Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi All,

I placed an order for a 350 in January but haven't specced it yet. Now that the SLK280 has been released I'm in a bit of a dilemma! Having just received the latest price list and option list from my dealer, I've carefully priced up both cars with the options I want. Have specced the SLK280 as follows:

5-Spoke Alloy Wheels
Metallic Paint
Leather
Folding Exterior Mirrors
Heated Seats
Remote Roof Op in Keyfob
Parktronic
Electric Passenger Seat
Electric Drivers Seat & Mirrors
COMAND APS

The total price for the 280 comes to £37,335. The total for the 350 is £39,560. That's a difference of £2,225! However I'm still not sure! As I haven't driven a 280, just wonder whether the reduction in performance would be noticable? Also wonder whether depreciation will be greater on a 280 than a 350?

With this price difference I could also add a few more options if desired. The SLK350 is right at the top of my budget and has NO slack in it!! The insurance will also be lower, but don't know by how much?

Will probably get loads of different opinions on this but appreciate all advice or additional information.

Thanks in advance...
 

·
Registered
W116, W126, R170.
Joined
·
217 Posts
Hi Andy 747,

I have no idea how noticable the difference in power will feel. But the 280 is more than half a second slower over 0-100 Ks.

In my opinion for a difference of only 2000 pounds I couldn't think of a better option than the bigger motor.

Agent 1 [8D]
 

·
Registered
SLK 55 AMG
Joined
·
3,560 Posts
Do remember that you'll be taxe heavier on the larger more powerful engine...
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
693 Posts
Andy

A couple of things to bear in mind.
The 350 is also quite thirsty, I get between 17 and 22 mpg, which is less than I expected. That will be quite a big cost over time.
The 200 to me felt short on power, but the 280 looks on paper like it will have good performance.
Whether it holds its value is guess work, but if it performs well (and it will) it will be very desirable for years to come.
There would be more of a cost differential if you were not getting the electric seats and mirrors, plus the 17" wheels, which are standard on the 350. So the £4k price difference drops to £2k.
The 350 will appeal to people who want the extra grunt, now and on resale. For those people the 280 may have less appeal. Are these people going to form the majority of second hand buyers?
What do you want, a 280 thats a bit cheaper to own and run and still great fun, or the grunt of the 350?
 

·
Registered
SLK350, BMW K1200LT
Joined
·
808 Posts
Hi Joyful,

When you get to my age, I'm gobsmacked that the 30 year warranty will probably run out after I die[:0]

I'm only getting 21-24 mpg on my 350 which does suprise me a bit (on my 1937 Norton 500cc Single Bike, part of the 1000 mile service is topping up the fuel tank [:)][:)]) - if most people who have SLK's have them as toy's, go for the biggest engine you can get - It's just a shame in the UK that the 550 did not come out till 8 months later.

(p.s. finally got over 1000 miles on mine now, and still no problems)[8D]
 

·
Registered
2003 E-Class 320 CDI
Joined
·
61 Posts
Quite a quandary. I can understand why you are struggling to choose between the two cars.

Here's my thoughts....

As I see it, you can probably expect the 280 to hold its value marginally better than a 350. I think that this will be the case on the basis of the 280 having the prestige of a V6 engine but with better fuel economy and running costs making it a more attractive secondhand proposition than the 350. That said, I doubt that a 350 on the secondhand market will ever be worth less than an equivalent 280. Consequently when you come to sell the car there maybe say a £1000 differential between the two versions.

Putting this into the equation means that ultimately the hypothetical difference in cost comes down to £1225. Guess you need to consider whether the 350 is worth that little extra.

I also think that the figures could be further skewed by you 'overspeccing' the 280 and specifying the electric seats, which as we know are standard on the 350. Generally speaking optional extras make a car easier to sell but don't necessarily add value on the secondhand market. Consequently the cost of these may not be reflected in future values and the differential between the two versions at sale time might be even greater.

Just my opinion as to how things might go - but who knows :)

I think either car would be a great purchase and for me, if I was deciding now, the decision would probably come down to running costs and fuel economy of the two versions. On that basis I'd be as tempted to buy the 280 as the 350.
 

·
Registered
SL55 AMG/SLK 350
Joined
·
211 Posts
Off topic but what fuels are you all using to get such poor performance? I currently get 27-30mpg using Shell Optimax.
 

·
Registered
SLK350, BMW K1200LT
Joined
·
808 Posts
dbslk - 4/26/2005 7:48 PM

Off topic but what fuels are you all using to get such poor performance? I currently get 27-30mpg using Shell Optimax.
I dro(i??)ve it like I stole it [:D][:D][:D] -22-24mpg seems a good average for a toy, and that's on BP Ultima, Shell Optimax, and bog standard local country garage stuff.
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
693 Posts
I have never got near 30mpg, even running it in. Then I was cruising about 100mph on the road back from Bremen. I can't be arsed to sit at 70/80 mph if I can help it.

I cant imagine the fuel is the reason I am getting 17-22 mpg, I am that far away I am surprised anyone gets 30mpg. Do you think it would make any difference at all using Shell optimax?
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
693 Posts
At UK prices an imperial gallon costs about $7.05.
I dont know what you pay, but I am sure it would be a bigger deal at our prices.
Or to put it another way it costs $110 to fill up from empty.
 

·
Registered
SL55 AMG/SLK 350
Joined
·
211 Posts
joyfulheart - 4/26/2005 12:17 AM

I have never got near 30mpg, even running it in. Then I was cruising about 100mph on the road back from Bremen. I can't be arsed to sit at 70/80 mph if I can help it.

I cant imagine the fuel is the reason I am getting 17-22 mpg, I am that far away I am surprised anyone gets 30mpg. Do you think it would make any difference at all using Shell optimax?
I thought the same thing about Fuel. I had always used BP Ultimate where I could because it always seemed better than the normal 95 fuel. Somebody at the office sent some information about the fuel types and differences.

I used to get around 24-26mpg with Ultimate and a few weeks ago started using Optimax which is 98ron. I have to say that I am impressed. My overall fuel consuption has gone down to the point that I actually got 31mpg travelling up the M6 toll road doing a steady 90mph.

Since this I have not gone back to using cheaper fuel as I don't believe this is saving me money at all. For example I used to fill the car up on Monday to go to work (round trip about 26 miles). Come Saturday the car needed a refill. With Optimax I can usually go until Wednesday before needing that fill.

Clearly this is my experience of using this fuel and am not advocating you should change, however it may be worth giving it a go as the mpg you are getting is quite bad.

It's also worth noting that I have a mixture of roads on my way to work, motorway and fast a roads and I don't drive slow. But I still get much, much better performance and economy that the petrols I have used in the past.
 

·
Registered
2003 E-Class 320 CDI
Joined
·
61 Posts
Interesting thread about fuel consumption.

I was quite surprised to see people getting such low figures as I've averaged just over 26mpg over nearly 1500 miles. These are figures gained from 'topping' the tank rather than the trip computer, although they seem to tally quite well with the in dash computer which says that I've got 26.3 mpg. I can't get anywhere near 30mpg though, no matter how easily I drive.

I thought about using Optimax when I first got the car but realised that it didn't have an adaptive ECU and so in theory they wouldn't be much benefit. My other car has an adaptive ECU which advances the timing when a better grade of fuel is used, but using Optimax on that didn't improve fuel consumption and the increase in power was negligible.

But I'll definitely give Optimax a go in the SLK based on the experiences of dbslk. Using Optimax is a good idea anyway because of the additional additives that keep the injectors and the combustion chamber clean and if there is an improvement in mpg it probably becomes cost effective too.
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
175 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
Thanks for the replies guys and sorry for not responding sooner. Looks like a difficult choice but got some bad news today which means I have more time to decide.

My delealer contacted me to say my order has been pushed back at least two months as they haven't been allocated any cars[:(!]. I was initially told September as a delivery date, then that moved to June and now it could be back to September!

Really wanted the car for the summer!
 

·
Registered
SLK350, BMW K1200LT
Joined
·
808 Posts
Does anyone remember that 'special' Shell fuel in the early eighties - it was special, it used to wreck your engine - loads of bad media coverage about it at the time.[V]
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top