I was more concerned about the year and depreciation rate. Honestly I was considering it because the AMG is the best. Top of the line. On look they basically look the same to the general public althou the grey would be easier to maintain.
Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck.
Posts: 833
Country:
Thanks: 95
Thanked 111 Times in 80 Posts
Chats: 0
Eduardo:
How often do you drive your 280 at 10/10ths? Wide open, and cornering at the limits? If you do this often and find its performance lacking, the 55 AMG is for you. If you never do it, you might not enjoy the 55's harsher ride and lessened gas mileage the next time gas hits $4 per gallon.
How often do you drive your 280 at 10/10ths? Wide open, and cornering at the limits? If you do this often and find its performance lacking, the 55 AMG is for you. If you never do it, you might not enjoy the 55's harsher ride and lessened gas mileage the next time gas hits $4 per gallon.
What are you talking about? Mine doesn't squeak. You should have that checked out.
To answer your question - no, would not trade. I can't even take the 280 to the top speed where I live. The occasions where I can mash the throttle are far between, and even then, after a few seconds I'm in jail-speed territory. Most importantly though, I would not want to give up the manual transmission.
Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck.
Posts: 833
Country:
Thanks: 95
Thanked 111 Times in 80 Posts
Chats: 0
Look, some like it and some don't, but all agree that the 55 has a harsher (or "firmer" ) ride than the 280. It also has heavier handling because it is -- well -- heavier. Fuel economy is not as good on the 55 because it has a much larger engine. repairs and parts are often costlier on the 55, as is insurance. I'm not knocking the 55. Those who want a true muscular sports car and are aware of the trade-offs and willing to take them should definitely get a 55. Those who are not aware and willing should think twice. If you have not already done so, test drive a 55 AMG. Only you can determine if it fits your criteria.
I thought about getting a 55 AMG. I thought the ride would be about like my Honda S 2000, and I can live quite well with that. I test drove a 55 and compared to the S 2000 felt like I was being hammered to death. There are performance based reasons for this, of course. But as the role my intended SLK would serve in my "fleet" included a reasonable touring ride, the 55 was "out" for me.
I sound like a broken record, but everybody needs to test drive a particular car before spending much time in looking for one for sale at a good price. You may like the particular model, but you may not -- in which case all your looking becomes a waste of time.
I've had a 350 and a 55. Once you own or drive the 55 there is no turning back. Unless they're gonna make an SLK63!!!
Same here, it is all over for me, actually right at the moment when the sale start the engine.
However, like Dole said, it is all personal need afterall as they are too very different cars from the driving experience stand point. If the benefit of a 55 becomes a negative feature (harsh ride), then stick with the 280. Likewise, if the 280 is too soft or not powerful enough for your own requirement, then you should definitely test drive the 55.
In my case, my insurance was lower by $100 per year when I switch from 350 to 55 gas consumption definitely went up by about $12 to $15 per month. Not so sure about the maintenance as I only had the 55 for 1 year, did the Service C which cost about $500, not significantly more than the 350. It is my daily ride, although not drive it daily as I also have other vehicles from the family to use, so the running cost will not be as high.
I've never driven the slk 55 before, but i have driven the E 55 and the E 320. Well let me just say my personal belief is once you go 55 there is no other! Then again I'm also really satisfied with my slk 350, but maybe its because I've never driven the slk 55? In the end '350s are from earth and '55s are from mars! because they are outta this world!!!(sorry for the pun...)
I would go 55 everytime unless I was desperate for a manual then I would buy a Porsche again. The 55 really has a sense of occasion and thats what differentiates it for me in the end. Im used to hardcore cars so the ride on my 55 I would seriously describe as a GT ride, I drive it every day as I see it as an every driver. I dont agree that an S2000 has a much better ride but I think europeans have a different view than US citizens, its probably the corners. An RS 911 or a lotus exige have a hard ride in my speak. I would avoid the 030 package which I agree is out of limo territory, the Black Series showed that a 55 doesnt do hardcore very well.
Vehicle: '07 SLK 280; '04 C 320, '01 Honda S 2000, '98 Ford Ranger truck.
Posts: 833
Country:
Thanks: 95
Thanked 111 Times in 80 Posts
Chats: 0
I have driven a friend's CLK 55 AMG convertible AND an SLK 55 AMG. I did not experience the significantly stiffer ride and heavier handling in the CLK due to the AMG set-up (compared with non-AMG CLKs I've driven). Just a bunch more power.
On the other hand, with the SLKs I did experience a much firmer ride and heavier handling with the 55 AMG version than with the 280.
So, we cannot generalize about "all AMGs do this or that" because There are differences.
Bottom line, before you get serious about an E 55 AMG or a CLK 55 AMG, test drive one. Ditto for the SLK 55 AMG.
We can generalise that a slk 280 rides more like a Sedan and a slk 55 a sportscar , we can generalise that a slk55 is smoother than a 964 RS. Of course there are always exceptions depending on the car specification but its still a generalisation
Vehicle: formerly 2001 SLK320, and 2006 55AMG. Shopping again.
Other Toys: E550 4matic, C300, X3, 9-3, PT, F150, 767
Posts: 2,658
Country:
Thanks: 632
Thanked 727 Times in 369 Posts
Chats: 1598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dolebludger
Look, some like it and some don't, but all agree that the 55 has a harsher (or "firmer" ) ride than the 280. It also has heavier handling because it is -- well -- heavier. Fuel economy is not as good on the 55 because it has a much larger engine. repairs and parts are often costlier on the 55, as is insurance. I'm not knocking the 55. Those who want a true muscular sports car and are aware of the trade-offs and willing to take them should definitely get a 55. Those who are not aware and willing should think twice. If you have not already done so, test drive a 55 AMG. Only you can determine if it fits your criteria.
I thought about getting a 55 AMG. I thought the ride would be about like my Honda S 2000, and I can live quite well with that. I test drove a 55 and compared to the S 2000 felt like I was being hammered to death. There are performance based reasons for this, of course. But as the role my intended SLK would serve in my "fleet" included a reasonable touring ride, the 55 was "out" for me.
I sound like a broken record, but everybody needs to test drive a particular car before spending much time in looking for one for sale at a good price. You may like the particular model, but you may not -- in which case all your looking becomes a waste of time.
I completely agree. All three current versions are wonderful cars. They aren't "good-better-best." They're different. All of the owners here chose their own version for a multitude of reasons, all stated above. I'd suggest anyone in the market consider all of the well-stated points above and choose your car for your own priorities and not anyone else's. Having said that, It IS extremely valuable to get opinions about the different cars, just to help decide what one might prefer. Reading about the newer cars has helped me decide I want an airscarf in my next SLK, and I've never had one. But the discussion alone has made me realize I'd like to have the function based on everyone's description. After I read about it, I test drove a car with one, and they were right...
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to dmjonez For This Useful Post:
Would you trade? 
gas consumption definitely went up by about $12 to $15 per month. Not so sure about the maintenance as I only had the 55 for 1 year, did the Service C which cost about $500, not significantly more than the 350. It is my daily ride, although not drive it daily as I also have other vehicles from the family to use, so the running cost will not be as high.
again. The 55 really has a sense of occasion and thats what differentiates it for me in the end. Im used to hardcore cars so the ride on my 55 I would seriously describe as a GT ride, I drive it every day as I see it as an every driver. I dont agree that an S2000 has a much better ride but I think europeans have a different view than US citizens, its probably the corners. An RS 911 or a lotus exige have a hard ride in my speak. I would avoid the 030 package which I agree is out of limo territory, the Black Series showed that a 55 doesnt do hardcore very well. 
