AMGFUN

That would be very fun. But I must say, the first thing I would do before we started is show the front end of my S because it's the last time you would see it. The changes they made to the new boxster only brings it closer to the S2000 performance levels. With a base price of 20 grand more its a joke. It may be a great car but it alway has and alway will be on the bottom of the performance level of the s2000, Z350 and WRX.

SLK55AMG

So are you saying that your S2k isn't stock?...... what have you done to it to boost its performance? The new Boxster S is nearly 20 seconds quicker than the S2000 around the Nurburgring (stock Vs stock).

In the S2000 on the road I have NEVER found a Boxster that was willing or able to keep up with me on a decent twisty road....... in back to back testing between my current S2k and the new Boxster S on some favourite back roads I was definately quicker in the Box so considering that it was an unfamiliar car I would only get quicker as I get to know the limits of the handling.

I don't want an arguement about whats better and I'm the first to agree that the S2000 is THE BEST sportscar in its price band and I'd also agree that the extra performance you get from the Porsche may not be worth the extra money...... but to me the new Boxster S is the better car.

steve-p

I must say I have never seen the appeal of the S2000, and I know I'm not alone. One web site says this:

"Assets: Amazing engine, slick gearbox, good performance compared to similarly priced rivals, not aggressively styled, Honda reliability.

Drawbacks: Some cheap plastics, absence of steering feel, dated cabin, feels insubstantial.

Verdict: Likeable S2000 has been slowly improved since its '99 launch but feels dated now. It is no Boxster-beater, and it is also bettered by the BMW Z4."

The Autocar web site says:

"The second surprise was that the S2000 wasn’t that great to drive. We’d expected mighty things from 237bhp at 8300rpm and a rear-drive chassis. But we also got 153lb ft at 7500rpm, requiring the engine to be wrung out constantly, numb steering and a too-high driving position."

and

"Honda says the variable gearing is seven per cent slower and accordingly the S2000 feels less sensitive to inputs without being slow-witted, but the helm is no match for a Boxster’s or Z4’s."

I don't think Porsche, BMW or Mercedes will be too concerned about the threat from the S2000.

scott63

The S2000 is a good car (I had one) but it is not a great car. The best thing about the S2000 IMHO was the gear box. Let's face it, its a $30,000 car, I wouldn't expect a lot of quality in that price range. I liked the old Boxster but I didn't love it. I love the new Boxster. The car is light years ahead of the old model and if you drove one, you would know what I'm talking about. Road & Track set a new record in their slalom run with the Boxster S and Car & Driver's latest issue puts the Boxster against the S2000 and the C6 Corvette. Guess who won?? The Boxster... The new boxster is faster, handles better and brakes better than the S2000. Yes, the Porsche is more money but I think you get more and the quality of the materials used is much better. I test drove the Boxster S, Carerra S and GT3 back to back. I can afford to buy any of them and I ordered the Boxster S because it was the most engaging car to me.

SLK55AMG

Autocar have never liked the S2000..... one reason may be that the first car they tested ended up in a ditch because the idiot tester drove too fast in wet conditions!

Variable gearing is not available on UK S2000s only on the Japanese type V

The S2000 is loved by some and hated by others....

Try this review from Edmunds.com..... (the SLK comes second by the way )

http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/compa...5/page005.html

Or EVO magazine..... http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/roadtes...y.php?id=19706

To quote EVO:
"Cross country, the two are very evenly matched for pace. The Boxster has a low-rev advantage, its flat-six punching it out of tight turns with more conviction, while the S2000's high-rev vigour kicks in just as the Porsche is waning, tipping the balance slightly in its favour on straights. With six gears and 9000rpm to play with, the Honda is naturally more frenetic, though you don't have to wind it right out. If you're concentrating on threading the car down a weaving road, around 8000rpm is a natural shift point. Urge builds usefully up to 6000rpm, the onset of the higher lift VTEC cams, and then seems to ramp up in stages, a second kick arriving at 7000rpm with a nape-*****ling, Touring Car-style bark.
By ordinary standards the Boxster's gearshift is peachy – light, precise and fast – but the S2000's makes it feel long-winded and its brake feel shades the Porsche's with keener initial response, though the power of both isn't in doubt."

steve-p

Ha ha! That figures. They sometimes do seem to take a view of a car which doesn't seem fully deserved. When I read this week's SLK55AMG vs Boxster S article, I got the impression right from the start that the author didn't want to like the Merc, and it couldn't have beaten the Boxster no matter how good it was.

robquantrell

so true, both Evo and Autocar are almost porsche magazines in disguise! No doubt they are great cars but its not all about the steering you know!!

Evo ran a roadster group test a few months back, Boxter S, S2000, SLK350, etc etc,

Boxter won (obviously) but they failed to mention that the car they tested would have cost close to £50K new!!!

The S2000 did well......considering you can have 2 for one Boxster S!!!!!


The SLK 350's refinement/security/comfort advantage was glossed over as well....



Rob

lisamcgu

200 heavier isn't what helps the SLK turn. It may just be all that extra AMG stuff including the AMG lowering suspension kit, ya think?

And if that isn't good enough, a few thousand is all it takes to replace that with a Brabus full racing suspension kit, shocks and all. Yep, that's it, just under $3000.00 and that old beater won't even be in the SLK55's rearview mirror on twisties, let alone straightaways.

Here's an article you may want to read along with the follow up posts -
https://mbworld.org/forums/slk55-r171/97683-boxster-s-vs-slk55-magazine-article.html

kimchiFLAVA

987 all the way baby!

Harris

Its funny to see a 987 Boxster guy is so excited about his car. And its only a base model Boxster with no S. A LOT of cars out there can smoke you in no time. Why are you so excited?

People keep saying Porsche has better brakes, better handling etc etc. True, thats what Porsche is famous for. However, would you all agree that if we can find any Nurburgring times or any kind of track times to support the fact that a Boxster S can really beat the sh*t out of a SLK55 on a track, this discussion will be more meaningful? Both cars are so new and are VERY well built, but we can't just make an ASSUMPTION that Porsche has built better handling cars in the past, therefore, if you compare it to any others cars such as a SLK55, it is going to win every time. Even if the SLK55 is going to lose, by how much?

I don't think there is a clean winner between the two cars. It really depends on "what do you want from a car?" or "what do you expect from the car?"

SLK55AMG

I just did a quick search for SLK55 and 987S Nurburgring times...... this is hardly scientific but:

The new Boxster S can lap the Ring in 8min 18sec which is 9 seconds a lap faster than the old 986 Boxster S.

Source Autozine:
http://www.autozine.org/html/Porsche/Boxster.htm

Now the only thing I can find so far on the SLK55 testing at the Ring is that MB Test Driver Siegmar Kutzche declares "better stability, more forgiving handling and torque and more torque, times were 3-4 seconds a lap faster than Euro 986S model(04)." (source http://www.iq.dynip.com/~racing/archive.cgi?read=22479)

So if the new SLK55 is 3-4 seconds faster than the old Boxster S that still means its nearly 5 seconds a lap slower than the new 987S.

I'm sure we'll see some proper test figures for both cars at the ring (and other tracks soon) and I'd expect they will be a very close match!

aharte

Why do track times really matter? You should buy a car because you like how it feels. Better track times do not necessarily mean more fun. The C6 Corvette could easily lap both the SLK55 or Boxster S for less money, yet, in my opinion, you'll be having a lot less fun in it (and I'm saying this as a longtime corvette fan who owns an old Stingray). Of course everyone has different ideas on what makes a car fun to drive, so you should really just go out and test a bunch of things to find what you like.

By the way, if you really want a track car, you shouldn't buy anything new. A lot of old sportscars can be bought and modified very cheaply. They won't have the refinement or gadgets of a new car, but they can be made faster around a track for very little money.

kimchiFLAVA

chill out harris im just playing.

Besides i could of got the 911 but i decided hey im 23 a base boxster is good enough maybe next time ill get the 911 or maybe even a turbo.

SLK55AMG

Sorry to reopen an old thread but I've just found a new Track Test for the SLK55

http://www.track-challenge.com/main_...1_e.asp?Car=84

SLK55 did a 8.24min lap of the NB Ring...... compared to 8.18min for the new Boxster S.

At the Hockenheim track the SLK55 does a 1.17.1 lap while the 987S does a 1.15.7

However he SLK55 is much faster in a straight line than the Boxster S.

kimchiFLAVA

Harris you old fart dont be mad at me cuz im young good looking making money and driving a car and dating pretty ladies on a daily basis...

and well you got some decent cars your old so who cares!!!


hahahhaha stop hating harris u ignorant dumbass

CynCarvin32

Not sure what you are reading but brabus suspensions are for old me tooling around with lowering springs. If you want something that drives well a 987 is the car to own. With 80 fewer hp it is but a few tenths slower than a 997 at most tracks and faster at some.

Fact of life that AMG cars rarely drive as well as the non AMG version due to the excessive mass in the nose of the car. After having spent 4 hours at the track in the SLK350 I can tell you its a great car and every review says the 55 is more prone to understeer and is not as nimble as a SLK350 sport pack.


Well to be fair I will say the current R171 SLK is the best driving MB I have ever seen to date (short of a 190E 2.5-16 EVOII). The SLK55 is a wonderful car but not a 987 S.

Im an mb fan but I also give credit to cars that are just better in my eyes.

cntlaw

I like new technology but I also don't want to take risk on my investment. I did not know the SLK55 engine ( presumably same as my C55 ) is that old but I am aware of SOHC design is aged. And SOHC will be replace by DOHC soon e.g. the engine of the SLK350 is a new DOHC.

After all, how many people we know own a AMG car that we would compare whose engine is older :p
As Harris say, if you own a SLK55 , you are the MB king in 2005.

WhiteAMGSLK55

The motor may be old but its proven. The new DOHC motor is totaly new and many people are having problem with it. The main problem is there burn oil!!

lisamcgu

First of all, you assume I am just talking from "reading" instead of actually owning a SLK55 with a full Brabus racing suspension kit, which I do. And you think your opinion can stand up to my facts having driven a 350 for "4 hours at the track". I guess your throwing in that you were at the track is supposed to impress and blind one to your lack of facts and experience?

Second, instead of speaking factually, you generalize to prove your point thus losing credibility for not only that point but anything else you say, as if your assumptions and weak experience don't already do that, "every review says". And even if every review did mention "understeer" which they by no means do, who cares? Again, just toss on the Brabus suspension and you've got looks, speed and handling. Hello?

Try reading the new June Car and Driver with a beautiful new silver 05 SLK55 on the front cover. There is this quote in the full article to follow, "The valet literally bows when you show up." From my EXPERIENCE, I know this to be true. I have yet to NOT receive a comment when I get my car parked. Its not only the looks, they all think its a race car. "Sweet ride!" "Does it go fast?" "Were you racing?" But, the last line says it all, "Moreover, most passersby were awed by the AMG roadster, wondering, 'How much does that cost, $150,000?' Hmm, a Corvette never produced a similar effect."

And having driven extensively in both my new 05 SLK55 and basic Porsches (meaning anything other than a GT), I can say as a FACT, having EXPERIENCE, that a PORSCHE never produced a similar effect either.

vraa

Is this even a debate?

SLK55 > Boxster.

Hardtop convert. Case closed.

mick1

I got these results from mbusa.

I see the number (top speed 200 mph) but i don't believe it. Is it a typo or can the SLK55 really go that fast ?

lisamcgu

Wait - are you telling me the Boxster doesn't even have power door locks?!

Gosh, for the worn out looks and design, lack of a hard top, power door locks, hp and gosh knows what else, why not just jump in an old cardboard box and have someone push you down a hill, pulling on the side flaps to steer. Same feeling I would think. Not a real huge grin like with the SLK55, but grin enough for the price compared to wasting your money on Porsche's dissonance

Shinigami

mick1: with the power to weight ratio, the SLK 55 could possibly do 200mph.

You usually need about +550hp on a 2ton saloon to pull past 200mph, but there were official reports of the older SLK (with a Renntech pulley upgrade, i.e. 380-390hp, depending on the tuning) that would make it reach 198mph or something like that.

The 200mph is probably a typo, but it won't be far off. However, MB's are usually limited to 155mph electronically (but according to some people MB forgot to activate the limiter on some SLK's... haven't tested my 55 for this as of yet because I haven't been to the autobahns of Germany).

And concerning the discussion between the Slikky 55 and the Porker S (lol, just kidding). The Boxster is a good car, I don't think anyone would say otherwise because they would be wrong. But for some people, the SLK is more 'them'.

I love my SLK, the looks, the power. I don't like how the Boxster is harder to distinguish which side is the front and which one is the rear. I also like my cars to be front engined with a long hood (unless they're a Ferrari, in which case gimme a 360 or 430 any day of the week). I drove the older Boxster S, and it was a very good car. The manual tranny in it was very good, absolutely no complaints.

So ask yourself, do you want manual, or can you live with an autobox.
Do you like the Boxsters look, or is the SLK more tuned in for your aspirations of a vehicle proportion and size.

Little things (or big things) like this determine which car better fits you. I know that I personally am not a Porsche person, not that I wouldn't like driving one, but it's just not 'me'. MB all the way over here please

SLK55AMG

I agree with most of your last post (and very balanced it was too! ) but just wanted to comment on the power to weight ratio statement you made......

The SLK55 200mph figure is as you say probably a misprint...... however the power to weight ratio of the 55 (235bhp/ton) is not going to help it reach 200mph. Power to weight has virtually no affect on top speed in modern sportscars, to reach high speed you need a low coeff of drag AND/OR large BHP...... the BHP pushes the car forward while the drag holds it back the actual weight of the car has very little impact on top speed (obviously gearing plays a major part in top speed as well!!!).

eg. The Bentley GT has a p/w of 231 but it can hit 200mph because of the 552bhp pushing it...... however the new 406bhp TVR Sagaris can only reach 185mph even though its p/w is 383bhp/ton....... I think the SLK55 would be good for 180mph but not much more as I can't find any other 360bhp cars that can go much faster...... the SL65 AMG can only just crack 200mph and it has 612BHP!!!!

This link http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm has an in depth article on max speed calculation and sums up with the following:

"Race cars capable of going 200 mph usually have at least 650 hp, about 350 of which goes into overcoming air resistance. It is probably possible to go 200 mph with a car in the 450-500 hp range, but such a car would have very good aerodynamics; expensive, low-friction internal parts; and low rolling resistance tyres, which are designed to have the smallest possible contact patch like high performance bicycle tyres, and are therefore not good for handling."

SLK55AMG

Agreed...... the SLK55 IS more prone to understeer than the SLK350 BUT it doesn't mean the SLK350 will be faster round a track

The new Boxster S is the better track car IMHO when compared to the SLK55 (thats why I bought one) but the SLK55 will eat it alive in a straight line real world drag race. I'll be tracking my 987S regularly and prefer a manual so the SLK55 didn't quite meet my needs...... but it was a close call between the two cars.