Mercedes-Benz Forum banner
1 - 20 of 29 Posts

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Road and Track placed the 350 SLK in 9th Place out of 9 and Car and Driver had it in 3rd place out of 4.
Both tests were at Buttonwillow and C and D admitted that there was lack of an available SLK55 to make it interesting.
But at least the car was considered among the elite.
 

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
Sorry, March issues - came out today!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
I think both articles were focused on how well the cars performed on the track. I think I would probably agree with their reviews. If I wanted the most powerful trackable car...I would have picked something else.

Personally, I wanted a great street car with decent power, handling and looks without on road compromises(such as being enclosed in canvas.) We have to face it...MB is a luxury marque with sporting intentions.
 

·
Registered
350 SLK
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
jakepratt - 2/1/2005 3:27 PM

I think both articles were focused on how well the cars performed on the track. I think I would probably agree with their reviews. If I wanted the most powerful trackable car...I would have picked something else.

Personally, I wanted a great street car with decent power, handling and looks without on road compromises(such as being enclosed in canvas.) We have to face it...MB is a luxury marque with sporting intentions.
I agree totally. When I was looking for a new car, I drove both more expensive and more powerful cars. I had not seen the 350 and when I walked into the MB dealer showroom and saw it, it took my breath away. That is what I want from a car plus all the amenities and the hardtop/convertible. I don't need the power and speed (why, since most of the time I am sitting in traffic on the freeway doing about 10 mph and I am not crazy enough to speed on PCH - at least the portion between Santa Monica & Malibu [:0]).
 

·
Registered
SLK350
Joined
·
475 Posts
Likewise, I bought mine purely for panache. I give a rip what some dumb car journalist writes. The SLK just set my Heart on Fire. That's all the reason I needed.[:)][8)][8D][:D][:I][:p][}:)][;)][:eek:)][^][:X]

Roberta[:)][:)][:)]
 

·
Registered
SLK 350 MT
Joined
·
148 Posts
Having tried Z4, Boxster and S, S2000, various 911's, 350Z and coming from a mint restored '74 TR6, I wanted a convertible that cornered well on the street, accellerated better than 90% of the traffic, was reliable, not boring yet secure , watertight, and could handle the rubble that passes for roads in PA without realigning my spine on on a daily basis.
I read the praises ( comfort, speed, forgiving nature of my beloved SLK350) in R&T and wondered why they bothered to compare the SLK 350, when they really were looking for "high performance" (their words) vehicles. The SLK 55 would have been a much better choice in the comparison with so much emphasis on HP driven track performance. I'll stick with the car that doesn't empty my wallet at the gas pump (23 mpg in the 'burbs) and didn't make me cash in the 401K to pay the insurance ($1050 yearly).
 

·
Registered
BMW
Joined
·
900 Posts
jakepratt - 2/2/2005 11:27 PM
I think both articles were focused on how well the cars performed on the track. I think I would probably agree with their reviews. If I wanted the most powerful trackable car...I would have picked something else.
When it comes to cars for the track, power is only part of the story. That's why I'd expect the new Boxster S to be just as quick on the track as an SLK55, even though on paper it is a lot less powerful.
 

·
Registered
SLK 350
Joined
·
60 Posts
Roberta - 2/1/2005 12:50 PM

Likewise, I bought mine purely for panache. I give a rip what some dumb car journalist writes. The SLK just set my Heart on Fire. That's all the reason I needed.[:)][8)][8D][:D][:I][:p][}:)][;)][:eek:)][^][:X]

Roberta[:)][:)][:)]
Right on Roberta, my sentiments exactly.
 

·
Registered
SLK350/AMG PKG
Joined
·
184 Posts
Since I don't have the magazine, could someone post what cars were being compared in the magazines other than the SLK? Thanks
 

·
Registered
350 SLK
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
fredfromny - 2/1/2005 1:18 PM

Road and Track placed the 350 SLK in 9th Place out of 9 and Car and Driver had it in 3rd place out of 4.
Both tests were at Buttonwillow and C and D admitted that there was lack of an available SLK55 to make it interesting.
But at least the car was considered among the elite.
I just had another thought about this. In January, C&D named the 350 SLK (not the 55) the Best Luxury Sports Car and one of its 10 best new cars. How can it be "the best" in January and 3 out of 4 in February (March issue)? When choosing the Best Luxury Sports Car, they don't take into account its road performance?
 

·
Registered
SLK55 //AMG
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
malibuite - 2/2/2005 4:12 PM

I just had another thought about this. In January, C&D named the 350 SLK (not the 55) the Best Luxury Sports Car and one of its 10 best new cars. How can it be "the best" in January and 3 out of 4 in February (March issue)? When choosing the Best Luxury Sports Car, they don't take into account its road performance?
Welcome to the world of Subjective ratings....[:)]
 

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
malibuite - 2/2/2005 4:12 PM


I just had another thought about this. In January, C&D named the 350 SLK (not the 55) the Best Luxury Sports Car and one of its 10 best new cars. How can it be "the best" in January and 3 out of 4 in February (March issue)? When choosing the Best Luxury Sports Car, they don't take into account its road performance?
When one is a Boxster S and the other the 400HP Vette, the company is mighty fine. They did call the car a "winner" nevertheless.
This track test may not have even used an SLK with a sports suspension. The 17" rims and OEM tires are also no match for the larger ones on the other two cars.
My point is that if you're going up against the entry level boxster, fine- the 350 is a good match. But when considering the boxster S, I would have liked to have seen the AMG. I've had my car for 3 months and have not seen one definitive road test article.
 

·
Registered
SLK55 //AMG
Joined
·
1,212 Posts
You make a good point there Fred. I have noticed that most road tests use the base SLK suspension and wheels.
Does the boxter have an upgraded suspension as an option?
 

·
Registered
2005 SLK55
Joined
·
664 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
The boxster S is loaded.
 

·
Registered
'05 SLK350
Joined
·
73 Posts
I would certainly expect a 987S and a C6 to outperform an SLK350, even one with sport suspension.

And that doesn't negate C&D's award to the SLK for best luxury sports car. The C6, while giving terrific performance, especially for the money, certainly can't be considered "luxury" in any sense of the word.

As mentioned above, the SLK350 should be compared to a base Boxster, where I doubt there would be as clear a winner.

With that said, though, it is funny to note what happens on car enthusiast boards in response to reviews of our cars. When the review praises our chosen vehicle we pat ourselves on the back for being so smart. When the review isn't glowing we tend to put down the reviewer.
 

·
Registered
350 SLK
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
gdewitt - 2/3/2005 7:49 AM

I would certainly expect a 987S and a C6 to outperform an SLK350, even one with sport suspension.

And that doesn't negate C&D's award to the SLK for best luxury sports car. The C6, while giving terrific performance, especially for the money, certainly can't be considered "luxury" in any sense of the word.

As mentioned above, the SLK350 should be compared to a base Boxster, where I doubt there would be as clear a winner.

With that said, though, it is funny to note what happens on car enthusiast boards in response to reviews of our cars. When the review praises our chosen vehicle we pat ourselves on the back for being so smart. When the review isn't glowing we tend to put down the reviewer.
I don't think it is a matter of putting down the reviewer so much as trying to ascertain what standards they are using for making these determinations. But it does seem to be very subjective depending on the reviewer.
 

·
Registered
SLK 350 MT
Joined
·
148 Posts
the ninth place award was curious, since each testing editor was able to rank the cars independent of the final points tally. the SLK 350 was ranked 4,6,8,7,5,8,5,7,and 8 by the nine drivers. none of these rankings would support the final score of ninth. by the way, the tested cars were Z4 3.0,C6 vette, viper,S2000,elise,350Z anniv.,SLK350,boxster s and 911 S,
 

·
Registered
350 SLK
Joined
·
1,528 Posts
dsballdo - 2/4/2005 5:14 AM

the ninth place award was curious, since each testing editor was able to rank the cars independent of the final points tally. the SLK 350 was ranked 4,6,8,7,5,8,5,7,and 8 by the nine drivers. none of these rankings would support the final score of ninth. by the way, the tested cars were Z4 3.0,C6 vette, viper,S2000,elise,350Z anniv.,SLK350,boxster s and 911 S,
Good grief! Without driving any of them I could tell you the 350 is not going to fare well in a road test against the vette, viper, boxter s and 911 S and maybe the S2000 also. I don't know enough about the others to comment. Duh....
 
1 - 20 of 29 Posts
Top