Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Hi All,

I'm new....I've joined a few different forums to try to decide on my next car, which Iwould like to purchase at the end of the year.

I was wondering if I could ask for a comparison of the 2006 280 SLK and a 2007 350z. I think those ar ethe 2 I've narrowed down to ..love the Boxster but I had a mid engine car and every time you need to get to the engine it's expensive.

The wife would prefer I get the Z so we would have 2 Nissans....I would rahter the more classy and sleek 280 slk. I've been worried about reliability as well as costs to maintain and fix a Mercedes, as I am an "average Joe" so to speak.

Any advice would be much apprieciated. Thanks!!

J

Tummy

Posts: 273

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 37 Times in 21 Posts

Nissan will be much less to maintain and repair. Reliability will probably be better too.

They are getting ready to release a new 350z, possibly as soon as this fall.

I rented an 08 350z in Orlando and found the roof to be harder to open close. You have to release a latch, where the SLK just press a button. The trunk in the Z is very small, we had a hard time fitting our rollerboard luggage. I think the Z is louder. There is more air intrusion at high speed with the roof down. Many people have one. The interior materials feel cheap compared to the SLK. I think you sit much lower in the Z.

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Yeah I don't like the new design that's coming so I'm sticking with the 07 if I decide to go that way.

You definetly are sitting in a hole when you sit in the Z. It has a cock pit feel which is kinda cool but I didn't feel like I was in a roadster. Feels heavy and engulfing (if that's a word).

I guess the reliabiltiy issue is a big one....decisions. I really prefer the look and quality of the 280....

Thanks!!

Twisted

Funnily enough i was having a similar discussion with a friend today with regards to the SLK vs a roadster or some small coupe's.

the SLK is far more more refined, but also more expensive and more in the "premium" segment. With that said, and aside from my "audio concerns" i raised, it's a quality vehicle with a sleeker design and more quality.

In addition, no one makes a folding hardtop like Mercedes. I'm a BMW fan by heart so this says a lot.

The 350Z is nice, as i've driven one a few times but its not all about speed or the feel and the 350Z is often cumbersome when it comes to the roof and long term maintenance.

Ikarus

Posts: 591

Country:

Thanks: 19

Thanked 39 Times in 19 Posts

Based on what is this probable? J.D. Power has it just the other way around:

SLK

Nissan 350Z

-1-

Posts: 2,207

Country:

Thanks: 50

Thanked 55 Times in 39 Posts

I like the look of the Nissan 350Z (coupe), but not enough to buy one. Many used SLK prices are a bargain and I'm sure you could find a nice used 2006 SLK 280 at a great price. Because your have one Nissan is no logic to get another one unless you're 100% sold on that brand. If you want a classy, fun car, get the SLK. Spend some time here to verify.

__________________

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

----------------1-----------------
--------SLK 55 ///AMG---------
THE MON55TER ON THE BLOCK

Duo-Art

The one thing that turns me off on the 350Z is that huge stainless steel door handle. It looks like it came from a refrigerator. I saw a 350Z two years ago that had the handle assembly painted black to match the car. Awsome IMHO.

Tummy

Posts: 273

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 37 Times in 21 Posts

Based on my unfounded guesses I suppose. Over the last 28 years, our family have had fewer problems with our Japanese cars compared to our German ones. That might have changed, but I still believe, as I think most people, that MB reliability is not very good.

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Well I like that report better than the consumers report. I read consumers reports all the tuime but they never give thourough breakdowns of why they call something "Unreliable"
Thanks

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

could find a nice used 2006 SLK 280 at a great price. Because your have one Nissan is no logic to get another one unless you're 100% sold on that brand.


Main reason was that my wife won't drive my car but she felt comfortable going from here Nissan to another Nissan. I baby my cars so she get's nervous driving them.
Still not great logic but it does make for a happier marriage

I still want the SLK...she'll learn to drive it!!! and probably love it.

Ikarus

Posts: 591

Country:

Thanks: 19

Thanked 39 Times in 19 Posts

Count me out. Mercedes reliability has come a long way in the last 4 years and this is reflected in all recent reliability statistics I'm aware of, including those published by ADAC in Germany.

Tummy

Posts: 273

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 37 Times in 21 Posts

I think most people believe that MB is not very reliable. Search for reliable and unreliable on brandtags for each brand.

You can see that more people believe Nissan is reliable, whether or not that's true, by their huge sized reliable tag. While not huge, MB has a medium sized unreliable tag near the bottom.

Nissan:
http://www.brandtags.net/browse.php?id=181

MB:
http://www.brandtags.net/browse.php?id=73

It will take much longer than the last 4 years to change that perception.

Ikarus

Posts: 591

Country:

Thanks: 19

Thanked 39 Times in 19 Posts

I agree, but here in this forum, let's try to stick to the facts.

Ikarus

Posts: 591

Country:

Thanks: 19

Thanked 39 Times in 19 Posts

German cars dominate 2007 ADAC reliability report

And what car do we see topping the ranks in the category sports cars/convertibles? Yes, our very own Mercedes SLK.

This ranking is based on hard breakdown statistics for cars aged 1 to 6 years. Subjective consumer sentiment does not factor into the equation.

Dolebludger

Posts: 470

Country:

Thanks: 38

Thanked 70 Times in 45 Posts

For what it's worth, we've had a number of Nissans and three Mercedes in my immediate family (wife and kids, now grown and gone) in the past few years. We've found the Mercedes to be more reliable than the Nissans.

Have you driven both cars? I personally find the 350Z to ride way too roughly for me. And I do not expect or want a "cushy" ride, as evidenced by my like for one of our other cars, a Honda S 2000 (which is often criticized for rough ride, but it is fine with me). On the other hand, our '08 SLK 280 has a much smoother ride than the S 2000.

Consider the fact that the 350Z has a vinyl covered cloth top, instead of the SLK's retractable metal top. The metal top cuts down on road and wind noise for sure! Also, vinyl convertible tops wear out much faster than the car, whereas the metal top on the SLK wears out no sooner. I don't know about the Z, but a new top for my S 2000 runs about $2500 US PLUS labor.

The 350Z is built on an Infiniti G35 body pan that has been shortened, I believe. This results in a high cowl and window sill height, and is why sitting in one is like "sitting in a well". We are short, and have visibility problems with this car. And the high cowl and upper body line make the car look like a turtle to me. In convertible form, the top looks like an afterthought. While the SLK shares engine design with some Mercedes sedans, the body is pretty much unique to the SLK.

Finally, consider gas mileage. There are many reports on this board of SLK 280 owners getting 23 mpg+ in town and 30 mpg+ on the highway at the speed limit. This squares with my experience, and is greater than US EPA estimates. I think you'll find the ACTUAL fuel economy on the 350Z will not be this good.

Tummy

Posts: 273

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 37 Times in 21 Posts

Here is the intellichoice 5 yr cost of ownership data for each model

2006 SLK280

2007 350z

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

The 350Z is built on an Infiniti G35 body pan that has been shortened, I believe. This results in a high cowl and window sill height, and is why sitting in one is like "sitting in a well".


Yeah...the first time I sat in one...my wifew laughed and said I looked like I was 12. My head just popped over the door sill. Hard to know where to put my left arm when I'm driving....I usually have it on the door sill. Not with tha Z!!!

Well it's good to hear positive feedback on the reliability issue.

I was wondering who the engine is made by? Is it German or American (Chrysler)?

I was going to try to get one from Carmax...I know that has a bad sound to it, even when I hear myself saying it!! We've bought a few cars there with some luck. Other than the very stained seats in my wifes Xterra (don't know how they masked that) it's been a great truck.

Dolebludger

Posts: 470

Country:

Thanks: 38

Thanked 70 Times in 45 Posts

The Consumer Reports data posted above posted by Tummy is, of course, an approximation and an estimate. Things like insurance and financing are going to be variable with each owner. The only thing I dispute are the fuel cost (therefore consumption) figures showing the 350 Z to be more economical than the SLK 280. People I know who own 350Zs tell me of around 19 mpg in town and 25 mpg highway. And I swear that I got 30 mpg in our SLK 280 on a recent highway trip, mostly at around 80 - 85 mph with 3K miles on it (so the engine was a bit "green"). A friend with a more "mature" '07 SLK 280 reports 34 mpg for highway cruising at 75 mph.

One thing I always do before buying is to check insurance rates on each car I am considering, based on my own personal information, location, and history. Insurance is a strange world. It cost me $20 LESS per year in '03 to insure my then -new C 320 than for our former '97 Cadillac Catera.

slk350ncls63

Posts: 44

Country:

Thanks: 2

Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

Well, here's an honest opinion, since I had a 2004 350Z for 3 years, during which time my wife had a 2006 slk350, so I drove both all the time.

1. Power/Engine-wise, the SLK350 and 350Z are as peppy and quick as each other, however, I'm referring to the 350, not the 280,which is definitely slower. You can actually shift quicker in the 7speed SLK350 than a manual 350z (which I had)

2. Ride Quality: the same. (I'm talking about road harshness)

3. Handling: The 350Z with upgraded wide tires was miles ahead of the SLK. You could take a 90 degree turn and the Z would just hug without any bodyroll/drifting. The SLK would feel like its almost about to lose traction before the ESP kicked in. This is primarily because of the rollbar in the trunk of the Z.

4. Overall: The hardtop convertible definitely is a big plus on the SLK, as is the interiors, however the driving fun of the 350z with its gnarly sound (exhaust), is a lot of fun. Personally I drove the 350Z more, and I loved it. I had upgraded a lot of the interior, and I had 19 inch aftermarket rims as well.

5. Looks etc : I got more attention in the 350z than with the SLK, I think that has something to do with the fact that the Z was blue, and the slk a boring silver... I would have kept my Z for a long time, until it go so cheap (sold mine for 18k) that every kid on the block has one and is ricing it out...

Paison

Posts: 15

Country:

Thanks: 1

Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

Wow....you have or had both cars I'm thinking of. Awesome.....good to get a side by side comparison. I think the "rice out" thing is what i'm worried about. Though I feel like I'm young....I'm aging and don't want a car that looks like I'm in college. I'm a professional artist so I'd want a cool car but also one that has a bit more class.

I guess i would like something that in the years to come will stick be classy. Decisions.....Like them both for different reasons. The Z I would get in all black and tint the windows...roadster looks great that way. The SLK in silver which I think looks amazing...uuuug.

Thanks for your input....very helpful. Great looking cars you have.

J