Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

The comparison offered by SLK350ncis63 is very good. There are just a couple of things I'd like to point out about it. First he has an SLK 350, not a 280. I point this out, because we test drove both the SLK 350 and 280 before buying the 280, and chose the 280 because we already had a "guts for leather" sports car much like the 350Z (more on that in a moment). We found the 280 to be much smoother riding than the SLK 350. Not quite as fast, but we were not looking for a sports car -- we were looking for a small GT car. The 350Z leans much more in the "sports car" direction than the SLK 280, which I personally classify as a GT. Actually, the SLK280 and the 350Z are not really comparable, as they are not really for the same use, IMO.

If I thought the 280 and the 350Z WERE the same kind of car, I would not have bought the 280, because I already owned a perfectly good example on one of the 350Z's true competitors -- a Honda S 2000. When the 350Z first came out, my S 2000 still had a very high resale value, and I considered a change to the 350Z -- before I drove one. Without belaboring the point, the S 2000 remained greatly superior as a sports car than the 350Z.

So my point is, if you test drive the SLK 280 and the 350Z, and find yourself leaning toward the performance of the 350Z, do yourself a favor and do not buy one until you test drive an S 2000.

hooolala

before we bought our SLK350, we were also looking at the Z.. my wife loves the Z, but after her test drive, she completely changes her mind, mostly because of the engine noise and the blind spot when making some turns or change lines.. so we end up buying the SLK..

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

sports car -- we were looking for a small GT car. The 350Z leans much more in the "sports car" direction than the SLK 280, which I personally classify as a GT. Actually, the SLK280 and the 350Z are not really comparable, as they are not really for the same use, IMO.


So my point is, if you test drive the SLK 280 and the 350Z, and find yourself leaning toward the performance of the 350Z, do yourself a favor and do not buy one until you test drive an S 2000.[/quote]


Thanks....good to see someone else was having the same issues choosing. I'm coming to realize that I'd prefer the SLK over the Z because I'm not AS interested in the speed factor but rather the style factor.

As far as the Honda.....everything I've read says the s2000 is superior....I've just never liked the looks. I find the hood looks flat and close to the wheels, like there's no substance to it, and don't like the bubble looking top....same issue with the BMW Z4. It's just never caught my eye. I DO like the interior and don't think I would argue with the performance factor.

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Paison:

I still recommend you drive an S 2000 before writing a check for anything. And be sure to drive one with more than 500 miles on the odometer, so you can run it into the 6K to 9K (or 8.5K on newer models) where the real performance is. It is a "one of a kind" car, which some people love and some hate -- without much middle ground. And you never know which you are until you drive one.

As for styling of these cars we've been discussing, I've been an automobile enthusiast for almost 60 years (since I was 7). I've followed design trends and watched them come and go from rear wheel skirts to fins and bullet bumpers, to "creased and tailored" to boxy "flying bricks" to "areo look" and so on. In this one man's opinion, the high belt line "turtle look" of the 350Z is going to look very dated in just a few years. Plus, "sitting in a well" just does not enable good driving. On the other hand, IMO the styling on both the SLK and the S 2000 is rather timeless. So IMO is the exterior and (especially) the interior on pre '05 W 203 C Class sedans. At least that is where I have put my money.

slk350ncls63

Posts: 63

Country:

Thanks: 4

Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

When you buy a car, you always do a lot of research , and when you finally make up your mind, you assume your car is the best you could ever get.

No offense Dolebludger, but in my evaluation of the S2000 when I got my 350z, it was too cramped and required you to drive the car in very high RPM's to truly enjoy the pickup, else it felt underpowered as compared to the 350z & even the SLK350. Coupled with the fact that its an 8 year old design + engine that was never changed, makes it less attractive.

Pasion, you should test drive it anyways so that you can be clear in your opinion.

Both cars are fun (SLK350 & 350Z), I put 45000 miles on my Z before I sold her, and I have 30000 miles on the SLK so far. Not that I drive the SLK anymore, cause I got a new toy after I sold my 350Z...

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

SLK350ncis63:

No offense taken. After all my post said that some love the S 2000 and some hate it -- with no middle ground. As far as the age of the S 2000 design goes, it was my understanding that the OP was looking for a used car.

We agree that there is no substitute for a personal test drive. Boards like this one can supply info on the long term satisfaction of owners of various makes, but only test drives tell the whole story for a given individual. A good example is that the S 2000 is cramped inside, and not suitable for larger or taller people (my wife and I are short). When test driving sedans, we found that the G 35 isn't suitable for short people (like us) as a short driver's knees bump against lower dashboard.

It would be a real risk for anyone to buy a certain make and model of car without test driving, regardless of what the people on the boards say.

slk350ncls63

Posts: 63

Country:

Thanks: 4

Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

Yes You usually realize once you drive... like when my wife sat in the Z4, she jumped out without even wanting a test drive... ...

I'm 6'0 , and s2k was too cramped for me, the Z surprisingly has a lot of headroom... all good cars...

my 350z :


custom touchscreen PC-based GPS/MP3/DVD system I built ...

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

The mention of the Z4 negatively highlights the fact that nobody on this thread has recommended that the OP check out this car! This brings to mind an interesting story about the Z3 predecessor. Read if you wish.

A few years ago when my oldest daughter was in her early 30s, she was all caught up in "image" and just had to have a BMW Z3. She and I lived in the same town, so she asked her "car nut" father to check out some (then) late model used examples. I did. She found a very low mile used Z3 at a very good price. I looked at it, checked it out for problems such as re-painted areas and such, Carfaxed it, and drove it. She called me and asked me how I liked it. I told her that it was a very good example of the breed, and true to the breed it drove like a rubber band! Driven by "image" and what others said, she bought it! In the next few years, she drove it less than 1K miles per year. She had a company car in her work. Still, when she was transferred to a city 200 miles away two years ago, the car had some "cosmetic issues", so she asked "Daddy" to keep it in an empty bay in my garage and get those fixed. I did. Later, I drove it down to her. Driving that car for 3 1/2 hours was totally miserable for me. I don't think she has driven her "image car" since. Anybody want to buy a '98 Z3 with 30K actual miles and last fully detailed and had minor repair by me?

Moral: Don't buy a car based on image or what others say. Buy the make and model that fits you, based on test drives.

slk350ncls63

Posts: 63

Country:

Thanks: 4

Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts

haha that was a fun story... the Z3's were total crap... i like the style of the Z4 myself... but the 2.5 is highly underpowered...

Ikarus

Posts: 596

Country:

Thanks: 18

Thanked 40 Times in 20 Posts

As much as I like BMWs in general - some of their more recent designs put quite a strain on my eyes, especially the Z4 and the 5 series. The one car I would definitely consider if I were to look for a replacement for my SLK right now is the Porsche Boxster S. Handles like a dream and comes with a manual transmission. The drawbacks are that it doesn't have an airscarf, nor a hardtop, and that the front looks more or less like a dozen Porsche generations before.

mtiede

Posts: 1,645

Thanks: 102

Thanked 55 Times in 45 Posts

I am only 5'10" and didn't like the size of the S2000. It has been a while since I tried it, but as I recall, I hit my knees on the dash. And I don't think there was much leg or foot room. Seems like there was some sort of bump on the floor that took up foot room. Definitely did not feel comfortable.

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

I hear you...I'm not in a rush, need a bit more cash , so it will be the end of the year purchase. I have time to test drive cars, I just feel I've narrowed it down finally.
I envey the time period you grew up in....I'm a designer and sculpture and greatly appreciate lines and form. I feel the greatest period of design was Art Deco...the older cars reflect a lot of what I love about that style. Chrysler has incorporated some great Art FDeco type style but it's bloated . I gusee that's why I'm drawn to the SLK....probably one of the coolest noses I've seen in a car I could afford (used).
My favorite cars were the 300 Mercedes Gullwing (got to sit in one a friend was restoring) and the Porsche 550 spyder. I just think they did it with more passion in those years.

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

SLK 350ncls63.....
That's a great looking Z!!! Love the wheels. I was learnig toward triple black....lot's of work to keep up on it but looks like an old roadster to me.
Very nice.....

Tummy

Posts: 284

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 42 Times in 24 Posts

Have you seen these videos on Youtube?

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Tummy:

I, for one, had not, but I am a great fan of "Top Gear". And I thank you for posting the videos. Comments. The SLK 55 and the SL 55 are not, IMO, sports cars but GT cars (as are all SLKs and SLs), so judging them as "sports cars" may not be quite right. The S 2000, in pure stock form, is rather dead below 6K rpm (6K to 9K, hang on). But, some simple mods to the air intake (which I have done on mine) get you some real power as low as the 3.8K rpm range. In stock form, the S 2000 intakes all its air from within the engine compartment, and right on top of the radiator so it is nice and hot -- just the way we don't want it. With about $200 in aftermarket parts and a little fabrication, you can intake cool ram air from the grill, which allows the engine's "pre-VTEC" mode to really sing. It's a true sports car, and I've had one since '01.

As I hinted above, SLKs are GTs rather than true sports cars, and that's fine with me, because that is what I wanted when I bought my SLK 280. Under most situations, it is as fast or faster than the S 2000. And remember the part of the video where they showed that the S 2000's trunk could hold more than the 350z's? Well the S 2000 has a trunk of a well-designed 5.2 cu. ft. The SLK has a trunk of about 10 cu. ft. which is also well designed, and is the clear choice over the S 2000 (and surely the 350z) for road trips and shopping.

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Great videos...thank you!!!
Love seeing these cars in drive mode at all angles.

st2288

Posts: 56

Country:

Thanks: 0

Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post

I had a 05 350z before I traded it in for a 05 350slk. The z was definitely quicker and the ride is harsh.. BUt it can't beat the looks of the 350slk and not to mention the top with a smart top module. Finally, what other convertible beside the new sl that got a air scarf option for those of us live in the north?

Dolebludger

Posts: 569

Country:

Thanks: 40

Thanked 77 Times in 52 Posts

Right!

I road tested a 350Z and the ride was harsher than my Honda S 2000, and that is harsh.

The heated seats+airscarf option on the SLK is perhaps the most useful option I have had on any car. In addition to the advertised use of keeping occupants warmer top down on cold days, it has an additional use I really like. Top up, in winter, the air blows very warm from the airscarf before the heater warms up. The warm air put out by the airscarf is sufficient to warm the small interior space very quickly on cold days.

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

mtiede

Posts: 1,645

Thanks: 102

Thanked 55 Times in 45 Posts

Yup. I use the air scarf the same way!

Duo-Art

Me too. It's also nice to dry the back of your head after taking a shower.