SLK55 (R171) 2004 - 2010: SLK200K, SLK280, SLK350, SLK55, SLK55 Black Series

SLK55 vs. SL55 video

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
Old 02-13-2007, 10:46 PM
  #1  
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
lynns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: So California
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
2000 SL500
SLK55 vs. SL55 video

I think you guys will enjoy this video. Give it a second to download, then push the start button. Make sure to have your sound turned on. ourSL Newsletter - Video Show
Old 02-14-2007, 12:54 AM
  #2  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
juicee63's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hollywood CA
Posts: 6,950
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
2007 CLS63 030
neat I love when she says "what the **** was that" ,

overall seems like the SLK is a great value purchase. She really bashes it on the track, guess she needs smaller elbows and bigger hands..LOL
Old 02-14-2007, 03:01 AM
  #3  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
The fact remains that $62,000 SLK55 is as fast on track as a $120,000 SL55... same performance and nearly all the same features for half the price. Add a Kleemann supercharger for 20,000$ more and it will blow SL55 away easily and still be more than $40,000 cheaper.
Old 02-14-2007, 01:01 PM
  #4  
Member
 
Beleriand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Irvine, CA
Posts: 199
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
2006 Brabus B55 (Brabus Modified SLK55)
Originally Posted by Tuskir
The fact remains that $62,000 SLK55 is as fast on track as a $120,000 SL55... same performance and nearly all the same features for half the price. Add a Kleemann supercharger for 20,000$ more and it will blow SL55 away easily and still be more than $40,000 cheaper.
I have driven both and can say that the SL55 is just plain awesome. It is not just its engine - which is great - but it is also the pure luxery of the vehicle. One of my biggest complaints about the SLK55 is the cheap-*** interior. I mean it feels like it is half done. The visors, part of the retractable hood mechanism and the roof are made of this cheap plastic stuff that creaks so bad in the winter that it drives me nuts. Part of the rear roof area leaves the retraction mechanism exposed! The SL55 cuts no such corners. It is alcantara all around and just oozes with luxery. Plus, the SL55 is simply a larger car. More material to build = higher cost.

I love my SLK. But I have thought many times that I should have pulled the trigger and just gone big with the SL55.

There is more to a car than the engine. I think that the additional cost for the SL55 would be money well spent.

Last edited by Beleriand; 02-14-2007 at 01:04 PM.
Old 02-14-2007, 02:05 PM
  #5  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
BoBcanada's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Toronto,ON
Posts: 2,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
AMG
SL is SL. Its like comparing SLR with SL same thing....
Old 02-17-2007, 10:04 AM
  #6  
Newbie
 
R171_Monster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
R171 & W211
Originally Posted by BoBcanada
SL is SL. Its like comparing SLR with SL same thing....
Yep! You are very right.
Old 02-18-2007, 02:33 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Mrdredd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: TX
Posts: 250
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tuskir
The fact remains that $62,000 SLK55 is as fast on track as a $120,000 SL55... same performance and nearly all the same features for half the price. Add a Kleemann supercharger for 20,000$ more and it will blow SL55 away easily and still be more than $40,000 cheaper.
I don't think that the SLK being almost as fast as the SL55 on the track is actually a compliment towards the SLK!
The SLK is lighter and would supposedly be more sporty and better handling, yet the much heavier SL55 manages to actually beat it.
Old 02-18-2007, 06:13 AM
  #8  
Senior Member
 
FishtailnZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking for a new toy.
Originally Posted by Mrdredd
I don't think that the SLK being almost as fast as the SL55 on the track is actually a compliment towards the SLK!
The SLK is lighter and would supposedly be more sporty and better handling, yet the much heavier SL55 manages to actually beat it.
On a short, tight autox course that may be the case, but on a road course it's difficult to make up 140ish horsepower. So I disagree - for the SLK55 to finish as it does against a much more powerful (not to mention expensive) car, is pretty telling just how capable it is. As commented by Tommy Kendall on SpeedVision's Test Drive test of AMG models last year, the SLK55 was the most sporting and sports car like of all the AMG models.
Old 02-19-2007, 03:43 PM
  #9  
Banned
 
StealthAuto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: West Los Angeles
Posts: 988
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Cobra/E55
Sweet video!~!! Thanks for posting!
Old 02-20-2007, 01:22 PM
  #10  
Newbie
 
mrdoubleb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Tuskir
The fact remains that $62,000 SLK55 is as fast on track as a $120,000 SL55... same performance and nearly all the same features for half the price. Add a Kleemann supercharger for 20,000$ more and it will blow SL55 away easily and still be more than $40,000 cheaper.
damn a SLK55 even without ALL options is already $144,500 here

The 350Z costs $70K here. I hate the taxes here
Old 02-21-2007, 06:19 PM
  #11  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by FishtailnZ
On a short, tight autox course that may be the case, but on a road course it's difficult to make up 140ish horsepower. So I disagree - for the SLK55 to finish as it does against a much more powerful (not to mention expensive) car, is pretty telling just how capable it is. As commented by Tommy Kendall on SpeedVision's Test Drive test of AMG models last year, the SLK55 was the most sporting and sports car like of all the AMG models.
I'm also willing to bet that even on that track, SLK55 would be faster with a skilled driver. Around 1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome course, tested by Evo Magazine, SLK55 was faster than SL55 and SL600. 1.29.03 (SLK55) vs 1.30.05 (SL55) and 1.29.95 (SL600).
Old 02-22-2007, 07:29 PM
  #12  
Senior Member
 
FishtailnZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Looking for a new toy.
Originally Posted by Tuskir
I'm also willing to bet that even on that track, SLK55 would be faster with a skilled driver. Around 1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome course, tested by Evo Magazine, SLK55 was faster than SL55 and SL600. 1.29.03 (SLK55) vs 1.30.05 (SL55) and 1.29.95 (SL600).
I agree, but I wasn't very clear on that with my previous posting I guess.

The point I was trying to make was Mrdredd would have had a good point IMO IF the two cars had run similar times on a short tight autox course. That would have shown the SLK55 in a poorer light. But since that was not the case and the comparison was on a road course instead (where horsepower is much more telling - especially 100+hp!), then the SLK55 did very well indeed to make up for such a significant power deficit.

And as you pointed out, on short courses, the smaller lighter SLK55 is quicker.
Old 02-22-2007, 08:02 PM
  #13  
Almost a Member!
 
hekeke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nice...slk55 maybe faster on the track...but sl55 is faster in a long straight line for sure.
Old 02-22-2007, 08:50 PM
  #14  
Super Member
 
Yellow R1's Avatar
 
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 hekeke
nice...slk55 maybe faster on the track...but sl55 is faster in a long straight line for sure.
No, not correct. They both run the Quarter Mile in ~ 12.7 sec & trap 110 - 111 mph. Pretty much dead nuts even (one has more power but the other weighs significantly less & has a 7 Spd tranny alowing it to stay in its powerband longer than the MB 5 Spd).

-Matt
Old 03-01-2007, 11:13 PM
  #15  
Newbie
 
stealthman_1's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Folsom, Ca
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
'06 SLK55 AMG, '05 Lexus RX330, '98 Toyota Tacoma 4X4
Originally Posted by Beleriand
The visors, part of the retractable hood mechanism and the roof are made of this cheap plastic stuff that creaks so bad in the winter that it drives me nuts.
The visors in the SLK, contrary to Jeremy on Top Gear and your opinion are my favorite visors in any car I've ever owned. 10 minutes and those ugly warning stickers are gone!!!
I hate driving $50k plus cars that treat me like an idiot!
That said, I love the SL55, the first time I ever started one I was smitten.
I do wish the SLK windshield posts were alcantara...
Old 03-02-2007, 03:18 AM
  #16  
Super Member
 
Shinigami's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Lausanne, Switzerland
Posts: 761
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SLK 55 AMG
lol, I still haven't removed the visor sticker on the passenger side... doh

I should do it some day. I just never really look at it
Old 03-09-2007, 12:00 PM
  #17  
Super Member
 
SLK55AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
987S
Originally Posted by Tuskir
I'm also willing to bet that even on that track, SLK55 would be faster with a skilled driver. Around 1.8 mile Bedford Autodrome course, tested by Evo Magazine, SLK55 was faster than SL55 and SL600. 1.29.03 (SLK55) vs 1.30.05 (SL55) and 1.29.95 (SL600).
How do other similar cars to the SLK55 fair on the same track eg. Z4M, Cayman S or Boxster S?
Old 03-12-2007, 04:18 AM
  #18  
Banned
 
topdaytrader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: So CA
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
crazy~
Old 03-15-2007, 06:11 PM
  #19  
Senior Member
 
Tuskir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by SLK55AMG
How do other similar cars to the SLK55 fair on the same track eg. Z4M, Cayman S or Boxster S?
Here's a few other cars to compare from Bedford Autodrome 1.8 mile track, its usually in the back of every EVO issue:

Porsche Carrera GT: 1.19.70
Corvette Z06: 1.24.45
Porsche Carrera 997: 1.28.85
Cayman S: 1.28.90
Lotus Elise 111R: 1.29.20
SLK55 AMG: 1.29.30
BMW M3 CS: 1.29.80
BMW M5: 1.29.95
SL600: 1.29.95
SL55 AMG: 1.30.05
..... Nissan 350Z: 1:32.05
Old 03-16-2007, 11:40 AM
  #20  
Super Member
 
SLK55AMG's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
987S
Originally Posted by Tuskir
Here's a few other cars to compare from Bedford Autodrome 1.8 mile track, its usually in the back of every EVO issue:

Porsche Carrera GT: 1.19.70
Corvette Z06: 1.24.45
997 C4: 1:25.75
Cayman S: 1.26.85
BMW Z4 M Coupe: 1:27.10
Boxster S: 1:28.55
Porsche Carrera 997: 1.28.85
Lotus Elise 111R (wet track): 1.29.20
SLK55 AMG: 1.29.30
BMW M3 CS: 1.29.80
BMW M5: 1.29.95
SL600: 1.29.95
SL55 AMG: 1.30.05
..... Nissan 350Z: 1:32.05
Thanks I've just picked up the latest issue, they had the other cars I was interested in so I've added them to your list..... the Cayman S had a better time listed than the 1:28.9 they now have it down for 1:26.85
Old 03-16-2007, 12:02 PM
  #21  
MBWorld Fanatic!
 
bfnnrgn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 1,498
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
SL65
Interesting. I chose the SLK55 over an SL65 myself. I have an E55 and was going to trade for the SL65. The 65 is of course insanely fast and comfortable, however it didn't really 'feel' any different than my E55 in the handling department. It still felt heavy and swimmy. I was looking for something to mix it up again as I was getting kind of bored with my E55. The SLK55 proved to be the right choice as the driving characteristics between the E55 and SLK55 are about as different as they could be and switching back and forth between the two keeps things fresh and interesting. The two cars seem to compliment each other very well. I feel that if I got the SL65, as fast as it is, I would be bored with it very quickly for the same reasons I got bored with the E55 as characteristics of both cars are so very similar.
Attached Thumbnails SLK55 vs. SL55 video-dsc00815.jpg   SLK55 vs. SL55 video-dsc00822.jpg  
Old 03-16-2007, 08:18 PM
  #22  
Super Member
 
Yellow R1's Avatar
 
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 bfnnrgn
Interesting. I chose the SLK55 over an SL65 myself. I have an E55 and was going to trade for the SL65. The 65 is of course insanely fast and comfortable, however it didn't really 'feel' any different than my E55 in the handling department. It still felt heavy and swimmy. I was looking for something to mix it up again as I was getting kind of bored with my E55. The SLK55 proved to be the right choice as the driving characteristics between the E55 and SLK55 are about as different as they could be and switching back and forth between the two keeps things fresh and interesting. The two cars seem to compliment each other very well. I feel that if I got the SL65, as fast as it is, I would be bored with it very quickly for the same reasons I got bored with the E55 as characteristics of both cars are so very similar.
Yup. Same reason the wife didn't want an SL55 or SL65. Georgous cars, just too big & heavy for her taste so we got her the SLK55. Think it was $73k out the door. For a loaded vehicle, it was a great deal considering the car's performance, build quality, and convertible hardtop IMO.

-Matt

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: SLK55 vs. SL55 video



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:29 AM.