I would not say lucky

Id avoid a manual due to not exactly a refined gearbox experience to use and re sale value is low .
Auto all the way

And i drive both auto and maunual .

Merc has to be auto .
But some just love manual cars and the enjoyment of changing gears . :grin:

 

For a roadster..... I would take a manual transmission. Going through the gears with wind in my hair (I have hair...at least for now), you can't beat it.
Besides in a automatic transmission.... I hear about "limp mode" if a sensor/code is triggered.
Haven't heard of a "limp mode" on a manual transmission.

 

Then you have clutch / slip issues etc

They all have there good and bad points etc
But in uk land they dont hold there value as much as Auto's

 

The Dawg is a manual, if you look nationwide here in the US, they are a bit hard to come by. People in the know, especially dealers of higher end cars, know getting a manual Mercedes is a bit of a rarity. I've looked nationwide a few times to see how many manual 2007 SLK350's are for sale nationwide, there might be 1 or 2 on a good day. When people find out the Dawg is a 6 spd manual, it always gets their attention.

On a personal view, in rush hour traffic when it does see it, it's a bit of a stop and go pain. But I don't subject it to that driving often. But on the weekends, when cruising on the back roads of central and southern Ohio, it's as close as pure driving Nirvana that I've ever experienced. It just doesn't get any better than hearing that engine growl and shifting those gears. Last year at a car show, which the Dawg is in often, I had an offer for the Dawg $7,000 over book, and turned it down. The car has value, in my opinion, being a white 6 spd manual, makes it even more rare and valuable. I may sell it someday for another car experience, but if I do, I'll probably regret it.

 

Regular use /commute - Auto

Pleasure driving - Manual

I regret getting auto. It was the steering wheel shifts that attracted me, dont even use it anymore

 

......It was the steering wheel shifts that attracted me, dont even use it anymore

Use it every day.

 

Auto. It's the 21st century, not the 19th...

 

I'm told autos are generally a more reliable cars. The reasons, according to a mechanic who worked in a non-dealer Merc specialist, is that drivers tend not to abuse them.

It might be that the average age of auto drivers, in the UK, is higher than that of manual drivers so generally treated better.

It might be that it is less likely that a driver will over-rev the engine.

It might be that there is no clutch pedal for a driver to rest their foot on at traffic lights or pedestrian crossings.

It might be that gears are changed when they should be and the engine is not laboured.

It might be that gears are never fluffed and synchro beaten to a pulp.

I've had to give up manual gearboxes as I broke three vertebrae (off to the physio today. I am exhausted.) and have problems extending my left leg. I have to sit twisted in the car. I moaned about it, despite everyone telling me how lucky I am, given the possible outcome of the injury, but since I've had autos, I don't think I'll ever go back to a manual.

My father was a committed mechanic and thought auto advance and retard some sort of bourgeois self indulgence, and would probably be turning in his grave (on well oiled and properly adjusted bearings) if he knows I've gone all auto but I reckon it makes for smoothing driving and allows me to concentrate on driving.

It might be that as it has been forced on me, I've opted to make believe it is the better option. However, I had a 6-speed manual CLK (deciding that I was not going to give in to my injuries) and I seemed to be forever changing gear. When not in a hurry I used to use 1st to start, then into second, then fourth and finally top. It seemed pointless having 6.

Many people have suggested that the manual 6-speed is a bit clunky but I found it smooth enough. You have to be firm and I'm not the most delicate of 18-stone men so it suited me.

In this country (UK) manuals are slightly cheaper according to the guides, but not by much.

The 7-speed auto in my 350 171 was sublime. the 5-speed in my 170 320 is pretty good as well.

 

Manual transmission is a thing of the past, hardly ever find cars with it anymore. That being said, a manual transmission is becoming rare, and rarer still will be those who know how to drive them. I like to think that those who will know how to drive one will miss having a stick, and will pay a premium to get their hands on one, or perhaps will want their offspring to learn how to drive one for the sake of nostalgia and the desire to teach them something uncommon. This still seems like it will be far off in the future, but not really. A few recent articles talked about how car makers will be removing the stick in the center console altogether, to allow for more buttons, knobs, and a streamlined look. I know my wife wants me to teach my step-son how to drive with a manual transmission as soon as he gets his drivers license, even though he might not ever use the skill beyond driving my car. Then again, I have no intention of ever selling it, and he drools over it, so maybe one day it will be his inheritance.

What I have learned so far in life is that more often than not, people want what is rare, I am guessing that is one of the many reasons you bought an SLK in the first place. So why not pay a little more for a manual if you can find it and want to drive it.

 

I drive both and in truth I enjoy manual more (stick shift not paddles). The SLK I bought is automatic. My daughter enjoys taking it now and again and she refuses to learn manual so I decided to get the automatic for convience sake. I am convinced that come resale the automatic cars are easier to sell. In short I think there is no premium for manual.

 

I have a 320 manual, which I find to have a change characteristic that is perfectly acceptable compared with the various other vehicles have owned (TVR 4.3 Griff, '76 Alfa Spider, TR6, plus others and everyday drivers). That said, I live in a country area and drive the SLK primarily for enjoyment and selecting the right gear at the right time is part of that pleasure. If I lived or drove regularly in a city, I would definitely go for an auto. I was lucky; I wanted a manual and got a very good car for a really good price, so I am happy. I am not sure that I would be so happy with the car if I had ended up with an auto. So, for me, the answer would be 'yes', if looking for another with all other things equal (mileage/condition/etc) I would be prepared to pay a little more for more for a manual.

 

manual vs. automatic

This is the second time this subject has come up since I joined the forum a little more than a year ago. With respect to premium value, it is easily settled by consulting the leading market guides. My research shows no significant difference in value between automatic and manual versions of SLKs of similar vintage, condition, and mileage.

That leaves the subjective value. I agree with several others on the forum who said it is a matter of personal preference. I prefer manual because I use my SLK for pleasure driving exclusively. When the weather is bad, I drive an automatic 4 x 4 SUV. It's not as much fun as the SLK. There are other more practical considerations. Manual transmission vehicles give the driver more control over the vehicle's movement, even with modern traction control. Also, manual transmissions are generally more fuel efficient than their automatic counterparts.

Even my local Mercedes dealer was surprised the first time he saw that I have a six speed manual. There is something about me that makes me enjoy having something that is uncommon. I've owned a couple of Saab vehicles (both manuals) for example.

To the contributors who suggested manual cars are on the brink of extinction or hard to find, I say it depends on the make. I think it's true for Mercedes and most any American make, but much less so for the Volkswagen/Audi/Porsche family and others (BMW etc.). In fact, because Mercedes is phasing out manual SLKs, my current vehicle will likely be my last Mercedes roadster. My next will likely be a Boxster, possibly a Z series BMW if the design lines become smoother.

 

The SLK is a bit of an oddity for Mercedes as it has a hand operated parking brake so I don't think a manual gearbox is so much of a negative as it is in the rest of the range - try doing a hill start in a manual C Class, you soon run out of hands! Having said that, I don't see it being worth a premium either - it's just a matter of personal choice. You can be sure a dealer will try to charge a premium for whatever he has on his forecourt. It used to be said that if you want a Mercedes get an auto, if you want a manual get a BMW.

 

I think if you had a manual slk stuck in traffic every other day up the M1 its a no brainer Auto all the way .

Had it happen to me several times and i was so glad i had a left leg to use when i got to my destination . :grin:

 

I had this same discussion with my best friend a few months back. I am a manual guy, he's auto guy. As we were hot in the debate, he finally said: "Sir, you can not shift better than a computer."

And the more i think about that, the more I think he's right.

 

I think he is exactly right. The same is true about player pianos, they never make mistakes...or vary the interpretation. I personally prefer the imperfection of art.

 

Purely a matter of preference. My uncle told me once he didn't like to work while he drove. Concerning the SLK, I have to agree. Over the years however I've passed up many cars with auto trannies.. It totally depends on the vehicle. Worth a premium? Not to me. All things are relative I suppose.

 

I have an old manual BMW 530d which is great to drive and has an excellent box, but if I bought one again I'd probably go auto. Round here in the south east of the UK you're more often than not in traffic so a manual box can become a chore to drive.

I did try a manual when I was looking for my SLK in November. I have to confess I wasn't overly impressed with the change, so I went with an auto. OK, the auto is a bit slow to respond, but, like turbo lag, you anticipate that when you drive. And when the hammer goes down, Silkie tucks up her skirts nicely and runs for it.

I did also see a blue manual like mine for sale in the autumn 'at a premium' cos it was 'a rare manual'. It was for sale then for about £1,000 more than mine was. Last time I looked it had gone up in price even further now it's the spring - but the point is it hadn't sold.

 

I always hated the feel the slip on the autobox of my previous clk, especially during take off. I am very happy to own a 6spd manual slk right now. I think the torque converter kills the driving pleasure and the feel of the engine. M111 engine has no lag for boost and fun to rev with manual. But I would like to have a dsg gearbox (with real clutch) on my slk.

So unless it is a clutched auto, I am for manual.

 

I have an Auto and much prefer that after near 50 years of manual. However I like a touch of manual now and again so just put the selector in M and use the stick or paddles, seems a better solutionto me than chasing after a manual transmission

 

I guess it partly depends on which gearbox. The R170s had a reputation for gearboxes that were slow and not much fun to use, but the R171s had much better ones in terms of pleasure to use.

Like some others here I only use mine for pleasure so it has to be manual, but I wouldn't consider anything other than an auto for my everyday car. I find the manual had an excellent gearbox, even though I sometimes forget which of the 6 cogs I'm using :surprise:

It's interesting to note that the Porsche Boxter Spyder, which is one of the finest driver's car you can buy, is only available in manual. They recognise that enthusiastic drivers want the best experience in terms of enjoyment and control.

 

. . . .

It's interesting to note that the Porsche Boxter Spyder, which is one of the finest driver's car you can buy, is only available in manual. They recognise that enthusiastic drivers want the best experience in terms of enjoyment and control.

Before I bought my 350 I tried (whisper it) Boxter autos - I can't declutch due to a back injury. I liked the car, there are few who wouldn't I think, but there was a distinct hesitation in the autobox. I drove five or six and there was no difference in them for the change regardless of engine power.

The first auto SLK I drove, with the 7-speed box, convinced me the Merc was the way to go.

Perhaps it is for other reasons why the Spyder is only available in manual. I think the gearbox would have irritated me after a while, and I'm not one of the most sensitive of drivers.

 

Having just bought my SLK I ignored any manual transmission cars for sale as Mercedes for me are known for their auto boxes. If I was driving this car as a sports car then manual would make sense, but the SLK is more of a cruiser IMO and that's how I will be driving it.
Manual probably doesn't add value but will limit your market.
Im taking delivery of an Audi TTS next month and I specified manual for that as I didn't think the dsg auto box suited the car.

 

I like both manual and auto boxes and enjoy them both . I also hope that whatever trans that you may have in your car gives you a smile at each passing mile .

Geo aka geezer:grin:

 

A-u-t-o matic!

 

Tell us how you really feel - LOL!:smile:

 

Someone had to say it

 

I would pay extra for a manual... I drive this car like a sweet little roadster sports car through the mountains and I specifically looked for a used one with a 6-speed manual... there were three for sale in the U.S. and I flew 1,000 miles to pick it up and drive it home.

I only wish the AMG 55 came with a stick!

 

...I specifically looked for a used one with a 6-speed manual... there were three for sale in the U.S. and I flew 1,000 miles to pick it up and drive it home.

Spent several looking all across the country for mine, and when I found it I actually flew coast to coast (CA to NJ) to sign the papers and then had it shipped back, and you know what? I'd do it again!

 

I posted part of this in a different thread but I think it is relevant to this discussion so with your indulgence I'll repeat it...
I don't know if anyone has given this much consideration but there is a power loss to the rear wheels of about 6% (depending on efficiency of the auto transmission) when compared to a manual transmission due to torque converter slippage losses, line pressure & hydraulic pumping losses... and the sad thing is the harder you accelerate the higher the HP loss. In the 350 this amounts to about -15 HP at the rear wheel when comparing auto to manual transmissions.

Both transmissions are at a 1:1 ratio in 5th gear so the 7 speed auto gives you an additional overdrive gear at the very top not more gears for accelerating in "real world" driving in the first 5 gears... I don't know about anyone else, but I've heard 5th gear takes you well into triple digit mph. 0

 

Much as I love my SLK it's definitely not a long distance highway car.

 

My back agrees. Today I downgraded (upgraded?) mine to a "less than daily" car.

 

Maybe it's the way i have the seat adjusted. I like to sit as low as possible, I hunker in the bunker so to speak. Yeah the SLK is good but it doesn't compare to our e320 in terms of comfort. For that matter, even my Tundra feels better. Yeah yeah I know blasphemy.