Mercedes SLK World banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
In the UK the list prices between equivalent models (AMG Line with 9g-tronic) is £3,405, from the brochure the only difference I can discern is the engine (trim and std equipment seems exactly the same).

The engines in appear to both be 1,991cc T/C Inline 4 cylinders from the M274 family with the 200 and 300 producing 184HP and 245HP respectively.

I can't find any mention of things like the twin turbos that differentiate the higher output diesels from the lower ones in the same family e.g 250d vs 220d.

So my question is:
What EXACTLY is it about the engines that could account for such a massive price differential between them?

If i was being really cynical I'd say they just wound the boost up to 11 and left it in the hands of the sales and marketing mob to generate the spin :wink:
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,379 Posts
SLC 180 4 cylinders, 1.6L turbo, 156 PS, 250 Nm, 5,6 l/100 km, 127 g CO2/km, 0–100 km/h in 7.9 s, 226 km/h
SLC 200 4 cylinders, 2.0L turbo, 184 PS, 300 Nm, 5,7 l/100 km, 133 g/km, 0–100 km/h in 7.0s, 240 km/h
SLC 300 4 cylinders, 2.0L turbo, 245 PS, 370 Nm, 5,8 l/100 km, 134 g/km, 0–100 km/h in 5.8s, 250 km/h
AMG SLC 43 V6, 3.0L biturbo, 367 PS, 520 Nm, 7,8 l/100 km, 178 g/km, 0–100 km/h in 4.7s, 250 km/h (0-60mph in 4.6s)
SLC 250d 4 cylinders, 2.1L turbodiesel 204 PS, 4,4 l/100 km, 114 g/km, 0–100 km/h in 6.6s, 245 km/h[21][22][23][24][25][26]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thank you Jeff for confirming the stats, esp for the 2.0L :smile:

Maybe my last remark wasn't so off the mark.. It turns out there is another version of this same engine available for the current C Class (but not in the UK) the c250 and it has around 208HP.

Given that the 300s 245HP isn't particularly extraordinary for a modern TC 2.0L petrol engine, I can't believe that there are 3 sets of engine internals, the differential between the 3 of them them are such small increments.

So I now reckon it's mainly just gonna be engine mappings and tons of profit.

I welcome your opinions, especially anybody with access to the parts catalogue who may be able to shed some light on the parts used.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
The SLK300 has a significantly bigger intercooler than the SLK200 and the exhaust manifold is also different.

I would imagine the SLC is the same.

You can just turn up the mapping to 11 but without the supporting peripheral components it will likely melt pretty quick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Thanks for that info.. it explains some of differences between models.

But as far as the price is concerned, both engines have intercoolers and exhaust manifolds, they may be (slightly?) more expensive parts on the 300 but they are being fitted during manufacture (by the manufacturer who can benefit from their economies of scale unlike the aftermarket performance manufacturers) and you're not getting anything much additional. Nearly 3.5K for essentially two different parts and a different engine map??? Possibly the turbo itself too, but the same applies, both engines have them even of they're a different spec.

I'm not just having a pop at MB here, I've been checking out the BMW 4 Series convertible and they seem to be employing the same tactic.

Guess I'll be exercising my prerogative not to participate in their little game. >:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
My former MR2 turbo made 264bhp stock with 1990 tech and was reckoned to be easily capable of achieving 290 + bhp reliably just by adding a manual boost controller. No uprated intercoolers or exhausts necessary.

I imagine that there is a similar margin of over engineering in the M274 engine if it's just the ancillaries that need upgrading then.
 

·
Premium Member 2013 SLK250
Joined
·
2,381 Posts
Maybe my last remark wasn't so off the mark.. It turns out there is another version of this same engine available for the current C Class (but not in the UK) the c250 and it has around 208HP.
In the US the GLA250 has 208 HP and the AMG version GLA45 is the same engine that is 375 for 2016 and reports are 400HP for 2017 all the same 4 cyl.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
In the US the GLA250 has 208 HP and the AMG version GLA45 is the same engine that is 375 for 2016 and reports are 400HP for 2017 all the same 4 cyl.

Thanks, now I really believe we're being manipulated by "The man"... I'm going to get my tinfoil hat on, just to be safe!!!>:D

Maybe it's time to go out and buy up all those 1990's Japanese supacars and get wicked performance dirt cheap :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
@bastivock, you are absolutely correct, the base model is ALWAYS the best value and if you're buying as a long-term proposition then the horrific early depreciation on the SLC (even allowing for the enormous discounts) won't be a factor for you.

If any of us is honest, when do we actually use the extra power of the bigger output motors anyway? 5% of the time? More like 0.05% of the time we spend in the car.

The base model SLC at current discounts is very reasonable for the technology you're getting. Compare it to a Fiat 124 Abarth and the Abarth looks REALLY expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Not sure what you are trying to ask here - are you asking if MB are making a lot of money between each spec? If so, a resounding yes! If you are asking why? then the answer is that there are people who will pay! Or are you asking if it is value for money to the consumer, then the answer could be debatable. As already said, it is not a matter of a simple chip or map that the boy racer would do, the cars from the factory must sustain the extra beef for its life-time so for that you need uprated parts - even a larger turbocharger sometimes - and I doubt the average person would be able to buy, fit and re-map the parts needed for £3k. Same can be said betwixt the 200 and 55 in old money or 200 and 43 in the SLC, you could not buy and fit the necessary parts (an engine basically) for the same. Now if you say that it must cost MB peanuts difference to produce the two engines and not passing the true cost down to us, you are correct - again marketing! There are many who will part with the extra in order to travel at the same speed but get away from the lights a tad quicker.

If though you are asking why so many variances, then a good question. This is all to do with sales - flood the market with whatever you have to meet a price tag. I agree (?) that there should only be two SLC variants - 300 and 43. OK add in the diesel maybe, but if I were MB, I'd make it a statement regarding diesel power and have its accelaration up near that of the 43. And charge handsomely for it of course...
 

·
Super Moderator UK 2002 SLK320 Blue
Joined
·
2,930 Posts
It is certainly true that the cost to build the base version of a model is only marginally less than the cost to build the top of the range model in the same range, while the price difference to the consumer is often very much larger.

I seem to remember being told when I were a lad that the difference in costs between the base model and the top of the range model of the early 1970's Hillman Avenger (or Plymouth Cricket in the US). was about 50p - less than a buck! Oh - and just to rub it in, the car cost £1038, new.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
It is certainly true that the cost to build the base version of a model is only marginally less than the cost to build the top of the range model in the same range, while the price difference to the consumer is often very much larger.

I seem to remember being told when I were a lad that the difference in costs between the base model and the top of the range model of the early 1970's Hillman Avenger (or Plymouth Cricket in the US). was about 50p - less than a buck! Oh - and just to rub it in, the car cost £1038, new.
That's probably not a million miles off the truth.

My own A6 has the same engine as the 204PS, 218PS, 245PS and 272PS versions of the same car. There is roughly £3000 extra between the 204/218PS version and the 245/272PS version and the 313PS version is another £3500 on top of that. Same base engine, different turbos across the board, but that's about it. But if you want to go fast, you gave to pay!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Are you asking if it is value for money to the consumer?
You're right Hal, I didn't make it clear what my motive for asking was. I suppose I wanted to know if it was just an engine map for £3.5K, because I really think that would have been taking the Mickey. And even though there some uprated parts involved I don't like the feeling I'm being chiselled. So I've decided that the extra money serves me best by remaining in my wallet :grin:

If though you are asking why so many variances, then a good question. This is all to do with sales - flood the market with whatever you have to meet a price tag. I agree (?) that there should only be two SLC variants - 300 and 43. OK add in the diesel maybe, but if I were MB, I'd make it a statement regarding diesel power and have its accelaration up near that of the 43.
That's an excellent point that had escaped me and I like your reasoning. I guess that the bean counters at MB have calculated that they can make the most money by offering a plethora of engine options. I hadn't originally been questioning the existence of both the 200 & 300, just the large price differential for what I considered to be a relatively minor bhp gain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
500 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
@bastivockThe base model SLC at current discounts is very reasonable for the technology you're getting. Compare it to a Fiat 124 Abarth and the Abarth looks REALLY expensive.
Hells teeth, nearly £30K for the Abarth... the basic car is extremely pretty though. I ran it through the configurator and it came out at nearly £23.5K
No Idea of the discounted price yet (or if at all for a little while)

Makes the discounted SLC 200 look almost unmissable!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
Makes the discounted SLC 200 look almost unmissable!
Yes, when you see the Abarth, probably the ultimate price jack-up for a remap (it literally is just a remap) and a somewhat dubious body kit and an LSD.

It makes the SLC 200 AMG look like a real bargain.
 

·
Registered 2016 SLC200
Joined
·
30 Posts
I'm convinced that cynical Mercedes marketing is driving this in the UK, and may be contributing to poor sales of the SLC. Why can't I buy the model I want? It's available elsewhere in the world (probably everywhere else) and is the base model in the USA.

What I wanted was a basic SLC 300 Sport, without all the AMG-line extras. It's not available in the UK!
In the end I bought a 200 Sport automatic with a lot of extras of my own choosing. I now have a car that doesn't ground the front spoiler on local ferry ramps, has higher profile tyres which are quieter and don't crash and bang through the local potholes, and doesn't have bling things like bright red seat belts - and most important of all my wife is happy driving it (she had an MX-5)! That's fine, and great value after nearly £9k discount, but when I drive it I don't like being left behind at traffic lights by all and sundry.

The earlier SLK 200 had 184 bhp from the 1796cc engine, or 204 bhp in the 250 model.
The new 1991cc engine (later SLK models and the SLC) provides 245 bhp in the 300 model - a decent improvement over the earlier 1796 engine. And the later 200 models? The same 184 bhp, no improvement whatsoever from using the bigger, more modern engine.

This is purely a marketing ploy and looks very much as if the engine tune has been wound right down to justify the low-ish entry price. That's acceptable, I suppose, but what isn't acceptable is to force a buyer who wants the 245 bhp engine to have to take the AMG-line extras as well, pushing the list price up by around £7,400!

OK - rant over.
What I really want to know (as did the original poster) is the difference between the hardware components of the two engines; exhaust system, turbos and injectors come to mind. It seems quite likely that because there would be no real saving in manufacturing cost these items are the same in both cars and it's just the ECU mapping that's different.

Does anyone have access to spares lists and could find out? If they are all the same then I'm strongly tempted to go to a reputable tuner and see if the 300 mapping can be applied to the 200.
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,379 Posts
I'm convinced that cynical Mercedes marketing is driving this in the UK, and may be contributing to poor sales of the SLC. Why can't I buy the model I want? It's available elsewhere in the world (probably everywhere else) and is the base model in the USA.

What I wanted was a basic SLC 300 Sport, without all the AMG-line extras. It's not available in the UK!
In the end I bought a 200 Sport automatic with a lot of extras of my own choosing. I now have a car that doesn't ground the front spoiler on local ferry ramps, has higher profile tyres which are quieter and don't crash and bang through the local potholes, and doesn't have bling things like bright red seat belts - and most important of all my wife is happy driving it (she had an MX-5)! That's fine, and great value after nearly £9k discount, but when I drive it I don't like being left behind at traffic lights by all and sundry.

The earlier SLK 200 had 184 bhp from the 1796cc engine, or 204 bhp in the 250 model.
The new 1991cc engine (later SLK models and the SLC) provides 245 bhp in the 300 model - a decent improvement over the earlier 1796 engine. And the later 200 models? The same 184 bhp, no improvement whatsoever from using the bigger, more modern engine.

This is purely a marketing ploy and looks very much as if the engine tune has been wound right down to justify the low-ish entry price. That's acceptable, I suppose, but what isn't acceptable is to force a buyer who wants the 245 bhp engine to have to take the AMG-line extras as well, pushing the list price up by around £7,400!

OK - rant over.
What I really want to know (as did the original poster) is the difference between the hardware components of the two engines; exhaust system, turbos and injectors come to mind. It seems quite likely that because there would be no real saving in manufacturing cost these items are the same in both cars and it's just the ECU mapping that's different.

Does anyone have access to spares lists and could find out? If they are all the same then I'm strongly tempted to go to a reputable tuner and see if the 300 mapping can be applied to the 200.
Have you gotten your free datacard of your options?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
974 Posts
Not sure this is a fair comparison but I came to an auto petrol 250 SLK via an auto 2 litre Audi A3 Cab. & Honda S2000, both cars had more than enough performance.
Prior to buying the Mercedes I took a drive in a friends used 30k miler R171 auto 200 & thought it gutless (as well as having a tiny draughty tacky cabin). Test driving the R 172 250 was a revelation in comparison, the extra umph is VERY noticeable so much so that I wouldn't even consider a 200 version.
BUT I guess you have to drive both engine sizes back to back to make an accurate comparison.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top