Mercedes Benz SLK Forum - Reply to Topic
General Discussion Topics must pertain to all 3 generations of SLK - R170, R171 and R172 only.

Thread: R170 vs R171 - The gap has closed? Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes Benz SLK Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options
Upload your files to MEGAUPLOAD
Upload your images to ImageShack

  Topic Review (Newest First)
09-21-2012 10:13 AM
Arachnyd
09-20-2012 06:37 PM
Nupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arachnyd View Post
Arguably, If you have to pay more for your chicken (happy chicken law) or if you have to pay more for your car (pedestrian safety law) or you have to deal with a less-favorable cosmetic appearance or performance loss (pedestrian safety law) you are directly impacted, so there is room to "judge" if you feel so inclined.
I think we are saying the same thing. Yes, there is definitely room to "judge" if you feel inclined and the way in which you are impacted by that law will likely shape how you 'judge' it.

If the impact to you is paying $1.00 more per pound of Chicken or Pork, and you associate that rising cost with the law, then you may judge the law a certain way. If you become ill due to the consumption of unhealthy chicken/pork and you associate that illness with the law (or the lack thereof) then you may judge that law differently.

I have a co-worker that had a child born with a birth defect and was advised that it was likely due to high levels of mercury in some of the foods she ate. She is now righting letters etc. to whomever will listen to put more regulations around certain foods (mainly seafood) that traditionally have high mercury content, she is also pushing for the FDA position on 'safe' mercury content to be changed. A result of this could eventually end up being more restrictions around certain food and increased prices. As a mother with a child born with a birth defect her opinion of the law would likely be differnt than someone who just doesn't want to pay the increased prices.

Similarly, I think car prices and styles etc are impacted by laws that are either intended to save lives or save the environment. Seatbelts, catalytic converters, child safety seats, air bags to the latest fuel economy standards etc have and will impact car buyers in many ways.

To get back on point with the purpose of this forum/thread. Apparently, some of the styling of the R172 is a direct result of some of the law changes around pedestrian safety. IF somone believes the style of the 172 (and possibly future cars) has been compromised because of the law, and they don't like the style changes, then that person may look at the law differntly.
09-20-2012 05:53 PM
GeeJay Not sure what you're trying to say or how it's in anyway relevant to the SLK and the discussion about the R170 vs R171 vs R172.

The engineering complexity and development spend that goes into producing modern vehicles is simply vast.

The asertions that you're making about the automotive industry seem to have no factual foundation whatsoever. You don't even seem to have a grasp of the terms needed to describe your own argument much less demonstrate the technical knowledge to make valid and constructive comment on modern automotive technology.

Your post may well be your honest opinion, but I have to say that you seem to be rather ill informed.

I'm done in this thread now, it's turned a bit too ugly for me....
09-20-2012 04:56 PM
SamuraiSpirit
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeJay View Post
Sorry unless you have specific automotive engineering or oil products knowledge to support this (which I doubt), that statement is IMO just utter twaddle...
I'm not talking about a particular brand. But, yup, it's a twaddle that they produce millions of cars every day. That they have the knowledge to put, for example, ceramic pads on the most expensive models. Let's bet that in less than a decade all average and cheap cars will have those pads...

That they put Carbon fibre interior and elements? Yes, this is from outerspace but in 5 years for all cars. Electric cars - yes, this is a science fiction...
-Designers who slow down the evolution of the models' look...

The situation at the moment with some of the brands is:
-3000$ OEM xenons!
- Rust?
- Plastic-y interior...
- cranky diesel engines;
- "eternal" ATF... plastic electronic connector for 10 dollars...
- "poser" electric cars for the fuel's sake.
- design theft between the brands.

Millions of brand new car units not sold and for wastage every year...

How much the final market price overvalues the whole crafting and labour per vehicle - thousands of times.

If they reduce the quantity and put those "not so-alien" innovations sooner, the quality of the products will jump incomparably in near future... And also the safety... which costs a lot... but the shape is the cheapest solution...

The cars who cost 50000 dollars 10 years ago, their successors now cost the same but with some more innovations. Unfortunately not all innovations they are able to put even without any appreciation on the final product. They have the knowledge... And the cars are not made of gold...
09-20-2012 03:58 PM
GeeJay
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiSpirit View Post
Nobody can convince me that they don't have the knowledge and capacity to produce cars with, let's say, no need for an oil or liquids change for hundred thousands of km/miles, or brakes/pads, or drastically improving the elasticity of the exterior parts. But in reality, they desire the worn pads, the one-hit bumpers, the annual oil changes.
Sorry unless you have specific automotive engineering or oil products knowledge to support this (which I doubt), that statement is IMO just utter twaddle...
09-20-2012 03:08 PM
SamuraiSpirit Not that I don't agree with you, Nupe! I am extremely happy that this is a conversation between well-mannered people in a great forum (even friends).

What I don't agree is that there is not a solution for major problems which directly impact the life of many people. My opinion is that they are throwing dust in our eyes. For example, while they manifest the "happy chicken/piglets" law, they have been constantly flooding the market with bad carcinogenic food, such as milk, bevereges, meat, etc.

... bad medicines at outstanding prices...

I think it's the same thing going on in the car's business. While they claim they are making cars safer for the passangers and pedestrians (which I absolutely support with my whole being), they continue producing unreliable cars by assembling 100% of their parts by machines in the factory, using crappy cheap materials, deffects on launchdate. Thousands of new cars with problems in the gas and brake pedals, airbags and so on.

My point of view is that those cosmetic things are far from the most important aspects of the daily driving and usage of the vehicles.

Nobody can convince me that they don't have the knowledge and capacity to produce cars with, let's say, no need for an oil or liquids change for hundred thousands of km/miles, or brakes/pads, or drastically improving the elasticity of the exterior parts. But in reality, they desire the worn pads, the one-hit bumpers, the annual oil changes. The manufacturers also have their lobbies among the legislators.

This is my opinion but I do agree with you and your position is humane, I deeply appreciate that!
09-20-2012 02:11 PM
Arachnyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nupe View Post
it's difficult to judge how 'stupid' a law is until you or someone you know is directly impacted.
Arguably, If you have to pay more for your chicken (happy chicken law) or if you have to pay more for your car (pedestrian safety law) or you have to deal with a less-favorable cosmetic appearance or performance loss (pedestrian safety law) you are directly impacted, so there is room to "judge" if you feel so inclined.
09-20-2012 01:44 PM
Nupe
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiSpirit View Post
This is not the only stupid law within the European Union. And it is getting worse.

A recent stupidity is the so called "happy chickens" and "happy pigs" laws - in order for the chickens and pigs to be happy (no kidding) and to provide good meat, there should be enough free space in the hen-houses for each chicken, 2 square meter space for each piglet in the pigsty, healthy food for them, etc.

But the pedestrian safety laws are the most important, who cares that we people eat semi-finished products, unbelievable taxes, etc - square cars are the most important. And I am sure that all car companies gain some profit from that new requirements.
Some companies - possibly most, Toyota for example, actually loses money (makes less profit) from the new requirements. The cost of R&D, changes in manufacturing process and engineering etc. can't be past to the consumer dollar for dollar, so the company does not gain from the new requirements. In the ideal scenario (from the car company standpoint), standards/requirements go unchanged for as long as possible, that way the cost of any additional research etc. can be spread out over 10-15 years. But because the standards have changed so often at varying points in time and depending on country to country, companies have not yet been able to re-coup losses with economies of scale or through time the way they would like.

The only people that 'win' with the new safety standards are the people who are in accidents and are unharmed/alive. Like insurance, everyobdy has to pay a little so that the few can benefit. Nobody likes to pay insurance and nobody wants to sacrafice syle/design of there cars and many laws can seem very stupid. But if your or a loved ones life is saved due to these stupid laws, then the sacrafice of 'style' doesn't seem as bad.

I would say similarly with the happy chickens and pig legislation. Not that I'm very familiar with it, but it is intuitive that providing animals more space can help them be healthier. And consuming healthier animals can result in healthier humans. So from that very basic perspective, I don't disagree with the intent of the law and believe that if it can help improve/save the quality of human lives, then that should be considered above all else.

However, there is alway some form of balance needed. How much/many restrictions should industry have to make cars safer for everyone or should farmers/ranchers have to make food safer for everyone? The balance between individual choice, economic impacts and human life etc. can always be debated, but I think the root of most laws/regulations is usually grounded in the best interest of human life, but not necessarily the most cost effective etc. Not trying to get into any political debate as much as saying that it's difficult to judge how 'stupid' a law is until you or someone you know is directly impacted.
09-20-2012 11:25 AM
SamuraiSpirit This is not the only stupid law within the European Union. And it is getting worse.

A recent stupidity is the so called "happy chickens" and "happy pigs" laws - in order for the chickens and pigs to be happy (no kidding) and to provide good meat, there should be enough free space in the hen-houses for each chicken, 2 square meter space for each piglet in the pigsty, healthy food for them, etc.

But the pedestrian safety laws are the most important, who cares that we people eat semi-finished products, unbelievable taxes, etc - square cars are the most important. And I am sure that all car companies gain some profit from that new requirements.
09-20-2012 10:41 AM
Arachnyd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porschebreath View Post
teachers are conservatively dressed, " teachers car".
There are "teachers cars". Younger teachers drive Geo Metro (low end) to Mazda 3 (high end). Older teachers drive Hondas and Toyotas. Next time you drive by a school check it out!!! haha.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JonB View Post
One thing I dont understand is why the nose on the 172 is a pedestrian safety requirement. I dont see other sports cars complying to this. Porsche Mazda Not to mention lambo's and Ferraris
I know this was big talk when I was working with marketing for GM. The new Corvette is trying to make serious headway in european markets competing with the high end sports cars over there. (you'll notice GM is really striving to capture the hearts of europeans as they are now the main sponsor of manchester united).

One of the challenges the Corvette had to deal with was because they will be competing heavily in Europe, they have to meet the new european pedestrian impact laws, and the basis for reducing impact does not go hand in hand with aerodynamics... This is where I first learned about the requirements.

The reason why you don't see it on a lot of other cars is because the laws don't come into effect until 2015. This is why companies like GM haven't worried about it with the C6 corvette, because it will be phased out in 2013, but have to worry about it with the 2014 C7 corvette.

Companies like Mercedes on the other hand have long prided themselves (and advertise accordingly) by putting into place safety measures well before other companies. (specifically, By 2015, the EU demands that automakers’ products make collisions survivable when they occur between a pedestrian and a car moving at 40kph (24.9 mph)- http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/200...y-legislation/)

In addition to the new bumper requirements, many are having new deformable hoods or even pop-up hoods. Volvo even started offering the a pedestrian airbag!

This is only going to be true of US cars sold overseas, and international automakers. Domestic-only vehicles will likely not see these as there are no plans in the US to have these same requirements. I also wouldn't be surprised if we eventually see some of the same cars with a "US" and an "international" bumper just like we always have with different turn signals or headlight requirements.

Enjoy!
09-19-2012 06:35 PM
GeeJay
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nupe View Post
It's funny and make sense that everybody has a different opinion. Personally, the only SLK that I don't like is the 171. Just to curvy for me and that nose - just doesn't do anything for me. If the 171 was the original SLK, I would likely have chose a different car. I don't think the 172 is bad, I just like the 170 better. If the 172 was the first/only SLK available, then I would have bought it.

At the end of the day, I think people who like more 'curvy' cars are going to like the looks of the 171 best. And if you prefer a more 'angular' car then the 172 is probably more to your liking. Many of the reviews speak about the more 'muscular' looking 172 that Mercedes thought it 'needed' to do as the 171 was just not cuttting it for so many people. But then reading a lot of the opinions on this site, it seems that the 171 is the prefered look.

It will be interesting to see what Merc does with the 173, will they stay 'muscular'/'angular' keeping with design cues from the 170 and 172 or will the revert back to what seems to be the prefered styling of current owners and go to more of a curvy/soft edge look. Guess the Merc design team and marketing folks etc. will have some intersting discussion come the next facelift and/or model.
Though I think most of us try to be objective, we are all biased. If I had an R170 or R172, I'm sure that a) I would be happy as I'd be driving an SLK and b) I'd find a way of defending my decision to splash out on a car that to most people is a frivolous toy of a car etc..

When I first thought of getting an SLK I was considering an R170. Thought they looked great (still do).

Then got to experience the R171 up close and personal. What a car! Having now owned and driven one for four-years my liking of the car remains undiminshed (who would have guessed that... ).

Got to drive the R172 in the summer last year. Looked much better in person than in the photos. Was genuinely surprised and impressed. From the back it looks better than the R171. But the front somehow.....

I don't think there is a 'forum' view on which is best or preferred. Just that most of us chipping in here seem to be R171-ites. It's all good. Really..
09-19-2012 06:11 PM
Nupe It's funny and make sense that everybody has a different opinion. Personally, the only SLK that I don't like is the 171. Just to curvy for me and that nose - just doesn't do anything for me. If the 171 was the original SLK, I would likely have chose a different car. I don't think the 172 is bad, I just like the 170 better. If the 172 was the first/only SLK available, then I would have bought it.

At the end of the day, I think people who like more 'curvy' cars are going to like the looks of the 171 best. And if you prefer a more 'angular' car then the 172 is probably more to your liking. Many of the reviews speak about the more 'muscular' looking 172 that Mercedes thought it 'needed' to do as the 171 was just not cuttting it for so many people. But then reading a lot of the opinions on this site, it seems that the 171 is the prefered look.

It will be interesting to see what Merc does with the 173, will they stay 'muscular'/'angular' keeping with design cues from the 170 and 172 or will the revert back to what seems to be the prefered styling of current owners and go to more of a curvy/soft edge look. Guess the Merc design team and marketing folks etc. will have some intersting discussion come the next facelift and/or model.
09-19-2012 05:15 PM
JonB I think the big problem is. How do you improve on the looks of a 171

Sorry 172 owners No offence intended
09-19-2012 05:11 PM
GeeJay The material of the nose on the new Mercs is soft and deformable, supposedly to help reduce injury for pedestrians in low speed collisions. Not sure how rigid (pun intended) the actual regulations are though, but I'd be surprised if they stipulated the 'ugliness' factor. To me it looks like cost cutting in the design office, i.e. lets modify the deign of the E-Class to fit the SLK; except it doesn't..

Then again I don't develop cars, only the stuff they drink.
09-19-2012 05:04 PM
JonB I think the whole pedestrian thing is a load of bull****. If you hit by any car at more than walking pace you going to get hurt. I wouldnt fancy being hit by a Rolls Royce and end up with every bone in my body broken and probably end up underneath it. I would sooner slide up the bonnet of an SLK and take my chances. I suppose they consider the front of a bus or a truck is safer !!!!!!
09-19-2012 04:49 PM
GeeJay
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonB View Post
One thing I dont understand is why the nose on the 172 is a pedestrian safety requirement. I dont see other sports cars complying to this. Porsche Mazda Not to mention lambo's and Ferraris
Might be the number of cars they make (Ferrari, Lambo)...

As for Porsche, if they ever actually produce a new design, it may have to comply with pedestrian friendly regs. As things stand, they seem to be able to just keep pedalling out the same old stuff....
09-19-2012 04:46 PM
JonB One thing I dont understand is why the nose on the 172 is a pedestrian safety requirement. I dont see other sports cars complying to this. Porsche Mazda Not to mention lambo's and Ferraris
09-19-2012 04:34 PM
GeeJay Most people by definition drive something other than an SLK. Most people who offer an opinion on the SLK have absolutely no direct experience of one at all other than seeing one parked up or driving by, often by a woman. Their opinion is formed from reviews they might read in 'Knucklehead' magazine, which tries to compare the SLK to the Elise or Scooby-Doo etc. Concluding that the SLK has 'no performance' or no handling' or is 'too soft', is too expensive, too easy to drive so isn't for 'real men', too comfortable for a sports car... yada yada...

The SLK is not a hardcore performance roadster, neither is it a big long legged grand tourer. In a way it's kind of hard define. Until the new Z4 came along the blend of style, comfort and performance offered by the SLK were pretty much unique. Even now I think the Z4 and SLK are pretty much the only cars that fit into this particular niche. With BMW's image/background of making 'drivers cars' the Z4 tends to be seen as a 'proper' sports car and even though it probably (not driven one myself,... yet) rides more firmly than the SLK it is still a far cry from a Caterham 7. Mercedes' image is luxury and comfort both apparently mutually exclusive from performance... Hmm I'd like to see how many cars stack up against an SLS.... or an SLK on a sheep chase

The R170 is great car. The 32AMG that Jude drives, is a very seriously quick car. At its launch the styling and metal folding roof were ground breaking. People used to stand and stare at the roof when it was folding, up or down. Still do. Mercedes defined a new benchmark in sports cars. The reviewers were stuck to come up with new descriptors. Still are IMHO.

The R171 design team with a tough act to follow, actually again IMHO pulled it off. With groundbreaking styling, even when parked the car looks fast. The interior is a triumph and though there are people that don't find the seats comfortable, my wife and I have no problem. I think the seat design, with the magnesium frame and mininalistic lines is very simple and elegant. Performance, ride and handling are pretty impressive in my considered opinion and FWIW.

Moving on to the R172, the design team have in my view 'caved' in face of 'pedestrian friendly' BS. Though this may be regulatory in which case they are forgiven, the R172 is hardly hideous. From a styling perspective, IMHO the nose just doesn't work with the rest of the car. Overall the R172 has a squared off, more bulky look, so it counters the feminine lines of the R171 and allows the reviewers to wax lyrical about masculine this or muscular that... Performance, ride and handling are similar in my experience to the R171, maybe a little more refined, but still similar. Still an SLK.

To the detractors I say this... Ya Boo Sucks... !! Try driving the SLK before slagging it off..
09-19-2012 04:10 PM
JonB My hairdresser isnt gay or poor. She has just got married I have no idea where the term comes from. It was said to me once when I had a Mazda MX5. I said oh and what do you drive. A Puegot 205. just gave him a sympathetic look. People who live in glass houses shouldnt throw stones
09-19-2012 04:05 PM
Porschebreath I am a hairstylist an owner of a very successful salon. My last car was a viper , a vette before that , several Porsches ,triumphs, pick up and my current slk along with my jeep wrangler. I must say I get pissed at the hairdresser car from the euros. I make six figure money, have a beautiful girlfriend , nice house , great life. I guess the hairdressers in England are all gay and poor .my good friend also a stylist collects classic Harley's . To judge a car , or profession is just plain stupid. Lawyers rip people off all the time, why don't we have a "lawyer car", teachers are conservatively dressed, " teachers car". Grow up people
This thread has more than 20 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Clubs, Garage Plus vBulletin Plugins by Drive Thru Online, Inc.