Very Discouraged With Slk55 Numbers>>>
02-09-2005, 11:19 AM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very Discouraged With Slk55 Numbers>>>
hey guys,
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
Last edited by MGW; 02-09-2005 at 11:21 AM.
02-09-2005, 12:03 PM
#2
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 AMG
I have also owned some of the cars you have described
and I must say I think the SLK55 is much refined not as
a race car but as luxary sports car. The purpose of the car
has been met by MB. They did not design it to run the
quarter. I recently owned a Mustang Cobra Mistychrome
and with pulleys on the blower, gears, airflow, chip, etc I
got the car to go low 11's. That car was designed to go in a
straight line only and couldn't compare to the refinement
and class of the SLK55. I certainly wouldn't say because
the Cobra ran 11's that the New Vette Z06 coming out was
a disappointing car cause it only will run low 12's. Also
don't forget that the rear end gears on the SLK are 3.07's
with an auto. That considered, I think mid 13's is pretty
darn respectable and 4.8-4.9 to 60 is well within it's class.
On the street there always will be someone quicker than
you and slower than you......use the car for what it was
intended to be and you'll be happier with it's values.
and I must say I think the SLK55 is much refined not as
a race car but as luxary sports car. The purpose of the car
has been met by MB. They did not design it to run the
quarter. I recently owned a Mustang Cobra Mistychrome
and with pulleys on the blower, gears, airflow, chip, etc I
got the car to go low 11's. That car was designed to go in a
straight line only and couldn't compare to the refinement
and class of the SLK55. I certainly wouldn't say because
the Cobra ran 11's that the New Vette Z06 coming out was
a disappointing car cause it only will run low 12's. Also
don't forget that the rear end gears on the SLK are 3.07's
with an auto. That considered, I think mid 13's is pretty
darn respectable and 4.8-4.9 to 60 is well within it's class.
On the street there always will be someone quicker than
you and slower than you......use the car for what it was
intended to be and you'll be happier with it's values.
02-09-2005, 03:15 PM
#4
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AMG SLK55
I have also owned some of the cars you have described
and I must say I think the SLK55 is much refined not as
a race car but as luxary sports car. The purpose of the car
has been met by MB. They did not design it to run the
quarter. I recently owned a Mustang Cobra Mistychrome
and with pulleys on the blower, gears, airflow, chip, etc I
got the car to go low 11's. That car was designed to go in a
straight line only and couldn't compare to the refinement
and class of the SLK55. I certainly wouldn't say because
the Cobra ran 11's that the New Vette Z06 coming out was
a disappointing car cause it only will run low 12's. Also
don't forget that the rear end gears on the SLK are 3.07's
with an auto. That considered, I think mid 13's is pretty
darn respectable and 4.8-4.9 to 60 is well within it's class.
On the street there always will be someone quicker than
you and slower than you......use the car for what it was
intended to be and you'll be happier with it's values.
and I must say I think the SLK55 is much refined not as
a race car but as luxary sports car. The purpose of the car
has been met by MB. They did not design it to run the
quarter. I recently owned a Mustang Cobra Mistychrome
and with pulleys on the blower, gears, airflow, chip, etc I
got the car to go low 11's. That car was designed to go in a
straight line only and couldn't compare to the refinement
and class of the SLK55. I certainly wouldn't say because
the Cobra ran 11's that the New Vette Z06 coming out was
a disappointing car cause it only will run low 12's. Also
don't forget that the rear end gears on the SLK are 3.07's
with an auto. That considered, I think mid 13's is pretty
darn respectable and 4.8-4.9 to 60 is well within it's class.
On the street there always will be someone quicker than
you and slower than you......use the car for what it was
intended to be and you'll be happier with it's values.
i appreciate the car's torque value but i just thought MB would at least make the new car a bit quicker. it may be great in its class but i think it is still a bit of a letdown. your point about the z06 and cobra are valid except that you are comparing a heavily modded car to a stock car. i would REALLY be dissapointed if the new Z06 were outgunned by a bone stock cobra if i were in the market for one.
this is ironic becasue that is the very reason i decided to order a new z06 since the viper coupe i was planning on getting is appartently going to be behind the vette t6his go around.
george
02-09-2005, 03:48 PM
#5
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 AMG
I don't think I missed the point but more made a point.
If MB manufactured a 12 second 70K car then what would
become of their 120K+ cars. Again MB and AMG did a
fine job providing a sports car with an 8 for under 80K.
With it's retractable hard top one can't possibly view it
as a drag car, but more of a broadway luxary get up and
go sportscar. I'm sure if you want to drag it someone will
come out with a supercharger that will give you the
numbers your looking for. MB could have put an SC on
the 55 but the cost would go thru the roof as it would
again outperform their higher priced vehicles. Buy the
new Z06 in 2006 and it should suit you well for 80K.
If MB manufactured a 12 second 70K car then what would
become of their 120K+ cars. Again MB and AMG did a
fine job providing a sports car with an 8 for under 80K.
With it's retractable hard top one can't possibly view it
as a drag car, but more of a broadway luxary get up and
go sportscar. I'm sure if you want to drag it someone will
come out with a supercharger that will give you the
numbers your looking for. MB could have put an SC on
the 55 but the cost would go thru the roof as it would
again outperform their higher priced vehicles. Buy the
new Z06 in 2006 and it should suit you well for 80K.
02-09-2005, 04:26 PM
#6
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55
Guys, a couple weeks ago I took my SLK to the track, and first run I did a 13.2
This was the first track run I ever did in my life, so obviously it was the only car I ever tracked. A couple runs later, I ended with a 13 flat. I'm sure with a little practice a 12.8 / 12.9 would be a possibility. But for a first-timer, I think 13 flat was pretty good.
I usually don't track my cars, but since I'm only keeping this car until April, I thought I'd give it a shot. If I find the time, I will take it to the track again... Perhaps take out the spare this time
This was the first track run I ever did in my life, so obviously it was the only car I ever tracked. A couple runs later, I ended with a 13 flat. I'm sure with a little practice a 12.8 / 12.9 would be a possibility. But for a first-timer, I think 13 flat was pretty good.
I usually don't track my cars, but since I'm only keeping this car until April, I thought I'd give it a shot. If I find the time, I will take it to the track again... Perhaps take out the spare this time
02-09-2005, 05:29 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dallas
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10 E63
My 2 Cents..
I tend to agree with AMG SLK55.
They purposely either detune the car or advertise conservative numbers to prevent hurting big brother SL500 sales.
The Porsche Boxster is a perfect example of the same show of respect. If Porsche threw in a larger engine into the Boxster, Pre 2005 sales would have plummeted for the 996.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main engine difference between the SL55 and SLK55, a supercharger?
Good Luck and Cheers
They purposely either detune the car or advertise conservative numbers to prevent hurting big brother SL500 sales.
The Porsche Boxster is a perfect example of the same show of respect. If Porsche threw in a larger engine into the Boxster, Pre 2005 sales would have plummeted for the 996.
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the main engine difference between the SL55 and SLK55, a supercharger?
Good Luck and Cheers
Trending Topics
02-09-2005, 05:30 PM
#8
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by dinko
Guys, a couple weeks ago I took my SLK to the track, and first run I did a 13.2
This was the first track run I ever did in my life, so obviously it was the only car I ever tracked. A couple runs later, I ended with a 13 flat. I'm sure with a little practice a 12.8 / 12.9 would be a possibility. But for a first-timer, I think 13 flat was pretty good.
I usually don't track my cars, but since I'm only keeping this car until April, I thought I'd give it a shot. If I find the time, I will take it to the track again... Perhaps take out the spare this time
This was the first track run I ever did in my life, so obviously it was the only car I ever tracked. A couple runs later, I ended with a 13 flat. I'm sure with a little practice a 12.8 / 12.9 would be a possibility. But for a first-timer, I think 13 flat was pretty good.
I usually don't track my cars, but since I'm only keeping this car until April, I thought I'd give it a shot. If I find the time, I will take it to the track again... Perhaps take out the spare this time
02-10-2005, 02:15 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MGW
hey guys,
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
02-10-2005, 05:45 AM
#10
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
The AMG N/A 5.5 V8 is a far superior engine to their old Supercharged 3.2 V6. The smaller engine was only used because they couldn't fit the V8 in there.
The SLK55 as a complete package is unrivalled in its class. The performance figures of 0-100mph in 10.8seconds and 0-124mph in 16.5 seconds are on par with the 997 C2S (if 997 was driven by Schumacher.) The only cars that could possibly beat the SLK55 is a faster Porsche or 55K or M5 cars, as well as possibly upcoming Z4M...but of course AMG will have a more powerful engine ready by then.
The SLK55 as a complete package is unrivalled in its class. The performance figures of 0-100mph in 10.8seconds and 0-124mph in 16.5 seconds are on par with the 997 C2S (if 997 was driven by Schumacher.) The only cars that could possibly beat the SLK55 is a faster Porsche or 55K or M5 cars, as well as possibly upcoming Z4M...but of course AMG will have a more powerful engine ready by then.
02-10-2005, 08:23 AM
#11
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Newbury, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W210 E320, SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by Bilal
The performance figures of 0-100mph in 10.8seconds and 0-124mph in 16.5 seconds are on par with the 997 C2S (if 997 was driven by Schumacher.)
02-10-2005, 09:29 PM
#12
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 834
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mercedes-Benz A170 CDI
02-10-2005, 10:05 PM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: 2000 ft over the Fl coast in a B-17
Posts: 5,824
Received 260 Likes
on
186 Posts
Mercedes Benzes even AMG's are not dragsters and were never designed to be stop light racers either, they do however quickly eat up miles of autobahn/highway with luxury, comfort, finesse and ease.
02-11-2005, 04:16 AM
#14
Member
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Newbury, UK
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W210 E320, SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by Bilal
Bah! Who cares about some incorporeal numbers on paper. It is all about the actual experience of driving the car. 
02-13-2005, 12:54 PM
#16
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Originally Posted by MGW
hey guys,
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
I haven't seen any 1/4 mile tests for one yet, but the numbers I have seen show a definite improvement over the SLK32:
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/...mgst2001-1.htm
Gewicht 1480 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,6 s
0 - 100 km/h 5,0 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,7 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 11,0 s
0 - 180 km/h 14,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 17,6 s
Vmax 250 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 37,8 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 38,2 m
Nordschleife 8.26 min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.18,5 min
Querbeschleunigung 1,0 g
http://www.einszweidrei.de/mercedes/slk55amg2005-1.htm
Gewicht 1566 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,4 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,8 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 8,3 s
0 - 160 km/h 10,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 16,8 s
400 m, stehender Start - s
1 km, stehender Start - s
Vmax 250 km/h
100 - 0 km/h (kalt) 36,4 m
100 - 0 km/h (warm) 35,6 m
Nordschleife - min
Hockenheim, kleiner Kurs 1.17,1 min
Querbeschleunigung 1,05 g
Slalom 18 m 65,8 km/h
Slalom 36 m - km/h
At any rate, given that the SLK32 was a low 13 car right out of the box, this one should be able to dip into the 12's imo. We'll find out soon enough
Last edited by Improviz; 02-13-2005 at 01:02 PM.
02-14-2005, 10:34 AM
#17
MBWorld Fanatic!
This review describes the point of the SLK55 I think:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...0115_1,00.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...0115_1,00.html
02-14-2005, 10:46 AM
#18
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 AMG
Originally Posted by sprins
This review describes the point of the SLK55 I think:
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...0115_1,00.html
http://driving.timesonline.co.uk/art...0115_1,00.html
02-15-2005, 02:59 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 2003 Acura MDX
I am going to get hammered here but if I were in your shoes I would buy the new Z06! I know I am dead meat!
I got my SLK55 in November. I love the car but it has been tremendously unreliable; lots of problems! So, there goes the main argument for buying the SLK55 in the first place (Build quality and refinement)!
Buy the Z06! 500HP!!! 500T!!! 3100P!!!..................:v
but if I were in your shoes I would buy the new Z06! I know I am dead meat! I got my SLK55 in November. I love the car but it has been tremendously unreliable; lots of problems!
So, there goes the main argument for buying the SLK55 in the first place (Build quality and refinement)!Buy the Z06! 500HP!!! 500T!!! 3100P!!!..................:v
Originally Posted by MGW
hey guys,
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
i am really getting quite discouraged with the perf. figures coming out in the latest tests.
i know that MB and AMG quote conservative times so i did not really take much note that the new slk55 actually is no quicker than the slk32 it replaced.
but now that the mags are actually tersting them the times seem quite slow. a 1/4 mile time of 13.5 is just slow in todays market. i was hoping the car would come in at at least low 13's maybe high 12's.
i have my car on a boat right now and should arrive in about 2 weeks. i guess i am just having last minute doubts. i also am just used to having VERY fast cars. my prev. were many vipers, porsches, and an 04 E55.
so i guess there is a point to my post
anyone mod their slk55 yet short of a supercharger???
anything worth doing ?? i was hoping maybe to bump it to about 400/400 which should get the car into the high 12's.
thanks
george
Last edited by Teufel; 02-15-2005 at 03:04 PM.
02-15-2005, 03:58 PM
#20
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Michigan
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2002 S2000 , 2005 911 & soon 2005 slk55 AMG
Originally Posted by Teufel
I am going to get hammered here but if I were in your shoes I would buy the new Z06! I know I am dead meat!
I got my SLK55 in November. I love the car but it has been tremendously unreliable; lots of problems! So, there goes the main argument for buying the SLK55 in the first place (Build quality and refinement)!
Buy the Z06! 500HP!!! 500T!!! 3100P!!!..................:v
but if I were in your shoes I would buy the new Z06! I know I am dead meat! I got my SLK55 in November. I love the car but it has been tremendously unreliable; lots of problems!
So, there goes the main argument for buying the SLK55 in the first place (Build quality and refinement)!Buy the Z06! 500HP!!! 500T!!! 3100P!!!..................:v
02-15-2005, 04:02 PM
#21
Member
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2005 SLK55 2003 Acura MDX
Let the hammering begin 
Originally Posted by AMGFUN
The new C6 has about 6 recalls on it right now. I don't think the Z06 will be much better.
02-24-2005, 09:53 AM
#23
Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Potomac, Md
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2006 E320 CDI, 2007 ML 320 CDI, 2008 C63, 2008 G55
George,
0-60 4.5 sec.
1/4 mi 12.7 sec.
What major US magazines have you seen actual test results in? Most of the major US auto magazines just got their press cars or just recently concluded their road tests. For some reason MB was delayed on press car deployment with the SLK 55's.
0-60 4.5 sec.
1/4 mi 12.7 sec.
What major US magazines have you seen actual test results in? Most of the major US auto magazines just got their press cars or just recently concluded their road tests. For some reason MB was delayed on press car deployment with the SLK 55's.
02-24-2005, 07:33 PM
#24
Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLK 55
Originally Posted by rake55
George,
0-60 4.5 sec.
1/4 mi 12.7 sec.
What major US magazines have you seen actual test results in? Most of the major US auto magazines just got their press cars or just recently concluded their road tests. For some reason MB was delayed on press car deployment with the SLK 55's.
0-60 4.5 sec.
1/4 mi 12.7 sec.
What major US magazines have you seen actual test results in? Most of the major US auto magazines just got their press cars or just recently concluded their road tests. For some reason MB was delayed on press car deployment with the SLK 55's.
0-60 4.5
1/4 mi in 12.8
02-24-2005, 08:05 PM
#25
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Orlando
Posts: 1,458
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55
Originally Posted by Fikse
Tomorrow night I'm shooting for 12.6!
