Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
2000SLK-2005SLK
Joined
·
57 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
It seems a little odd that the 350 SLK is rated @ 268 hp and 258 ft lbs torcue and runs about 5.3 or less 0-60 time, while the SLK55 is rated @ 355 hp and 376 ft lbs torque with 4.9 0-60 times.
I think my 350 will run the 0-60 in 5.3, but it seems to me the 55 is understated. Is this for the EPA Nazis or what is the deal.
Shouldn't the 55 be closer to 4.2 or thereabouts?
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 born 03/05
Joined
·
58 Posts
Several postings and articles have been indicating closer to 4.6 or 4.5 secs. Not sure why the difference. I only have 600 miles on mine so 400 to go to find out!
 

·
Registered
06 M5, 07 RS4, 07 ML63
Joined
·
654 Posts
Mercedes Benz brochures and press literature list it as 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph) in 4.9 secs...

So far, Road & Track magazine is the only US magazine to publish 0-60 mph test results for the SLK55 at 4.5 secs. They also list a 1/4 time of 12.9 seconds. Motor Trend has not published a 0-60 time but they have posted a 12.8 second quarter mile time so it looks like their test car is even quicker.

So yes, I guess the SLK55 acceleration numbers were a little under-estimated meanwhile it seems the SLK350 numbers are right on with what was originally claimed by MB. Probably mostly for marketing purposes. A 4.4/4.5 second 0-60 sprint would somewhat "de-value" their other monster roadster, the SL55 which costs twice as much but is only marginally quicker, so under-estimation would protect the heirarchy of roadsters in the family.
 

·
Registered
2004 SL600 Renntech ECU/TCU Upgrade...many other mods
Joined
·
238 Posts
MB historically understates it's AMG performance number as the rule, not the exception. Usually all AMG models run faster in real world trials then on paper.
 

·
Registered
SLK55AMG
Joined
·
66 Posts
yea the 0-60 they say for the 55 is off, im also running easy 4.2sec, people underestimate the SLK55 way to much, i took a new c6 vette , GSXR1000 on the highway , and stayed side by side with the SL55. I know someone will complain about me saying i stayed with an SL55, but what i think makes it so possible is the tranny, it`s just amazing at transfering that power to the ground and the shifts are amazing. I been in a 350 and 55 when i was first looking at them, the power difference just amazing, you really cant compare the 2 cars i think... no offence to anyone.
 

·
Registered
SLK350 AMG Sport
Joined
·
334 Posts
480hpSLK55 - 5/1/2005 3:19 PM

I been in a 350 and 55 when i was first looking at them, the power difference just amazing, you really cant compare the 2 cars i think... no offence to anyone.
That extra $13K should get you something.
 

·
Registered
SLK55 //AMG
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
480hpSLK55 - 5/1/2005 4:19 PM
I been in a 350 and 55 when i was first looking at them, the power difference just amazing, you really cant compare the 2 cars i think... no offence to anyone.
The SLK55 is an excellent and unique car in its own right. However to say they are two different animals is going too far.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you really don't have to subjugate the 350 to make yourself feel better about your 55 purchase.
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
First, 4 tenths of a second to 60 mph is quite a bit. More than it sounds. Second, how do a couple of you know what your car does to 60mph? Didn't know they had a 0-60 track around. Third, for half the price of either car you can buy a car with way more power (Used of course), 360hp in a 3300lb car is nothing anymore. Z06 - 500hp, Viper - 500hp. Neither is much more money, and both are available in a manual trans, uh, wait they only come with a manual trans. What the SLK55 is along with the SL55 are Luxury Sports cars. Which should be a compliment. I bought my SLK350 to replace my Shelby. It is no replacement for that. I love it, but couldn't live without a true sports car. So the Lingenfelter (475hp/480tq) now fullfills the adrenaline needs. Love driving my SLK350, but it along with the 55 are lacking for the true sports car enthusiast.
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
480hpSLK55 - 5/1/2005 3:19 PM

i took a new c6 vette , GSXR1000 on the highway , and stayed side by side with the SL55.

As hard as it is to believe any of these vehicles were not viewing you from their mirror, I know for a fact the GSXR1000 would have no problem leaving you if the driver was capable. That's a no brainer and the 2 vehicles are not even comparable performance wise.
 

·
Registered
2006 SLK55
Joined
·
10 Posts
NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 1:06 PM

Love driving my SLK350, but it along with the 55 are lacking for the true sports car enthusiast.
I find it surprising that you are able to make that sweeping generalization about both the 350 and 55 when the engine, exhaust, suspension bits, wheels/tires, and transmission are all different on the AMG. Unless you are fortunate (?) enough to own both concurrently and have driven both extensively on a day-to-day basis....

Disregarding any stoplight commando stories, like you said, even 4/10ths of a second to 60 is a large difference -- based simply on Motor Trend's numbers, the 55 is a full second quicker to 60 than the 350. This literally places the 55 in a different performance class.
 

·
Registered
SLK350 AMG Sport
Joined
·
334 Posts
NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 1:32 PM

480hpSLK55 - 5/1/2005 3:19 PM

i took a new c6 vette , GSXR1000 on the highway , and stayed side by side with the SL55.

As hard as it is to believe any of these vehicles were not viewing you from their mirror, I know for a fact the GSXR1000 would have no problem leaving you if the driver was capable. That's a no brainer and the 2 vehicles are not even comparable performance wise.
480hp?
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
jd604 - 5/2/2005 3:36 PM

NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 1:06 PM

Love driving my SLK350, but it along with the 55 are lacking for the true sports car enthusiast.
I find it surprising that you are able to make that sweeping generalization about both the 350 and 55 when the engine, exhaust, suspension bits, wheels/tires, and transmission are all different on the AMG. Unless you are fortunate (?) enough to own both concurrently and have driven both extensively on a day-to-day basis....

Disregarding any stoplight commando stories, like you said, even 4/10ths of a second to 60 is a large difference -- based simply on Motor Trend's numbers, the 55 is a full second quicker to 60 than the 350. This literally places the 55 in a different performance class.
Sorry, but I'm not the one that made the generalization. It was Car and Driver. And you don't need to drive a car daily to understand what it was built for. One trip around the boulevard is all it takes, that is unless you don't know what you're looking for.
 

·
Registered
2006 SLK55
Joined
·
10 Posts
NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 1:06 PM
Love driving my SLK350, but it along with the 55 are lacking for the true sports car enthusiast.
NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 5:43 PM
Sorry, but I'm not the one that made the generalization. It was Car and Driver.
So you are not actually the one loving driving your SLK350? Or you do love driving your SLK350 but decided to paraphrase a Car and Driver sentiment as your own informed opinion? I'm sorry but it is not clear to me.
NukeSLK - 5/2/2005 5:43 PM
And you don't need to drive a car daily to understand what it was built for. One trip around the boulevard is all it takes, that is unless you don't know what you're looking for.
If AMG does not build for performance then they are in the business of... increasing the luxury quotient? I would assume that based on the sacrificed ride comfort and harsher noise levels alone it would be patently obvious that the 55 is not built for the same person that would be satisfied with a 350.
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
jd604 - 5/2/2005 11:23 PM


So you are not actually the one loving driving your SLK350? Or you do love driving your SLK350 but decided to paraphrase a Car and Driver sentiment as your own informed opinion? I'm sorry but it is not clear to me.

If AMG does not build for performance then they are in the business of... increasing the luxury quotient? I would assume that based on the sacrificed ride comfort and harsher noise levels alone it would be patently obvious that the 55 is not built for the same person that would be satisfied with a 350.

Uh, I am the one driving the SLK. I do love driving it. But not the same type of driving I do in the Lingenfelter. My SLK has the AMG package, looks identical to the 55 except I have much better looking wheels, rides a little rough but is not a true sports car. If I put 900 horsepower in a Ford Escort and some larger brakes and performance suspension, does that make it a sports car? Car and Driver called the 350 "Best Luxury Sports Car". The C6 Corvette was the "Best Sports Car". The 55 is the same car as one who is satisfied with the 350, just more power, not more sports car. If you can't get it in a manual, it's not a true sports car, sorry.
 

·
Registered
2006 SLK55
Joined
·
10 Posts
NukeSLK - 5/3/2005 8:20 AM
If I put 900 horsepower in a Ford Escort and some larger brakes and performance suspension, does that make it a sports car?
Ask the WRC or NASCAR or the BTCC or... etc. and I am relatively sure the answer will be an unequivocal "yes."
NukeSLK - 5/3/2005 8:20 AM
Car and Driver called the 350 "Best Luxury Sports Car" ... The 55 is the same car as one who is satisfied with the 350, just more power, not more sports car..
But here's the rub: it is not just more power as I had stated above. In fact, I list the most rudimentary things that are changed. With the logic of your statement, it's like saying that the M3 (and M5) is no different from the 3-series coupe (5-series sedan) except for more power.
NukeSLK - 5/3/2005 8:20 AM
If you can't get it in a manual, it's not a true sports car, sorry.
And there shouldn't be traction control. Oh and the engine should be in the rear or middle of the sports car (because it's just a muscle car with bad balance otherwise.) Oh and no live axle rear suspensions but there should be a roll cage... etc. ad nauseam. Please. That is another sweeping statement you are making that is antiquated and no longer applicable - especially now with systems like Audi's DSG.

Also of note is the classification system used by the SCCA ... you know... the Sports Car Club of America.
Here's the url if you are interested in learning the types of cars they have defined that should be going head-to-head in the same stock class as the SLK:
http://www.moutons.org/sccasolo/Lists/2005/stockc.html
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
jd604, if you want to classify an Escort as a sports car, then I guess you own or are defending a true sports car. Sorry, just can't get on that lame bus with ya. Make sure you use the "Sports Scarf" when you're out there on the track running with the Escorts! I think they are putting air scarf in the next ENZO. [:)]
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
jd604 - 5/3/2005 10:38 AM

But here's the rub: it is not just more power as I had stated above. In fact, I list the most rudimentary things that are changed. With the logic of your statement, it's like saying that the M3 (and M5) is no different from the 3-series coupe (5-series sedan) except for more power.
Ah, but they are in the same class which is Luxury Sports Sedan, even if the M3 does 0-60 in under 5 seconds.
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
Well poop. I think jd604 is right. The SLK55 along with the SLK350 are true sports cars. But after much searching, I have found that so are Civic SI's, Subaru Impreza's, Toyota Celica's, Mitsubishi Eclipse's and the list goes on. I stand corrected. I feel like an idiot for trying to defend such a sorry category. I'll have to make up my own category now.
There is no hard definition I could find, so put whatever car in whatever category you want. [:)]
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top