ryan.stephens

Posts: 239

Country:

Thanks: 12

Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts

Hi to everyone at SLKWorld!

I decided to compare the 280 and 350 technical specifications side-by-side last night and wondered if it was possible to get near to 350 performance but with the extra fuel efficiency of the 280.

The 350 only gains an extra 31bhp, more torque in the lower revs and is 0.5 seconds quicker, but does this at a loss of about 3mpg (combined).

I know if I were to look at buying a 350 I would benefit from a lot more kit as standard, but 3 miles is the distance of travelling to work or town, and is one insurance group lower.

Any ideas?

Portzy

Posts: 115

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I suppose it all depends on what you are mostly after. When I was buying mine I drove both the 350 and 200 back to back so, at that point, I was convinced that a V6 is what I wanted.

The 280 was eventually purchased pretty much "unseen" because, in real world situations, I would be hard pressed to use all, and I mean all, of the potential of the 350.

There is no disputing that the 350 certainly feels somewhat quicker but its whether you would get the opportunity to use that small amount of difference on UK roads, I dont and I'm in Bradford by the way and I see you are in Exeter.

If, the difference is important though and, you are contemplating a 280 then modding it up to 350 capability then I gues you would be best off buying the 350 to start with.

HTH.

Portzy.

Tummy

Posts: 248

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 24 Times in 14 Posts

Keep in mind that the facelift SLK gets a modified 350 engine which is suppose to have 10% better fuel economy than the current one, and also a total of 300 HP.

Curious... how much is fuel there now?

Ynot

Posts: 2,722

Country:

Thanks: 115

Thanked 25 Times in 20 Posts

I don't have any experience with a 280 but know someone and meet someone that owned both. He's a member of both mbworld and benzworld, he's member id is Northbenz. I met him in Germany during our European delivery, he said there is a noticable difference between the two cars. As he was going higher into the alps, he said the 280 was having a hard time going up the mountains while the 350 breeze thru it with ease. He also said, the 350 had much more torque at the low end. Overtaking was easier with the 350. If your budget permits, definitely go with the 350.

__________________
06' SLK 350, Iridium/Ash all pkgs. 6-spd, 19" DCR.


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.

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.

ryan.stephens

Posts: 239

Country:

Thanks: 12

Thanked 6 Times in 4 Posts

Tummy: Fuel is currently £1.06 per litre (petrol) and £1.11 per litre (diesel).

Ynot: The torque in the low revs would be useful, but I don't have any mountains to climb here

Dolebludger

Posts: 414

Country:

Thanks: 34

Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts

ryan:

We in the US are "feeling your pain" over gas prices, with 91 octane (which our cars require) is selling for about $3.50 per gallon. I have a 280, and get about 23 mpg in the city.

I can't speak to the advantages of the '09 300 hp 350, as I haven't driven one yet. But as to the '08's and earlier, I found the acceleration differences to be slight. The 7 speed auto makes up for much of the reduced hp and torque in the 280. And a weird thing about the 280's -- they are not (IMO) created equal. As I have said before on this board, my 280 is noticeably faster than any of the many 280s I've driven. So test several, and maybe you can find a "fast one."

A few other advantages of the 280 are the 16" higher aspect ratio tires, which give a smoother ride and are much cheaper at replacement time. They are lower speed rating, and therefore last longer. There have been complaints about 350s "rolling on corners and turns" and none about the 280. This makes me SUSPECT that MB softened the 350's suspension a bit to give it a "Mercedes ride" in spite of the low aspect, hard riding tires. The 280 is a little lighter, and handling is more agile.

In the mountains, you need all the hp and torque you can get. Not only does climbing steep grades require more power, but the high altitudes rob ANY car of power. If I lived in the high mountains, I would probably buy something with a turbo or supercharger. But I don't.

For a SLIGHT improvement in performance (and fuel efficiency) in ether model, check out the threads on the "Green" air filters on this board. They work.My 280 does 0 to 60 mph way down in the 5's, and that is good enough for me.

Ikarus

Posts: 577

Country:

Thanks: 20

Thanked 34 Times in 17 Posts

I don't want to debate the fact that there is a noticeable power difference between the two, but if a 280 has any problems whatsoever going up a mountain, it's more likely because it isn't equipped with the manual transmission.

Dolebludger

Posts: 414

Country:

Thanks: 34

Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts

I don't want to deate any issue, but a 280 equipped with the seven speed auto is (IMO) going to have an easier time on steep grades than one with a manual. In addition to the fact that the auto has one more gear to help it out, I've never seen an automatic transmission that is so responsive to demands placed on it. It is also efficient, as fuel efficiency numbers and performance numbers published by MB are he same for it and the manual. It is, to say the least, not your usual slush box. Though it does cost more, I do recommend the auto transmission in ANY SLK.

Ikarus

Posts: 577

Country:

Thanks: 20

Thanked 34 Times in 17 Posts

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Had the SLK only been available with the 7G transmission, I would have passed. I found the 7G noticeably less responsive than for example VW's dual clutch DSG system. I can see how those delays could be a problem on steep mountain roads, especially if the transmission is left in automatic mode. By the time the transmission has figured out that it may be better to go to the next lower gear at a steep incline, you'll have already lost some of that valuable momentum. To compensate for that, the 350's extra torque will definitely be helpful.

Dolebludger

Posts: 414

Country:

Thanks: 34

Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts

Ikarus:

Thank you for bringing VW's dual clutch system to my attention. I'll be sure to test drive one, as I am very interested in developments that improve the "automatic transmission", which I feel has the potential of being superior to a manual -- but perhaps just hasn't "gotten there" yet. The 7G in the SLK is the best I've experienced so far, but there is room for improvement, no doubt. It is much better at downshifts than the 5G in my '04 C 320.

Now, for a poster who is paying about $7 USD per gallon for gasoline (petrol) in the UK, I can well understand wanting to buy the most economical SLK available that still has acceptable power. I feel about the same paying $3.50 per gallon. And that would be the 280. Manual or auto? all a prospective buyer can do is test them both and decide for himself/herself. Either way, I do think the Green air filters make the car a bit more responsive.

quaidorsay

Posts: 41

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I ordered my 350 custom build on the spot after test driving a SLK280.

Not that I thought that 280 was a bad vehicle, in fact, I thought it was SUBLIME!

However, I said to myself, if a 280 sounds this good, imagine how a 350 would sound.

And now I've done around 33,000 km's, I'm quite satisfied, especially that I ordered it with the AMG packages and some minor after market tuning.

Unfortunately, I need a four seater now and I may be heading to trade my 350 for a the new M3 Coupe.

I really hope I can keep this car and buy something else with four seats for less. I love my 350. It's not the speed, its the way it sounds, it hums, it tickles your every senses, around every corner or winding road, you discover something new about this marvelous roadster/GT coupe.

I fitted my 350 with the green filters and now my car can do better sometimes to my sisters IS250 on running efficiency.

And yes, as the above fellow member has said, the new 350 is even more meatier. Its better to just simply enjoy the vehicle as it was made instead of trying to make it something its not. Like people who own 350's believing they can beat SLK55's. I was one of them. But now, I realise speed is not everything, and those extra 0.4 seconds can sometimes change your life (in a good way [hopefully]).

Enough rambling, have a good weekend!

Q

Gayle280

Posts: 131

Country:

Thanks: 20

Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts

I think what I get out of this is 0-100 isn't everything especially with the costs today. I do wish I had at least a 350 (talking 06 -08 year) particularly with the AMG option. I'm not exactly a fan of the rear fender clearance on the stock 280 set-up. I have driven both and to me there is quite a difference in seat of the pants off the line, add the 17" wheels, tires, brakes, engine porting, exhaust sound, and slight chassis diffferences all for just $4K more to me 350 is the only way to go. dolebludger makes the comment which I have read before on other forums the 16" tires make a nice ride( I agree). My question now is if I went to the 17" wheel tire option will the ride now be noticably rough? My test drives of both the 280 and 350 were on smooth pavement so I have no experience of more irregular surfaces. I have driven a c230 with the stock 17" set-up and it seems a little stiffer obviously, but not terribly so. Would the c230 ride be in comparison to a stock SLK? (no AMG Option)

etyu

Posts: 4,941

Country:

Thanks: 331

Thanked 216 Times in 116 Posts

I think going from 16" to 17" wheels would give you a slightly stiffer ride but still comfortable. I went from 280 with 16" to the 55 with 18" (which also also has a stiffer suspension), the ride is noticeably stiffer but still comfortable on my back.

I would describe the 280 with 16" as almost a sedan like feel on smooth roads, which may be a bit too soft for some drivers.

__________________
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.

Dolebludger

Posts: 414

Country:

Thanks: 34

Thanked 60 Times in 37 Posts

I agree with etyu -- that the 17" wheels and stiffer tires do result in a bit stiffer ride. As I may have mentioned before, it depends on the use to which you intend to put the SLK. As we already had a "guts for leather sports car" (slightly modded S 2000) before buying the SLK, our goal for the SLK was that it be a little GT car that would be comfortable and somewhat economical while still delivering decent performance. I feel that ours meets the goal well, while delivering 30 mpg on the highway (much of the time in the 80 to 85 mph range). But if one wants to take the SLK more in the sports car direction, bigger engine, tire, and wheel sizes would be welcome additions.

Gayle280

Posts: 131

Country:

Thanks: 20

Thanked 11 Times in 4 Posts

thanks etyu and Dolebludger! Sometime in the next year I'll have to decide.

B4TM4N

Posts: 131

Country:

Thanks: 26

Thanked 32 Times in 8 Posts

Though this reply is pretty delayed from when you posted this, I still hafta say that I agree with you on this. The car I test drove first was an SLK 350 and as much as I loved the sound and the feel, I still couldn't get over the lag in all M-B auto-magic transmissions. Though I personally feel it's a big stretch to say, my buddy who has a 7G SLK 350 said he felt like my car was faster mainly because of the 6MT in the 280. We of course both know for a fact that it isn't.

The only autobox I've actually felt to be impressively responsive was in an AMG vehicle. It was a CLS 63 I drove to be exact. In M mode I was pretty damn impressed. And then I rode in my buddy's VW GTI with DSG...

__________________
2006 SLK 280 6MT

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