving it (ie Silverstone or Hwy 1 along the California coast).
The article was glaringly biased to the Porsche, even in the looks dept. Most people I've heard say the Caymen is boring to look at? This guy compares it to a Ferrari Dino?
Its a hardtop Boxster & Boxsters are EVERYWHERE & are as bland as vanilla. Heck, even Jeremy Clarckson said the Caymen was nothing to look at. Looks/presence are subjective but this reviewer has a 180 degree opposite view of everything I've seen/heard from others thus far on the Caymen. Last point - his ride comments are way off base. The AMG's ride is sporting, but not jarring. Its perfect for its intended market. FWIW, it handles quite nicely. Lets look at Road & Track's hard slalom mph numbers to get an "idea" of how the car transitions when pushed at high speeds:
SLK55, 68.3 mph (non Nurbergring suspension BTW)
911 Turbo, 67.8 mph
911 GT3, 68.7 mph
911 GT2, 68.7 mph
Ruf R Turbo, 65.7 mph
Boxster, 68.6 mph, Boxster S 73.9 (faster than ANY car ever tested - impressive!)
Caymen, 71.7 mph (very fast)
M3 (competition coupe BTW), 67.3
So, we have the SLK (a roadster) with the softer/non competition suspension hanging with Porsche's finest. It brakes from 80mph - 0 in 201 ft, beating EVERY 911 produced for street use & within 2 ft of the Carerra GT. The SLK out accelerates the Caymen & is within 3 - 5 tenths through the quarter mile of the GT3 & 911 Turbo & costs about 50% less. This guy needs to put the crack pipe down & put things into proper perspective. The SLK performs pretty well, especially for being a convertible.
I think its "odd" that the Caymen S puts down the same braking, handling, & acceleration numbers as my 13 yr old RX-7 & its vaunted (in this guy's eyes) as the Holy Grail. It may be built better than the RX-7, but its also twice the cost & has made little performance progress to a 13 yr old sports car from Japan. My RX-7 is now faster, handles & brakes much better than when stock (it would KILL a Caymen S in any category). Guess which car I favor driving?.....the SLK55! (even prior to the Kleemann mods)
See ya,
-Matt
