Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Lexus SC 430 Vs. Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class

12K views 41 replies 15 participants last post by  Shinigami 
#1 ·
And we score again!

http://www.forbes.com/2005/09/08/Lexus-Mercedes-convertibles-cx_dl_0908show_ls.html
 
#2 ·
Not all too surprising when most people comment on how much the Lexus SC experience is like driving a boat. Guess the SLK handling is finally coming into play.
 
#5 ·
But not that Lexus never marketed the SC430 against the SLK. Instead, they chose to market it against the then-current CLK430! I expect this was to offset the difference in sticker price, but it never struck me as a strong message to compare a two-seater against a true four-seater.

To me, the SC430 was nothing but an overpriced knock-off, who tried to hide the fact it was overpriced by marketing itself against more expensive cars, who were only similar in that they were priced similarly. I'll put my flame retardant suit on now, but you might forgive me to say that the SC430 isn't the only car out there that's pretty, but very confused as to the market it's trying to attract... there is also the CLS to consider: a four-door that pretends to be a two-door? [;)]
 
#6 ·
taroliw - 9/8/2005 10:50 AM

To me, the SC430 was nothing but an overpriced knock-off, who tried to hide the fact it was overpriced by marketing itself against more expensive cars, who were only similar in that they were priced similarly. [;)]
The same argument could be made that it's underpriced, if you sat in one or look at the interior quality, Mark Levinson audio, and nearly everything's a standard on this car. It's quite cheap, as the interior alone is by far one of the most luxurious out of any luxury automobile, open-top or not. I never liked it b/c of how it drives, it's too fat IMO, but the interior, oh... the interior. [:D][:D][:D]
 
#7 ·
Ynot - 9/8/2005 10:14 AM

I never liked it b/c of how it drives, it's too fat IMO, but the interior, oh... the interior. [:D][:D][:D]
Yes, I would cede that their materials choices were nice. But I saw a few of these (3 in the PeopleSoft parking lot in Pleasanton, CA) every day, but could never get over the same thought I had when I considered the R170... it's just to small inside.

Perhaps if they'd deleted the obviously useless back seat and increased passenger room, then I might have considered it differently. But, again, I think their overall price would have made it suffer to the copmetition at the time, even when it was brand new. That they marketed it against cars it clearly didn't compete on features with is, I think, evidence of this.
 
#8 ·
I think Lexus could have really trumped Mercedes if they had elongated the SC430 so that human beings could actually sit in the rear seats. I see Volvo's redone C70 with 4 real seats and a retractable hardtop will hit the market in 2006. If Mercedes doesn't counter by getting a retractable hardtop on the next upgrade of the CLK Cabriolet I could see a lot of future CLK Cab buyers migrating over to Volvo.

http://motortrend.com/features/news/112_news050824_volvoc70/
 
#9 ·
I was eagerly awaiting the W209 cab introduction when it was rumored to be coming with a three panel hardtop... I would have gone for a CLK500 cab in a heartbeat. But when the cloth showed up, my hopes were dashed again until the R171 rekindled my interest in a convertible I could both have fun in and live with.

If I knew for sure that DC were going to have a CLK with hard top... it might give me serious pause about an SLK order now. Despite that, I would still not purchase within the first model year and maybe not until after the second, until the now assumed bugs and problems were worked out. I had good luck with my W208, but it was a coupe, so no worries over a new retractable roof. [;)]
 
#10 ·
Did a quick search, and found a few more interesting links. They've apparently been very careful not to let any pictures of the three panel top to leak out. All the ones I could find were apparently a two-panel version the original concept car had. I guess we have to wait the extra week 'til the next show starts. [;)]

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Ent...hots_07_Volvo_C40_Convertible.S178.A8754.html

http://www.motoring.co.za/index.php?fArticleId=2626937&fSectionId=845&fSetId=381

http://www.northpeel.com/br/wheels/story/2955677p-3425025c.html

http://www.autothing.com/funthings/SpyShots/Spy Shots 2006/SS-06-VolvoC50.htm
 
#12 ·
steve-p - 9/9/2005 12:55 AM

The SC430 is one bland, ugly blob of a car, regardless of anything else.
Well put.

I park next to one, I almost feel the SLK trying to move sideways away from the lexus. It is truly ugly, and has a pretty lame V8 engine. An slk 350 will run circles around this car (0-100 kmh/62mph = 6.4 sec) A 55 will annihilate it.

I am surprised they sell any at $22000 more than a 350.

roadsta
 
#13 ·
Maybe they're able to sell them at that price because it's marketed as a 4 seater *cough* that is, if you are actually able to fit people in the back seat.
 
#17 ·
Ok, I held off as long as I could (this being an MB forum)... [:0]

You guys are all entitled to your opinion,..... as un-informed as it is.[:D] So to help you not continue in your un-informed state....[;)]

There are a couple of us new SLK owners that had SC430s.

So a couple of points, ALL IN MY OPINION.

When I bought the SC430 (in '01) I looked seriously at the SLK320. For looks, comfort, and even fun, it was no contest.

The Lex is a boulevard crusier, not a sports car.

I love my SLK55, but I will tell you MB could learn something about quality and usability (i.e. controls) from the Japanese. And wind tunnel design (with the top down). The MB is easily twice as wind "swirly" as the Lex at same speed.

On the backseat, the continued refrain (first started with the reviewers who drive it for 2 day) is nonsense.

When my kids were young/small (up to preteen) there was NO problem picking up 3 of them (plus me = 4). There is plenty of leg room for the passenger so the seat moves up. There were many times, when I had 5 total (but of course no 5th seatbelt).

But more than that, it was like another trunk space (albeit covered in beatiful leather). Briefcases, backpacks, dufflebags, etc.

Finally, in some areas, with some insurance companies, being a 4 seater got a better insurance rate than a 2 seater (which is assumed to be a sports car).

If you look at the sales numbers (until the SLK350) compared to MB you will see the SC was not considered a failure.

P.S. Also the 0-60mph time was 5.9sec, stock.
 
#18 ·
bloflin - 9/10/2005 9:41 AM

P.S. Also the 0-60mph time was 5.9sec, stock.
Read carefully. I used the most common standard in the world, which is 0-100 km/h (which is 62 mph, not 60).

It so turns out that I mistyped. It is actually 6.5 seconds, not 6.4. I found many references to the figure, here are three only:

http://www.auto123.com/en/new/carinfo/specs.spy?make=Lexus&model=SC&year=2005

http://www.canadatrader.com/newcarcanadasearch/Lexus/SC/detail.html

http://www.vimontlexustoyota.com/en/newcars/specs/index.spy?make=Lexus&model=SC

I somehow doubt 5.9s for 0-60, and then 6.5 for 0-62. It must be the slowest 2 mph accelleration imaginable. Anyway, the comparative number for an slk is 5.5 sec.

roadsta
 
#19 ·
roadsta - 9/9/2005 10:54 PM

Read carefully. I used the most common standard in the world, which is 0-100 km/h (which is 62 mph, not 60).

roadsta
Ummm, roadsta, how 'bout you read carefully. [:(!]

I didn't quote or mis-quote you. I gave the figure for 0-60mph for my car. Nor did I state you were using the wrong "world wide standard"

Just checked Lexus site, they now quote 5.8sec for 0-60mph. Spec for my car ('02) was 5.9sec at the time.
 
#20 ·
Duo-Art - 9/9/2005 3:46 PM

I think that some buyers of SC430's look at it as a lower priced SL rather than an expensive SLK. Both have folding hard tops and 2+2 seating. The SC430 kind of reminds me of the 356 Porsche.
Those are not seats on the back of the new SL. They're meant for luggage space, and if the car were to roll over, the occupants in the rear seat would be decapitated by the pop up roll bar... not a pretty sight [:)]
 
#21 ·
bloflin - 9/9/2005 4:41 PM

I love my SLK55, but I will tell you MB could learn something about quality and usability (i.e. controls) from the Japanese. And wind tunnel design (with the top down). The MB is easily twice as wind "swirly" as the Lex at same speed.
Well, I won't worry too much about wind swirliness. I drove the SLK350 I rented in July at over 100 MPH (for several miles, not just a quick blip) with the top down and found it quite wind swirly acceptable. [;)]

Though I have inspected them closely (including sitting in it), I've never actually driven an SC430, but I would ask: do you think theese other factors suggest I should spend an extra $20K? Personally, I think it's a nice car... I'm just not sure it's that nice a car. If I was going to entertain $20K over an SLK, I'd likely move to the SL. [:)]

I am curious though. What is your comparison of the controls. I know there are pretty common complaints from many about things like placement of control stalks on the steering wheel (esp cruise control), etc. But what observations did you make, having owned both?

On the backseat, the continued refrain (first started with the reviewers who drive it for 2 day) is nonsense.

When my kids were young/small (up to preteen) there was NO problem picking up 3 of them (plus me = 4). There is plenty of leg room for the passenger so the seat moves up. There were many times, when I had 5 total (but of course no 5th seatbelt).
My test for this is always to adjust the front seat so that I can sit comfortably, and then sit behind the seat to judge how much space is really there. In the CLK (W208), I could do this a a little extra knee room. It was impossible for me to do this with the SC430. Did you ever drive around with four adult sized people in the SC430?

To be fair, there are LOTS of cars that have back seats sized so that only very sedate children can ride in them for any time. But these don't typically get marketed against cars that actually do have completely usable rear seats (you know, by people other than small children... or inanimate objects who won't complain). That was always the thing that irritated me about this car... how they positioned it.
 
#22 ·
While were talking about 4 seater convertibles, anyone tried the Peugeot 206 CC? It has back seats, but... I think they're smaller then that of the SC's, by quite a bit.

Oh, and I also loath the 206. Drove it for an hour and I have to say it just wasn't for me. Maybe someone else will like the seating position, windscreen shape, etc... But for me, the power was HORRIBLY inadequate, my feet kept getting stuck on some overhang in the foot well, it took 4 cars to find one at the dealers where the car actually worked (some didn't turn on, and in some others, the roof didn't work). Funnily enough, when we brought back the car to dealer after the test drive, the roof wouldn't go completely back up. Oh dear...

I guess I wouldn't mind an SC430, IMO the looks are ok, although I don't like the center console. But from what I've heard, the handling capabilities of the car are quite poor *shrug*
 
#23 ·
taroliw - 9/10/2005 9:54 AM

bloflin - 9/9/2005 4:41 PM

I love my SLK55, but I will tell you MB could learn something about quality and usability (i.e. controls) from the Japanese. And wind tunnel design (with the top down). The MB is easily twice as wind "swirly" as the Lex at same speed.
Well, I won't worry too much about wind swirliness. I drove the SLK350 I rented in July at over 100 MPH (for several miles, not just a quick blip) with the top down and found it quite wind swirly acceptable. [;)]

Though I have inspected them closely (including sitting in it), I've never actually driven an SC430, but I would ask: do you think theese other factors suggest I should spend an extra $20K? Personally, I think it's a nice car... I'm just not sure it's that nice a car. If I was going to entertain $20K over an SLK, I'd likely move to the SL. [:)]

I am curious though. What is your comparison of the controls. I know there are pretty common complaints from many about things like placement of control stalks on the steering wheel (esp cruise control), etc. But what observations did you make, having owned both?

On the backseat, the continued refrain (first started with the reviewers who drive it for 2 day) is nonsense.

When my kids were young/small (up to preteen) there was NO problem picking up 3 of them (plus me = 4). There is plenty of leg room for the passenger so the seat moves up. There were many times, when I had 5 total (but of course no 5th seatbelt).
My test for this is always to adjust the front seat so that I can sit comfortably, and then sit behind the seat to judge how much space is really there. In the CLK (W208), I could do this a a little extra knee room. It was impossible for me to do this with the SC430. Did you ever drive around with four adult sized people in the SC430?

To be fair, there are LOTS of cars that have back seats sized so that only very sedate children can ride in them for any time. But these don't typically get marketed against cars that actually do have completely usable rear seats (you know, by people other than small children... or inanimate objects who won't complain). That was always the thing that irritated me about this car... how they positioned it.
taroliw, good questions, let me give it a shot

wind "swirlyness" - I didn't mean the SLK350/55 is unacceptable, just the SC430 was better, however that did influence the design, which again some people hate other love. The design influence is high doors (would call them gunwales on a boat). A couple of things less "swirl" can buy you, improved "hair response" (not a problem for me, but some of the females...), easier to have a conversation (on phone or with the passenger), sound system sounded better, finally you can feel the A/C coming from the vents, without having to have the fan on max. These are NOT major issues, just refinement points. Some would say, "if that is a problem for you, why'd ya by a convert, ya jackass!", but I won't respond to that. [:)]

On the price, well to be honest, we all make personal decisions on how we spend our money vs needs/wants/toys. For me, I could definately tell you I was getting my $ worth (in my opinion), on lux, quality, etc.

On rear seating, yes I did cram 4 adults in, more than once, but only as an "emergency". Wouldn't buy a car because of that, but the ("emergency") option is there, were it absolutely is not for a 2 seater. I also have picked up packages/boxes bigger than would fit in the trunk (or the car, except with the top down). Again, not a primary reason for buying, I was just pointing out to those who continue to quote the refrain of worthless space, usually echoed from Car Mag reviewers, who of course don't actually use the car for anything but the performance test.

Sorry, I truly don't understand your issue about how a manufacturer markets/positions a product is an irritant. I bought the car because I like it.

On the controls and usability, really this could be a whole "white paper". But usability is also a VERY personal experience.

A couple of quick points, though..

The MB has 70+ buttons, and dials, etc. on the dash (count them), it looks very busy, and yet with all the buttons, many thing are not easy to access or intuitive (TO ME). On average without doing a detailed usuability study, I would say I hit about 2.5 times more buttons while driving the MB vs the Lex to do the same thing. Again NOT a giant issue, but one that can easily be solved without adding any $ to the cost.

On the cruise control, I understand this is a MB standard, but I truely don't understand how some lawsuit happy person/lawyer hasn't sued. Way to easy to mistakenly set it on, in a turn.

The NAV system itself would require a book to compare.

No Bluetooth. No RDS on radio. Hitting 3 buttons to switch from FM to CD or CD to CDC, etc. No visible feedback of where volume is set (why would you need this you might say, use your ears, well sometimes you change to a station or a CD that is not playing much volume at that time, and an easy visual glance tells you the volume is ok and just wait for the piece to start).

Again the SC430 is NOT a sports car (it is "sporty"). It does NOT handle like a sports car, it can't compete off the light with sports cars (but it is still fun and fast compared to the 98% of the other cars at the light!).

Finally, let close by saying again... I LOVE my SLK55. I moved from SC430 because I wanted more handling, more power, more "fun". The only thing that is irritating to me, is I KNOW how much better the "little" things can be done, WITHOUT adding to cost (because it is almost all software changes). That would make it EVEN better.
 
#25 ·
taroliw - 9/9/2005 1:02 PM

Well, I know that SL's of the past 20 years have had parcel shelves in the back, but actual seats?
Well, I ran across this picture recently and thought I'd share. But, again, this sort of makes my point. I would no more sit in these seats that I would in the back seat of a SC430... and no one would ever claim the SL with these seats is a four seater. I mean.... really. [:)]
 

Attachments

#26 ·
My previous car was a Lexus Gs300. My brother now has it, and it is as tight as when I bought it . Considering I was a second owner (previous was a friend) I think it says a lot for build quality.

Love the SLK, but wish that it was built by Toyota...

Irritating things, as documented on this board as well as mechanical 'quirks' have me wondering as to the long term reliability.

Examples?.
1.The roof stuck the other day. It was folded away, car parked. Came back and the roof warning light comes on. Turned car off (heart in mouth), tried to open the boot/trunk. No luck.
Fiddled with the up/down button . Got the roof to fully go up and then back down. No recurrence.
2. A few weeks later.Started the car in C mode. Maybe, I touched 'something' but the car would not shift automtically . Had to use the gear paddles. Stopped the car at the shop, started it again. No problems . May have to rtfm again.

The way I look at it is that somehow, all those Italians that used to work with Alfa's, Ducati's and Ferrari's have moved into Benz. The SLK has a great deal of soul (something my Lexus or the SC430 could never be accused of having ) but that DOES translate into eccentricity.
Come to think of it perhaps the guys from Jaguar and MG have also moved over?. Just hope that Lucas (Prince of Darkness) never made the trip across the channel...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top