Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I did a test drive with the 200 model and was really disappointed. The car felt very lame.

When I started the first time, I thought that I accidentially had engaged in 3th gear instead of first. There just did not seem to be enough torque to get a decent pull-up. Even going to 6000 rpm did not improve the feeling. It really felt that there was not enough power available.

I normally drive a Ford Puma (125 horsepower) and the difference was unbelievable. When I got back in my own car after the test drive, I really burned rubber when I started it, as I was now used to the slow response. On paper, this should just be the opposite, certainly taking into account that the Puma is about half the price of the 171.

I told this to the salesman, as I suspected that the motor might be faulty and advised him to check this. Unfortunately, he never did bother to answer my call. Does anyone have the same feeling, or is it indeed possible that this was a faulty car ?

By the way, the next week I drove the Nissan 350Z, and the difference was incredible, a totaly different class from the Puma, and even more so from the Mercedes.
 

·
Registered
350 SLK
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
Where are you located? You might want to enter your location in your profile as sometimes answers to questions are location specific.
 

·
Registered
SLK55 //AMG
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
The SLK200 is not exactly a pavement burner - Its a smooth and capable car. It is also quite heavy - Its no surprise the 350Z felt much faster - it is!
Compare the 350Z to the SLK350, you will find that comparison more than equal.

Cheers!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,115 Posts
As a general rule of thumb, mercs with 4 cylinders and no supercharger are near to dead in the performance department. If you want a little get up and go you have to have at least a 6 cylinder Mercedes.

I drove a 350Z a few days back, quick but an SLK/C32 would whoop it pretty badly
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 AMG
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
The 200 is faster then the Puma. Either the car was faulty, or the engineering has caused the ride to be so smooth that you didn't "feel" the speed.

A car doesn't necessarily need to burn rubber to be powerful. It just means that it has better grip and able to place power to the tires consistently, instead of it skidding all over the place.
 

·
Registered
SLK 350
Joined
·
4 Posts
I traded in my Puma for a new SLK 350. The Puma is a fantastic car (absolutely not "a piece of shit" as someone said), but the 350 outclasses it by a mile in every department. I've never tried an SLK 200 so can't comment. By the way, when I sold the Puma I got some criminally low offers for it, as low as 5k, whereas it finally went for 8.5k so don't believe it if anyone tells you there's not a hot market for them.
 

·
Registered
SLK 350 , S 500 L, C 200
Joined
·
109 Posts
not familiar with the puma - we may know it as another brand
anyone got a picture of it?
thanks
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
The Puma was only sold in Europe.
The Nissan 350Z is actually cheaper than a SLK200 and much cheaper than a SLK350.

I compared some data from magazine tests:
SLK200 Puma
Kg / HP 8.5 8
KG / nm 5.8 6.7
0>100 Km/h 8.5 9.4
60>90 Km/h 3.3 5.7
90>120 Km/h 5 8

The SLK has a weight disadvantage, but in all the performance data it it supposed to be faster. In reality, the Puma always responded much better and quicker, in starts as well as during overtaking. It was more like I was driving a underpowered diesel model...

Fuel consumption during the test stuck to 11.6 liter, even when I drove an even 120 Km/h on a highway. This seems high in comparison to the published figures. So maybe something really was wrong with the motor ?
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 AMG
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
The fuel consumption figures sometime show odd numbers. You must stop on an autoroute, reset the counter, and then start driving so that you see the real consumption.

For example, if I drive out from my garage and onto the highway, I immediately get like 14 liters to a hundred during the 3-5 minute journey on the little roads I have to take that bring me from the village I live in, to the highway. THEN, once I've been driving on the highway for an hour or so, will the overall consumption have dropped down to 10 or 11. The thing is that it takes the average from the beginning to the end, and divides that up, giving you the amount you consumed during the journey.

If I let my car just sit with the engine on, the 'consumption' grows up to 40 liters per hundred. It's because I'm not moving [:)] Once I start to move, it at first dips down very quickly, from 40 to 30, then to 33, then to 26, then to 22, 20, 19, 18, 18.5, etc... i.e. it gets slower and slower to display the actual amount you're using up in fuel because it's constantly taking an average, and leaving the car turned on for an hour, and then driving for an hour, would result in 40liters and 10liters being divided up, giving you 25 liters to a hundred. Even though you weren't really doing this. You had the engine on for 2 hours, you drove 100km's, and 'used' 50 liters of fuel (not really, but you see what I mean), and then the computer tells you that your ratio was 25liters to a hundred.

Ok, the above example was very crude however... and in my opinion, you get the 'stated lowest consumption' if you drive about 80kph on the highest gear. That's the approximate speed where your car consumes the least fuel at the lowest engine rpm.
 

·
Registered
BMW
Joined
·
900 Posts
Alsie - 2/24/2005 10:35 AM
not familiar with the puma - we may know it as another brand
anyone got a picture of it?
thanks
It was a Ford Fiesta chassis (right at the lowest end of the Ford parts bin) with a supposedly glam, but actually vaguely cockroach like, coupe body:

http://www.fantasycars.com/Ford_Puma/ford_puma.html

It was never a big seller. I was unfortunate enough to be given a 1.7 as a hire car for a week once, and it was rubbish. Ford of Europe have tried and failed a few times (Probe, Puma, Cougar) to make a successful coupe ever since they killed off the Capri in 1988.
 

·
Registered
R171 200K
Joined
·
115 Posts
If all you are looking at is price and performance then you will certainly be dissapointed with the 200. There is so much more to the car however.
 

·
Registered
Diamond SilverSLK200
Joined
·
106 Posts
you are buying brand, prestige and style, rather than a piece of crap.
I guess that sums it up pretty succinctly!!!

Can only express my views based on having a brand new car that is still being run-in. When I have had to put my foot down, i.e. when exiting a slip-road onto a busy highway, the 200 has performed fine!

It's getting throatier as the km's go by and I expect its response will really have speeded-up by the time I've completed it's run-in. No way though, do I take it anywhere near 6000 rpm. That's for later. 4000 rpm max until then.

Scott
 

·
Registered
SLK 27/Jan/2005
Joined
·
102 Posts
hi raman... i would like to ask you 1 simple question... what's your point in posting your msg in this forum??? could you kindly enlighten me pls? so that you can stop wasting our time here?

Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
Bro.... Dont get so worked up! He is telling us that the 200 isnt fast enough compare to his or the Puma. In future, when u see a puma on the road. Dont play play ah.... But again, u dont have to worry coz urs is 350. Can maybe even let the fairlady "pi yan". kekee.....Ur car finish running in?? i want to try leh... I try to contact slkfans. Maybe we can meet up on tuesday. Same place??

Cheers...
 

·
Registered
BMW
Joined
·
900 Posts
JonnyBravo - 2/24/2005 6:48 PM

hi raman... i would like to ask you 1 simple question... what's your point in posting your msg in this forum??? could you kindly enlighten me pls? so that you can stop wasting our time here?
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. The point really is that the price of a 200 buys a lot more besides performance. There are new cars at half the price that are quicker. However, that's not the only criteria for buying a car. For quite a lot of people, it isn't even high on the list of requirements, as long as performance is adequate, and there's nothing wrong with that of course.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
JonnyBravo

The point is that I was interested in buying a SLK200, but the test drive was so disappointing that I wondered if I was driving a test car with a faulty motor. There was just no comparison to my Puma, but also not to a BMW Z4 2.5 or even a Smart Roadster! This newgroup is supposed to have plenty of SLK lovers, so I needed some more balanced opinions than what I can expect from a saleman.

Steve-p
Just for the record, BBC Top Gear did a big survey of reliability, driving enjoyment and dealer service.
The Ford Puma was classed on 41, the former SLK was only 70. Not such a crappy car after all I would say.
 

·
Registered
BMW
Joined
·
900 Posts
raman - 2/25/2005 3:42 PM
Just for the record, BBC Top Gear did a big survey of reliability, driving enjoyment and dealer service.
The Ford Puma was classed on 41, the former SLK was only 70. Not such a crappy car after all I would say.
Yes, but the old SLK was all looks and no substance. At least the new one drives properly. And the Top Gear JD Power survey is usually won by a Toyota, Honda, Skoda or some other dull hatchback with a rubbery ride and cheap plastic interior. Driver enjoyment can't figure very highly in the totals, can it. It's mainly about reliabity and service of the dealer network, as is the US version.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top