The SLK as a TT would be named the new widow maker. seriously hindered by the ESP or it's trying to spin it tail through every corner. I think once a car of this size is pushing 400Tq it's way over it's weight to make it faster.. Great for the straight sprinters amongst us though.
I'd prefer a lot of talk the same as I see on bikes, How to get the weight way down.
Well, turbos have been around for a long time, and they do offer the advantage of giving power when wanted and economy when not. Imagine, for example, the current MB 3.0 liter V6 engine (rated conservatively at 228 hp) with twin turbos and producing a max of 320 hp or so -- with little increase in weight. The same technology might get around 400 hp out of the current 3.5 liter engine.
And all this would give you the option of "granny driving" your car and getting the same mpg as the current SLK 280 and 350. There is no downside here.
As Dolebludger says turbos have been around for a long time but IMHO it's a 'myth' that you get economy if you light foot them, even if you let grandma drive. The biggest problem with this sort of power in a light car will be putting it on the tarmac and I pose a question - if you had 570HP under your right foot would you ever drive like your granny?!!
I'm new to the forum having just taken posession if my 55 and here are my commnets:
In the article there is no mention as to the increase in cost. Is current thinking MB will continue to use the 5.5 in the SLK or go to a turbo'd 4.0? I can imagine them going with a smaller displacement for fuel economy but turbo'd for performance.