Mercedes SLK World banner

1 - 20 of 44 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Here is a question just for the fun of it. We know that the SLK 280 has a 3.L engine, with the same block as the C 300. Nobody has a clue where the "280" designation came from. So, here's the question.
Would it be a "Poser" if someone with an SLK 280 changed the badge to read SLK 300?
 

·
Founding Member #2
Joined
·
19,394 Posts
I believe starting model year 2009, they're labeling it SLK 300 (instead 0f 280).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
460 Posts
Whats the benefit?....IMO, anyone who would know enough to know what the number meant would also know that it is incorrect....don't see the point.
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I don't think that counts as poser so long as MB sell the SLK280 under the 300 name.

Would be a pain in the ass to remove the badge and align it again just to change 3 numbers tho.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,205 Posts
What are you a fan of the SPARTA!!! I'd say do it if the new model will be like that and it may make it more modern for resale.. I'm wondering why i'm short or 245 spartan's to make a Persian empire cry..
 

·
Don - Founding Member #4
Joined
·
5,857 Posts
Here is a question just for the fun of it. We know that the SLK 280 has a 3.L engine, with the same block as the C 300. Nobody has a clue where the "280" designation came from. So, here's the question.
Would it be a "Poser" if someone with an SLK 280 changed the badge to read SLK 300?
:tu:With the new SLK 300 labeling for 2009, I wouldn't cry foul. It's normal to "round up". Personally, MB should have gone with the SLK 300 label from the beginning.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Yes, -1-, that was my point that the 280 designation is and has always been incorrect, in light of Mercedes' traditional numbering system. 300 would have been correct. Indeed, I don't know where they came up with the "280" designation. Seems purely arbitrary.

I probably won't change the "280" badging on my car, just because it is too much trouble. But I still will consider it incorrect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I've never really got why Mercedes round up and down, for example 280 is a 3.0litre and the 200K is a 1.8litre!

Anyone care to explain Mercedes theory to me?
 

·
Founding member #7
Joined
·
2,156 Posts
I'm guessing that they were concerned that someone wouldn't pay the price difference to go from the SLK300 to an SLK350. But if you are going from an SLK280 to an SLK350, there ought to be a big price difference, right?

So now that they souped up the 350 to give it some extra horses, they don't mind calling the 280 a 300 because the extra money for a 350 can be justified on the extra horses.

Just a guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,596 Posts
I believe starting model year 2009, they're labeling it SLK 300 (instead 0f 280).


That is correct. Go for it.

280 has been around for awhile, so im sure the engine changed over time, but the name didnt. Glad they are dropping it.

But the new class being the the C300 makes it sound like a chrysler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Well, yes, many years ago there was a "Chrysler 300C" -- in the late 50's as I recall. Perhaps a little too close to "C 300" in the Mercedes C Class W 204. Strangely, the W 203 C Class for 2007 and a year or two before offered a "C 280" with the identical 3L engine as the '08 W 204 C 300. And now for '09, the SLK 280 (yep with the same 3L engine) is set to become the SLK 300 for '09.

Historically (and until lately) Mercedes' numeric designations were based on the number of liters the engine displaced X 100. For example, the early 50's 170 displaced 1.7L, the 300 SL gullwing displaced 3L, the '99 C 280 displaced 2.8L (not 3L). The examples could go on and on.

What I do not understand is why Mercedes recently abandoned this simple and logical naming system in some cases. There is nothing "280" about the SLK 280. 3L and not 2.8L. Does not have 280 hp. Does not have 280 lbs. ft. of torque. doesn't have 280 anything!:confused:
 
D

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Why do they do a lot of things?

Its just a German thing, BMW's naming setup is the same.

316 being a 1.8, 318 being a 2.0 and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,656 Posts
:tu:With the new SLK 300 labeling for 2009, I wouldn't cry foul. It's normal to "round up". Personally, MB should have gone with the SLK 300 label from the beginning.
In fact, MB rounds up all the time, SLK55 instead of SLK54, CLK63 instead of CLK62. What's a few tenths of a liter among friends.;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
Ford did the same thing with their (in)famous 5.0 - it was actually a 4.9L
 

·
Premium Member 2000 SLK230
Joined
·
2,624 Posts
I've never really got why Mercedes round up and down, for example 280 is a 3.0litre and the 200K is a 1.8litre!

Anyone care to explain Mercedes theory to me?
I think you should rebadge "SLK180" lol just kidding.



I wouldn't rebadge to "SLK300" only because it wasn't offered for your model year. People who count would notice the infraction. IMHO

I'm going to add the AMG kit to my 170 only because it was an option for '00. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. I want to keep the car somewhat original. (Liberties taken on the term "somewhat" :D).
 

·
Premium 2006 SLK55 AMG (Kleemann K2)
Joined
·
10,723 Posts
I think you should rebadge "SLK180" lol just kidding.



I wouldn't rebadge to "SLK300" only because it wasn't offered for your model year. People who count would notice the infraction. IMHO

I'm going to add the AMG kit to my 170 only because it was an option for '00. Otherwise I wouldn't do it. I want to keep the car somewhat original. (Liberties taken on the term "somewhat" :D).
You forgot the SLK55, its 5.4 so I have to have the last 5 removed for a 4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I'm guessing that they were concerned that someone wouldn't pay the price difference to go from the SLK300 to an SLK350. But if you are going from an SLK280 to an SLK350, there ought to be a big price difference, right?
Yes I think you're right.

WhenI see the numbers 280 and 350 next to each other, it looks impressive , but when I see the numbers 300 and 350 next to each other, it doesn't have as much impact.

Whenever I see a 00 badging I always expect it to have a Kompressor badge somewhere i.e. 200 Kompressor, C160 Kompressor...
 

·
Premium Member 2006 SLK55 AMG
Joined
·
3,048 Posts
It's like taking the numbers off completely...
I've taken all the numbers and badging off my SLK 55 AMG, as badging is really just a marketing thing and doesn't add to the overall look, only serves to clutter up the rear of the trunk.
 
1 - 20 of 44 Posts
Top