Would this be a Poser?

**Dolebludger** · 04-22-2008

Here is a question just for the fun of it. We know that the SLK 280 has a 3.L engine, with the same block as the C 300. Nobody has a clue where the "280" designation came from. So, here's the question.
Would it be a "Poser" if someone with an SLK 280 changed the badge to read SLK 300?

**etyu** · 04-22-2008

I believe starting model year 2009, they're labeling it SLK 300 (instead 0f 280).

nevets · 04-22-2008

Whats the benefit?....IMO, anyone who would know enough to know what the number meant would also know that it is incorrect....don't see the point.

**DansSlk** · 04-22-2008

I don't think that counts as poser so long as MB sell the SLK280 under the 300 name.

Would be a pain in the ass to remove the badge and align it again just to change 3 numbers tho.

*easty* · 04-22-2008

What are you a fan of the SPARTA!!! I'd say do it if the new model will be like that and it may make it more modern for resale.. I'm wondering why i'm short or 245 spartan's to make a Persian empire cry..

**-1-** · 04-22-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dolebludger

Here is a question just for the fun of it. We know that the SLK 280 has a 3.L engine, with the same block as the C 300. Nobody has a clue where the "280" designation came from. So, here's the question.
Would it be a "Poser" if someone with an SLK 280 changed the badge to read SLK 300?

With the new SLK 300 labeling for 2009, I wouldn't cry foul. It's normal to "round up". Personally, MB should have gone with the SLK 300 label from the beginning.

**Dolebludger** · 04-22-2008

Yes, -1-, that was my point that the 280 designation is and has always been incorrect, in light of Mercedes' traditional numbering system. 300 would have been correct. Indeed, I don't know where they came up with the "280" designation. Seems purely arbitrary.

I probably won't change the "280" badging on my car, just because it is too much trouble. But I still will consider it incorrect.

ryan.stephens · 04-23-2008

I've never really got why Mercedes round up and down, for example 280 is a 3.0litre and the 200K is a 1.8litre!

Anyone care to explain Mercedes theory to me?

mtiede · 04-23-2008

I'm guessing that they were concerned that someone wouldn't pay the price difference to go from the SLK300 to an SLK350. But if you are going from an SLK280 to an SLK350, there ought to be a big price difference, right?

So now that they souped up the 350 to give it some extra horses, they don't mind calling the 280 a 300 because the extra money for a 350 can be justified on the extra horses.

Just a guess.

Baron7700 · 04-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by etyu

I believe starting model year 2009, they're labeling it SLK 300 (instead 0f 280).

That is correct. Go for it.

280 has been around for awhile, so im sure the engine changed over time, but the name didnt. Glad they are dropping it.

But the new class being the the C300 makes it sound like a chrysler

**Dolebludger** · 04-23-2008

Well, yes, many years ago there was a "Chrysler 300C" -- in the late 50's as I recall. Perhaps a little too close to "C 300" in the Mercedes C Class W 204. Strangely, the W 203 C Class for 2007 and a year or two before offered a "C 280" with the identical 3L engine as the '08 W 204 C 300. And now for '09, the SLK 280 (yep with the same 3L engine) is set to become the SLK 300 for '09.

Historically (and until lately) Mercedes' numeric designations were based on the number of liters the engine displaced X 100. For example, the early 50's 170 displaced 1.7L, the 300 SL gullwing displaced 3L, the '99 C 280 displaced 2.8L (not 3L). The examples could go on and on.

What I do not understand is why Mercedes recently abandoned this simple and logical naming system in some cases. There is nothing "280" about the SLK 280. 3L and not 2.8L. Does not have 280 hp. Does not have 280 lbs. ft. of torque. doesn't have 280 anything!

**DansSlk** · 04-23-2008

Why do they do a lot of things?

Its just a German thing, BMW's naming setup is the same.

316 being a 1.8, 318 being a 2.0 and so on.

**dltslk** · 04-23-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by -1-

With the new SLK 300 labeling for 2009, I wouldn't cry foul. It's normal to "round up". Personally, MB should have gone with the SLK 300 label from the beginning.

In fact, MB rounds up all the time, SLK55 instead of SLK54, CLK63 instead of CLK62. What's a few tenths of a liter among friends.

**FishtailnZ** · 04-23-2008

Ford did the same thing with their (in)famous 5.0 - it was actually a 4.9L

DesignoSLK · 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by ryan.stephens

I've never really got why Mercedes round up and down, for example 280 is a 3.0litre and the 200K is a 1.8litre!

Anyone care to explain Mercedes theory to me?

I think you should rebadge "SLK180"

just kidding.

I wouldn't rebadge to "SLK300" only because it wasn't offered for your model year. People who count would notice the infraction. IMHO

I'm going to add the AMG kit to my 170 only because it was an option for '00. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. I want to keep the car somewhat original. (Liberties taken on the term "somewhat"

).

**alroumi** · 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by DesignoSLK

I think you should rebadge "SLK180"

just kidding.

I wouldn't rebadge to "SLK300" only because it wasn't offered for your model year. People who count would notice the infraction. IMHO

I'm going to add the AMG kit to my 170 only because it was an option for '00. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. I want to keep the car somewhat original. (Liberties taken on the term "somewhat"

).

You forgot the SLK55, its 5.4 so I have to have the last 5 removed for a 4.

ryan.stephens · 04-24-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by mtiede

I'm guessing that they were concerned that someone wouldn't pay the price difference to go from the SLK300 to an SLK350. But if you are going from an SLK280 to an SLK350, there ought to be a big price difference, right?

Yes I think you're right.

WhenI see the numbers 280 and 350 next to each other, it looks impressive , but when I see the numbers 300 and 350 next to each other, it doesn't have as much impact.

Whenever I see a 00 badging I always expect it to have a Kompressor badge somewhere i.e. 200 Kompressor, C160 Kompressor...

**Dolebludger** · 04-24-2008

mohammed and ryan.

I have decided to leave the car as it is. A change of badging wouldn't make the car run any better, now would it?

ryan.stephens · 04-24-2008

Very true!

FallintoCouture · 06-30-2008

I'm glad you're not changing it. I've seen a few cars that have changed the lettering or added AMG when the numbers and exterior details clearly did not reflect a true AMG and I've only been unimpressed, to say the least, that someone would go out of their way to lie. It's like taking the numbers off completely, or when BMW owners pretend to have M3's. I'd rather spend the time doing something productive to the car.

04-22-2008	#1 (permalink)
Dolebludger Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Yukon, OK Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck. Posts: 409 Country: Thanks: 33 Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts	Would this be a Poser? Here is a question just for the fun of it. We know that the SLK 280 has a 3.L engine, with the same block as the C 300. Nobody has a clue where the "280" designation came from. So, here's the question. Would it be a "Poser" if someone with an SLK 280 changed the badge to read SLK 300?
	http://www.slkworld.com/

04-22-2008	#2 (permalink)
etyu Founding Member #2 / Ambassador Of Good Will Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Orange County, CA Vehicle: 2008 SLK 55 Posts: 4,910 Country: Thanks: 313 Thanked 206 Times in 106 Posts	I believe starting model year 2009, they're labeling it SLK 300 (instead 0f 280). __________________ *Eddy* To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Pewter/Beige, PIII package, Airscarf, Hands-Free Communication System, Lighting package Designo Black Leather Cover on e-brake handle, ( To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Bill T), SmartTop v1.0, Kleyman 3BFM (NoRegret Custom), Green Air Filters, *Mod. R170 ant.* EuroClear sidemarkers w/PIAA PlasmaIon lamps, chromed front & rear turn indicator lamps, PIAA SuperPlasmaGTX front parking lamps, HyperWhite license plate lamps ( To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Scott), bilateral rear fog lamps enabled.

04-22-2008	#4 (permalink)
DansSlk Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Wales Vehicle: 05 B55S (Brabus 6.1 S) Posts: 6,457 Country: Thanks: 84 Thanked 136 Times in 106 Posts	I don't think that counts as poser so long as MB sell the SLK280 under the 300 name. Would be a pain in the ass to remove the badge and align it again just to change 3 numbers tho. __________________ One thing you will learn with German cars - If it's simple it ain't happening.

04-22-2008	#5 (permalink)
easty Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Montreal Vehicle: ///AMG Posts: 2,068 Country: Thanks: 12 Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts	What are you a fan of the SPARTA!!! I'd say do it if the new model will be like that and it may make it more modern for resale.. I'm wondering why i'm short or 245 spartan's to make a Persian empire cry.. __________________ "I'm not a roman mum, I'm a kike, a yid, a heebie, a hook-nose, I'm kosher mum, I'm a Red Sea pedestrian, and proud of it!" Life of Brian To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

04-23-2008	#12 (permalink)
DansSlk Super Moderator Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Wales Vehicle: 05 B55S (Brabus 6.1 S) Posts: 6,457 Country: Thanks: 84 Thanked 136 Times in 106 Posts	Why do they do a lot of things? Its just a German thing, BMW's naming setup is the same. 316 being a 1.8, 318 being a 2.0 and so on. __________________ One thing you will learn with German cars - If it's simple it ain't happening.

04-22-2008	#3 (permalink)
nevets Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: New York Vehicle: 2006 SLK 350 Iridium Silver Other Toys: 07 Infiniti M35x, 08 Infinity QX56, 2002 Honda Shadow ACE 750, Maxum SR 1800, Posts: 419 Country: Thanks: 16 Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post	Whats the benefit?....IMO, anyone who would know enough to know what the number meant would also know that it is incorrect....don't see the point.

04-22-2008	#7 (permalink)
Dolebludger Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Yukon, OK Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck. Posts: 409 Country: Thanks: 33 Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts	Yes, -1-, that was my point that the 280 designation is and has always been incorrect, in light of Mercedes' traditional numbering system. 300 would have been correct. Indeed, I don't know where they came up with the "280" designation. Seems purely arbitrary. I probably won't change the "280" badging on my car, just because it is too much trouble. But I still will consider it incorrect.

04-23-2008	#8 (permalink)
ryan.stephens Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Exeter, UK Vehicle: 2006 Mercedes-Benz ML320 CDI Sport - Fully Loaded! Posts: 239 Country: Thanks: 12 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	I've never really got why Mercedes round up and down, for example 280 is a 3.0litre and the 200K is a 1.8litre! Anyone care to explain Mercedes theory to me?

04-23-2008	#9 (permalink)
mtiede Founding Member #7 Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Western New York Vehicle: 2006 SLK 350 Posts: 1,381 Thanks: 60 Thanked 33 Times in 26 Posts	I'm guessing that they were concerned that someone wouldn't pay the price difference to go from the SLK300 to an SLK350. But if you are going from an SLK280 to an SLK350, there ought to be a big price difference, right? So now that they souped up the 350 to give it some extra horses, they don't mind calling the 280 a 300 because the extra money for a 350 can be justified on the extra horses. Just a guess.

04-23-2008	#11 (permalink)
Dolebludger Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Yukon, OK Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck. Posts: 409 Country: Thanks: 33 Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts	Well, yes, many years ago there was a "Chrysler 300C" -- in the late 50's as I recall. Perhaps a little too close to "C 300" in the Mercedes C Class W 204. Strangely, the W 203 C Class for 2007 and a year or two before offered a "C 280" with the identical 3L engine as the '08 W 204 C 300. And now for '09, the SLK 280 (yep with the same 3L engine) is set to become the SLK 300 for '09. Historically (and until lately) Mercedes' numeric designations were based on the number of liters the engine displaced X 100. For example, the early 50's 170 displaced 1.7L, the 300 SL gullwing displaced 3L, the '99 C 280 displaced 2.8L (not 3L). The examples could go on and on. What I do not understand is why Mercedes recently abandoned this simple and logical naming system in some cases. There is nothing "280" about the SLK 280. 3L and not 2.8L. Does not have 280 hp. Does not have 280 lbs. ft. of torque. doesn't have 280 anything!

04-23-2008	#14 (permalink)
FishtailnZ Buckle up shut up hold on / Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Nfld., Canada Vehicle: 2006 SLK55 Other Toys: Wife, kids, dogs... Posts: 1,377 Country: Thanks: 245 Thanked 162 Times in 68 Posts	Ford did the same thing with their (in)famous 5.0 - it was actually a 4.9L __________________ - Bill 2006 SLK55 Caspian Blue/Beige Stock 1/4 mile results: ET 12.72, trap 110.80, 60' 1.90 O.Z. Ultraleggeras, Magnaflow X-pipe, E55K Airbox, Windrestrictor. Some guys they just give up living and start dying little by little, piece by piece. Some guys come home from work and wash up and go racin' in the street... - B. Springsteen To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

04-24-2008	#18 (permalink)
Dolebludger Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Yukon, OK Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck. Posts: 409 Country: Thanks: 33 Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts	mohammed and ryan. I have decided to leave the car as it is. A change of badging wouldn't make the car run any better, now would it?

04-24-2008	#19 (permalink)
ryan.stephens Elite SLK World Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Exeter, UK Vehicle: 2006 Mercedes-Benz ML320 CDI Sport - Fully Loaded! Posts: 239 Country: Thanks: 12 Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts	Very true!

06-30-2008	#20 (permalink)
FallintoCouture SLK World Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Northern Bergen County, NJ Vehicle: Alabaster White 2005 SLK350 Other Toys: Firemist Red 2001 SLK320 & Black 2005 CLK320 - R.I.P. :-( Posts: 18 Country: Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	I'm glad you're not changing it. I've seen a few cars that have changed the lettering or added AMG when the numbers and exterior details clearly did not reflect a true AMG and I've only been unimpressed, to say the least, that someone would go out of their way to lie. It's like taking the numbers off completely, or when BMW owners pretend to have M3's. I'd rather spend the time doing something productive to the car.