Mercedes-Benz Forum banner
1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
350SLK AMG (2005)
Joined
·
47 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Hi,

I have a bit of a dilema and I have placed my order, I am worried the 350 (AMG stylin) will not be fast enough for me!!!

I currently have an Audi TT that I modified it with a ECU remap so it now pumps out 270BHP and 300 lb/ft tourqe. I know the merc 350 puts out the same HP but I believe it is about 50 lb/ft less tourqe.

i have driven the 350 and to be honest I fell in love with the looks (AMG) and the exhaust note (sounds really really raw) LOVE IT!!! I thought the power was above average but it doesnt give you the same stick you in the seat feeling as the TT due to the reduced tourqe.

I actually saw my first SLK 200 by accident when lookin to buy a TVR 450bhp well basically i really liked the SLR look so that mixed with the reliability of a production car MERC was the correct choice.

I couldent really go for the 55 because the insurance would kill me due to my age (believe it or not the insurance is cheaper on a TVR due to low theft rates - less of them around) and i like the idea of having the new tech engine, although the power stats really look great on the 55, i think the extra weight due to the V8 balances them out a bit BHP/Weight ratio evidence of this is in the similar 0-120kph times. but the Tourqe or the 55 would really kick in the 55!!!!!

am i just being a bit of a Piston Head!!!!!

Ive never driven a rear wheel drive before the Tt is 4X4 i hear that 270Bhp is loads and they can get hairy in the wet?

Thanks
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 AMG
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
First of all, update your location information so that we know where you're from. This helps us answer your questions better (as sometimes they can be country specific).

Concerning the TT versus SLK, FredFromNY should be able to answer them since he has both (albeit an SLK 55 AMG, as opposed to a 350).

You can also tune the 350 (might be able to bring i tup to 300hp with a chip upgrade, and 350 or more by adding a turbo). The old SLK was quite hairy in the rain, my 55 feels much better, and it has even more power then the 350 (or my older 230). I don't think you need to worry about it too much, but it's RWD, so do use snow/winter tires if driving in the cold. Apart from that, you shouldn't have problems.

Go with the TVR if you want the power, as there's lots of it. But if you really do like the 350's looks, then take it. It'll be a change from your TT and I'm sure you'll appreciate it just as much in the long run.
 

·
Registered
'05 SLK350
Joined
·
73 Posts
Like FredFromNY I, too, have an Audi TT Roadster. Like yours, mine is chipped for more HP. I bought an SLK350 to replace it. My impressions of a comparison:

Although the TT is theoretically AWD it is actually, in static circumstances, an FWD car as the static torque split F/R is 100/0. Consequently it suffers from torque steer and massive understeer. The driving dynamics of my SLK are far superior to my TT. I suspect that part of that is RWD and part of it is better balance as the TT is pretty front heavy.

Over the last few years turbocharged cars have lost a lot of their luster for me. With a chip I find the turbo lag in the TT to be too outrageous. My wife loves it because she like being kicked into the back of the seat when the turbo kicks in. So in the last few months I've been replacing my turbos with naturally aspirated engines. I really like the engine in the SLK350. It responds almost instantly and has good torque everywhere in the range, not just when the turbo spools up. And it accelerates faster than my TT, even with the chip. Regardless of torque numbers.

I always considered the TT's brakes to be its weakest feature. Those in the SLK are far superior.

On the flip side, it is pretty easy to spin the rear wheels on the SLK while the TT will only have a brief blip, perhaps a small fraction of one revolution, before the AWD kicks in. I find the SLK (and my 911 Turbo) to be less than ideal in the wet because of that, while the TT is great on wet roads.

The quality of the SLK interior is a notch below that of the TT IMO. Especially the steering wheel, which is poorly shaped for the hands at 9-3, has stitching that bugs my fingers and can't be adjusted to an ideal position because it too easily blocks the tach and speedo. Also the SLK seats aren't as comfortable, though the bolsters are just as supportive.

All in all I like the way the SLK drives better than the TT. I like the TT interior better than the SLK. After 4.5 years of driving a TT I was really ready for a change, anyway, as I hate to keep my cars longer than about 3 years. But my TT was a very good car and I shall miss it.
 

·
Registered
Audi TT
Joined
·
38 Posts
Thanks for all the feed back, I agree about the interior being notch lower than the TT and I am worried about the material the SLK steering wheel is made from because when i drove it for a test i think it was plastic!!!!!! very worried indeed. also no nappa leather these things BUG me especially when the SLK is twice the price! but the unique looks of the SLK and the attention it got on the test drive is great.
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 AMG
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
I'm able to set the steering wheel (electronically) to a position where it does not block the dials, and is a perfect fit for my driving position.

I remember driving the TT a few weeks back, and the dials were indeed were easy to see, but I did not like the seating position as much. I felt so high up, and consequently it didn't make the car feel all that sporty.

The nappa leather in the AMG is real nice, and I actually considered it better then the TT I drove, but I think the TT I had a go in came with the lowest of the low grade TT interior. I've been to the Audi dealer and sat in the leather stitched seats. They're nice and I liked that, but I'm not fond of the look of real large stitches, so the TT interior never really warmed for me. The metal dials stuff around the air vents etc is nice tho', but the dash top area is not as good looking. I guess it all depends on your taste. I've always liked the TT tho', was the first car I grew in love with (just as it came out), but I never got one (no money as I only just started working as an IT techie and pay was mediocre). But recently my taste for the TT interior has dropped. Seems a bit too bulgy, whilst the SLK's interior is more curvy. But still, it's not bad at all, just wish the radio wasn't hidden like it is...

Finally, the steering wheel in my AMG has leather (for the grip part), and my hands feel perfectly fine on it. The stitching doesn't get in the way. The part with the buttons tho' is plastic, so yeah, that can feel a bit cheapish.

Are you guys able to set the steering wheel into a position where you can see the dials well and have a good seating position?
 

·
Registered
'05 SLK350
Joined
·
73 Posts
BTW, I just got back from a drive in my SLK. I mentioned in this thread that the stitching on the steering wheel felt funny. No, that's my BMW. I'm starting to get all my cars mixed up. Fortunately I'm down to 4 and will be down to 3 in a couple weeks. [;)]
 

·
Registered
Audi TT
Joined
·
38 Posts
Hi, yea their is a handle at the side of the seat which lowers it into a more sporty position still not as sporty feel as the SLK because the SLK has bucket seats.

I thought the AMG came with leather stearing wheel but i am not sure about the 350?

AMG comes with absolutley everything but alas the extra £10,000 + insurance + petrol was a bit to pricy for me at the mo.

I have planned to spend £43,000 on a loaded 350 and in about 3 yrs sell it for £30,000 then add £30,000 to that and go look for an F355 Spider with my £60k which is about 3yrs old.

Must say i have owned a ferrari (life goal - well sad i know but their u go )
 

·
Registered
'05 SLK350
Joined
·
73 Posts
Yes, the 350 steering wheel is leather.

I've owned a Ferrari. I wouldn't mind doing so again. But I certainly wouldn't do it just to be able to say I had owned a Ferrari.
 

·
Registered
SLK 350
Joined
·
2,327 Posts
Gary,

How about sharing a little info with us regarding maintainence and costs of owning a Ferrari. I've always heard that they weren't too reliable and that they cost a fortune to maintain. I realize that they are expensive cars and I accept that an owner shouldn't expect to get a $29.95 oil change at a dealer but I've heard that even compared to other top dollar brands, they are expensive.
 

·
Registered
'05 SLK350
Joined
·
73 Posts
Duo-Art - 1/27/2005 8:19 AM

Gary,

How about sharing a little info with us regarding maintainence and costs of owning a Ferrari. I've always heard that they weren't too reliable and that they cost a fortune to maintain. I realize that they are expensive cars and I accept that an owner shouldn't expect to get a $29.95 oil change at a dealer but I've heard that even compared to other top dollar brands, they are expensive.
Not sure how relevant my experience would be because it was so long ago. I restored a Dino from late '79 to mid '81. You wouldn't think a 10 year old car would need restoration, but the body was in pretty bad shape. My recollection was that nobody who drove a Ferrari in those days would ever think of one as a daily driver, partly due to reliability issues and partly due to maintenance costs.

In subsequent years whenever I've considered getting another Ferrari I've always decided against it not because of maintenance cost but because I'm at least 100 miles from the nearest mechanic with an experience with them.
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
693 Posts
For what it is worth (this is second hand) my brother had an F355 Ferrari from new. Stunning, stunning car and a sound to die for, that in itself is enough for some.
But I was not there when it broke down, or when he paid the bills, and sadly it was both expensive and unreliable.

With Ferrari it is a love affair.
 

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
I couldn't have said it better...

I have a stage 3 setup with large turbo/cat exhaust and custom head, cams and lightened pulleys. The HP may be equivalent between the TT and the SLK55 but they are totally different:
The TT is front drive the AMG rear.
The TT is a 5speed the AMG an automatic.
The normally aspirated AMG has instant on power and the TT has some lag.
Both are fun and have their place.
I am fortunate to have them.

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Audi TT
Joined
·
38 Posts
RE: I couldn't have said it better...

fredfromny - 1/27/2005 3:09 PM

I have a stage 3 setup with large turbo/cat exhaust and custom head, cams and lightened pulleys. The HP may be equivalent between the TT and the SLK55 but they are totally different:
The TT is front drive the AMG rear.
The TT is a 5speed the AMG an automatic.
The normally aspirated AMG has instant on power and the TT has some lag.
Both are fun and have their place.
I am fortunate to have them.

Cheers!
TT in england is 4 wheel drive and 6 speed
 

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
Your welcome.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top