Mercedes SLK World banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 116 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Im thinkin of trading in my slk and move onto amg

But i cant decide between those 2

If i were to get r172, i will prob lease it

I test drove r171 slk55 and the power and torque is just amazing

Does r172 shows significant power and torque difference compare to r171?

What other traits are added onto r172? Better handling? Faster 0-60?

I couldnt test drive r172, so i really cant tell

Please let me know! Thank you!
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,441 Posts
Well speaking from one that has a r171 slk 55 amg with that world famous F1 nose, ahem, go with the R171!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Yea i love the r171 too!

But doesnt it feel like driving a same car when u trade from slk350?

At least r172 has new interior.

However, any of u guys test drove r172 slk55? Did u guys feel the power difference?
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,441 Posts
i didn't but when they say u have 4 cylinders and 4 more on demand, i say i want 8 and i want em all now!!!
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,441 Posts
takes at least 3 seconds to push that button!! who has that kind of time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
68 Posts
I've owned both and the r172 is better in every way. The external looks are subjective, but the interior quality is miles ahead as well as the technology. The new engine is more powerful and responsive. It rides a lot better and handles better. If you can get the r172, get it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The problem is, there is only 1 slk 55 r172 availble near me and it is mars red...

It takes 6-8 month to order one, and aint nobody got time for that! Haha
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
no brainer really, interior is lightyears ahead imo, and personally i much prefer the more manly look of the 172.

As for the cylinder shutoff, you don't have to use it, theres no button to give the extra hp or a button to give you all 8 cylinders, if you want it to, it will always have 8 cylinders, just turn the eco button off and then it will stay off.

I like being able to obtain 30+ mpg though, other AMG owners dream of that sort of figure.

oh yeah and did i mention it having 420 hp, the first number being the magic one, and the torque is enough to stop the earth spinning for a second.

Anyway, I'm biased as i own a 172, but it was only when they bought the 172 out that i could bring myself to look at the SLK, before then i just couldn't.

I guess the best advice is from the guy above who's owned both really.
 

·
Premium Member 2006 SLK55 AMG
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
Without a doubt, I would go for the R172. Although I dislike the look (nose, headlights, and rear fenders) on the R172, it is mechanically superior, stock vs. stock. With modern MBs, newer is almost always better.
 

·
Registered '07 SLK55
Joined
·
806 Posts
The R172 doesn't do it for me. I'll keep the R171 '55.

Everyone says it has 60 more horsepower... sure, but it's also 150lbs heavier, and bigger. 3 inches longer and 9 inches wider. It also takes longer to stop. Car and Driver's tests have it at only 0.2 seconds quicker to 60 and the quarter mile. That speed difference is NOT significant nor noticeable. What WOULD be noticeable however, is 150lbs of extra weight when cornering.

Interior, the 172 is gorgeous, I'll give it that. Exterior though, the 171 is much better. The 172's proportions just look odd... just like the new SL.

Really want the extra HP? Get a used R171 and add Kleemann headers and delete secondary cats along with a custom dyno tune from Eurocharged for under $2000. There's your immediate throttle response, extra horsepower, and 0.2 seconds right there. You'd also lose a good 30-50 or so lbs from the exhaust work.

It just looks big.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
255 Posts
I'm not a big R172 fan from the looks....just like the F1 styling.

HP is HP, speed laws take care of that...so you can get to 70 in 0.2 seconds faster with a R172? Not sure that's important....but in my book the value of the car does (resale, etc).

You say you would lease a R172....I assume you would buy a R171. Presto, there's you're answer! Value in a leased car only says you will have to purchase or lease another car in 36 months? If you purchase your lease, you basically have paid at least 10% over the MSRP when you buy it...so if you can't afford to buy the R172 now, can you in 36 months? If you buy the R171 (an pay it off) you OWN it....it has value!

Viola!

Buying a car to most is an emotional experience....it should be a financial transaction where you try and keep your money and the seller tries to get your money. With a lease you have zero chance! In fact if you lease and lease and lease consider yourself a slave as you will never get out of owing money to the bank!

:soap:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
I like the R171 baby Maclaren F1 look. R172 is mechanically superior to R171 I supposed. For me the SLK serves as a weekend fun ride and I cannot spend the R172 money on it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,710 Posts
I don't have an AMG, but I seriously compared the R171 over the R172 before purchasing my current SLK. Aesthetically, I found the R171 more to my liking hands down. The R172 has a more American/domestic look to it, which I find boring. I don't get the whole argument that the R172 looks manlier when compared to the R171. I find the argument more annoying than anything else. It's all about personal preference, but to me my Black Beauty is one sexy beast and I'd take the R171 over the R172 any day!
 
1 - 20 of 116 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top