ProtonVehiCROSS

Posts: 19

Country:

Thanks: 2

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I was just curious what everyone's opinion of the SL was. The SL is heavier with a more powerful engine range, but also costs 2-3x more than an SLK. I think it looks less stylish (kind of reminds me of a 1970s idea of what a James Bond sports car was supposed to be), although the panoramic roof and ventilated seats would be options I'd LOVE to see on the SLK. (No offense intended to any SL owners on here - to each his own!) Thoughts?

Twisted

SL is definitely more luxurious than a SLK in my opinion besides being a bigger vehicle it also is more powerful and i think its more for the mature crowd No offence but i havent exactly seen 20 year olds in SLK65's now.

I wouldn't mind a leather dash on the SLK though.

Ikarus

Posts: 596

Country:

Thanks: 18

Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts

It seems that in Silicon Valley there are a lot more SLs on the road than SLKs and you do see younger folks in SLs around here. For me, the old design looked like a true classic, but the new one would kill it for me, if the lack of a manual transmission option didn't already. That, and the fact that the SL is a real porker of a car. The SLK is really the only MB model in the US that could be remotely described as "nimble".

DansSlk

Posts: 6,797

Country:

Thanks: 96

Thanked 227 Times in 179 Posts

Tend to agree on the designs.

I loved the old style it really looked great from every angle but the new style kinda ruined it.

__________________

Twisted

In the same way you guys feel about the old and new SL i feel about the CLK. Judging by the spy pics i dont think the new CLK is going to be as appealing as the current one.

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 78 Times in 52 Posts

I have heard a bit about some new law or regulation in Europe that requires new-model cars to have higher front ends. Something about safety of pedestrians, though I don't fully understand the logic, and don't even know if this is true. Maybe some of you from "across the pond" can enlighten me. If this is true, it explains the "squared off" frontal look of the new SL, and the styling of a number of new car models from Europe.

As for the matter of SL vs SLK, my wife and I drove them both, and frankly preferred the SLK -- independent of price consideration. We are among those who think the SL has just become too big and heavy for a two seat roadster. For that matter, we parked next to an older SL just the other day. I think it was about an '80 model. Both our newer SLK and the older SL had about the same bulk -- the SL being a little longer and the SLK being a little wider. I've parked the SLK beside friend's SL, and the SLK is obviously much smaller. Verdict: the SL needs to go on a diet.

__________________
The SLK -- What the SL was supposed to be.

cousjcc

Posts: 162

Country:

Thanks: 10

Thanked 39 Times in 20 Posts

I tend to agree with the above opinions myself too. The SL is just too long front-to-rear for my taste. I've seen 2+2 coupes that are the same length as the SL. I realize it needs to be *somewhat* longer to accomodate the larger engine, but heck they squeezed a V8 into the SLK 55 so... meh. It's definately a personal preference thing, but even if I had the $$ to afford an SL, I would still stick with the SLK, probably the 350 too because with the increased BHP in the '09 350, I just wouldn't be able to justify the price increase for a 55. Granted there are other changes on the 55, interior, wheels, body kit, etc, but I definately prefer the facelifted SLK 300/350 over every other MB offering short of the SLR Mclaren. Maybe if I were a multimillionaire I'd drive one of those . The SL certainly is more luxurious, but is that *really* what you're looking for in a 2 seater roadster sports car? A little bit is one thing, ie the difference between an SLK and say a porsche boxter or cayenne, but I for one don't need the luxury of the SL. SLK has always been the clear winner for me.

alroumi

Posts: 6,288

Country:

Thanks: 298

Thanked 233 Times in 147 Posts

the sl is always a grandtourer and i respect that, i wanted an slk since the r170 and i am thankful that i was able to get one in 2006. I got it because the 55 was a tempting package and that the sl55 and 600 were out of my reach back then. I really love the sl series and wouldnt mind being in one in the future.

__________________
06 Kleemann Designo Mocha Black SLK55 AMG
06 Porsche Cayenne S
07 Jaguar XKR Coupe'

I use the Torque and keep the HP for my Steak Sauce!

chadwick

Posts: 49

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

I think both look amazing and sharp, but honestly I prefer the looks of the SLK more. I'm picking up my new car tomorrow and I took my dad to look at it the other day and he thought that my SLK looked more expensive and better than the SL.

Nevada Joe

Posts: 112

Country:

Thanks: 28

Thanked 22 Times in 14 Posts

I like both.

The SL is bigger, maybe a little sophisticated, the SLK, a little more youthful, perhaps more of a track car.

The SL says "I made it", the SLK "I AM making it"

Any shortage of power in the SLK can be corrected by throwing a few dollars at it.

Maybe when it's time for me to slow down in life it will be the SL, but right now it's all SLK.

chadwick

Posts: 49

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

I think that phrase is just better reserved for BMW vs Benz.

Nevada Joe

Posts: 112

Country:

Thanks: 28

Thanked 22 Times in 14 Posts

I was thinking in Benz terms, but touche

linuxpro

Posts: 125

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 30 Times in 17 Posts

Frankly, I could easily afford the SL or the SLK, or any other car I had chosen. My decision had very little to do with finances. When I bought the car, I had a buget of $125k, and ended up spending $29k. Do I feel like I settled for less? Hell no. I got the "perfect" car for me, for 1/4th of what I was willing to spend (I still can't believe I got the perfect car so cheap!). The rest of that budget continues to earn on investment. But really, the money wasn't a factor. The only decision I made regarding the finances of the deal was when I chose to buy a used 2005 model, in order to save about 50% off the MSRP of a new model. So, I first decided which car I wanted, and then found a deal on one later.

Oddly, I've had 2 people accuse me of buying the SLK because I "couldn't afford an SL." Both were low-income people. These are people who would spend every penny they had to get the most expensive thing possible (and think I did the same thing). That's why they are poor, and will never have the financial freedom required to make a purchasing decision based on factors other than price.

When I chose the SLK350, I was looking for something very specific: a luxurious, sporty commuter car with a power hardtop and decent fuel mileage. The SLK met the requirements better than any other car I test-drove, which surprised me (I thought it would end up being the Boxster S or Cayman S, but the roofs just turned me off).

I love the small size of the SLK350, and the fact that it has a V6. I like the simple cabin (can upgrade it myself, thank you very much) and the power top is just awesome. The SLK is a much sexier, classier car - it more closely resembles the older R107 platform (a true gentleman's roadster and one of my favorite Mercedes ever), but then has this total James-Bond/F1-racer sex appeal with that awesome nose (god I love the nose). The engine is as sporty as I could ever need; this is a street car, not a track car. When I want to run track again, I will be buying an older used 911 Turbo because they are the best track cars ever made, period. But I wouldn't want to drive to work in one.

And the transmission: I was able to get a manual transmission in the SLK350, but MB doesn't offer it any of the other models. I refuse to drive an automatic. I am not an old man, and I am not lazy... I enjoy doing my own shifting, thank you very much. And my MT-equipped SLK handles traffic beautifully, I have no idea why people complain about manuals in traffic when you have one as versatile as in the SLK - I rarely use my clutch in traffic.

The SL is just too big to be handsome. It looks bloated and obese, it looks silly to me, like something driven by a poor person from the ghetto, it's just absurd. The headlights on it are truly the ugliest of any car on the market (the newer ones are a bit better). The interior isn't that luxurious - the ICE is about 10 years behind everything else on the market, the stereo sucks, overall tech in the car is behind the curve, upholstery looks cheap for the model range. It drives heavy and slow, you have to punch it hard to feel any gusto, and the body rolls like crazy in the turns. Taking corners hard leads to the feeling that this car is about to pull itself right off the road... not as much understeer as just a feeling of weight-induced momentum. Worst of all, it only gets about 12-13mpg in real-world driving conditions. So, you're polluting the hell out of the Earth, and guzzling fuel faster than the Fat Boys in a pizza shop, but getting none of the "kick" of other V8-powered sports cars like the Z06. I totally fail to see the point.

In summary, I would be depressed if I had to give up my SLK350 for any SL. I would sell the SL as soon as I could, and buy my Hydra back. If that wasn't possible for some reason (like if Mercedes said you could only drive an SL-series and the SLK was totally recalled), I would reluctantly trade in the Hydra and head over to the Porsche dealership and buy the Cayman S. That is literally the ONLY car on the market that was anywhere near the SLK on my buying list, and that was with no limitations on price. After all, I had decided that if I bought the Cayman S, I was going to have RUF swap the engine and put in a TT-3.6L for all-out performance. That beast would absolutely slaughter an SL series, and for about the same price.

jperfect

Posts: 5

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I love my SLK, but I'm sorry... The new SL65AMG is SICK.

I was at a stealership yesterday, and I sat down in one... after staring at the new front end for fifteen minutes in awe.

Amazing job by Benz.

Woolly

Posts: 972

Country:

Thanks: 28

Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts

Looks like a cross between a Crossfire and a Wide Mouthed Frog - JMVHO

__________________


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



2005 BMW LT - 16 countries, 2 CONTINENTS & counting
2004 MB SLK 350 Andradite Green (6 speed manual]
1999 Ducati ST2
2003 Vauxhaul Vectra
1974 Triumph Bonneville 750 T140V
1937 Norton 500 single
(all still current)

V8SLK

Posts: 1,071

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 48 Times in 26 Posts

i think mb absolutely nailed it with the sl body that started in 2003. the sl550 (looks wise) does little for me. the sl63 black on the other hand rocks. i love my slk; the only two things i'd change is that i'd love a manual transmission and it would be nice to be able to get two sets of golf clubs in the trunk with the top down.

slkluv

Posts: 82

Country:

Thanks: 9

Thanked 11 Times in 11 Posts

Everyone has their own personal preference or taste. Personally, I think both the SLK and SL look gorgeous. As far as the SL being behind everything else on the market? I don't know enough about cars or the SL for that matter to comment. I've seen some SL's that don't impress me, and I've seen some I think "Wow!" to myself. This is of course the same with other cars and not just limited to MB.

Im not a huge fan of muscle cars, but then again thats just personal preference and many others would take a vette anyday over an SLK.

Each to their own I guess

cyberdrakon

Posts: 1,406

Country:

Thanks: 26

Thanked 63 Times in 42 Posts

linuxpro, since you had such a large budget and plans for an RUF conversion for the Cayman (which should actually put just over $125000 in total), how come you don't have any plans for mods on the 350? with that budget you could get the supercharger or have a custom turbo put in?

In response to the original poster, the SL 65 was really the only SL i would consider, but that was far out of my budget. Wallowing suspension and the terrible power to weight ratio on the rest of the SLs killed it for me. Also, the SLK 55 is much rarer in my area, where every park lot has an SL of some sort. Going to the supermarket is funny. Usually the first line of parking has at least 5 E classes, a couple MLs, and at LEAST 1 S class (and none of them know how to park).

HwoALanG

Posts: 306

Country:

Thanks: 4

Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

SL needs diet for sure~ but it's great car and i love the look~

specially black series... drool...

smoothbnzf4n4tc

Posts: 172

Country:

Thanks: 12

Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts