[fastroo]

Hi everyone,

First, let me apologize for the newbie questions. I've been living in big cities for the past few years, so I've never even bought a car. But, I'm moving to LA in a few days, so I obviously need a car. And, being LA, it obviously needs to be a cool convertible.

Origianlly, I was thinking of the SL500. Then I saw the SLK and it looks cooler (IMHO) and is cheaper. So, I'm thinking of getting one. But, I was wondering if you could help me out with any/all of these newbie questions:

1) Is there any reason to prefer the SL over the SLK?

2) Not driving much, I don't tend to go fast. For someone who isn't planning to race or anything, is there an advantage of the 55 AMG over the 350?

3) Likewise, the suspension is tighter on the 55 AMG. If I use a 55 for my day-to-day commute, will the ride be significantly more bumpy/annoying?

4) Lots of threads here about bluetooth. The consensus is that the dealer can put in an MHI + MHI bluetooth and my Treo will at least share audio hands-free, correct?

5) There's no way to get distronic or parktronic on these things, right? Browsing the website, they looked cool, but it doesn't seem to be an option on the SLK. [Hey, I'm a gadget freak, not a car guy...]

6) Do you know how long it takes to get them? I'll need it pretty quickly.

7) Anything else I should know (either about the car or Los Angeles-area dealers?)

Thank you all so much and I'll report back once I've bought one! I'm looking forward to joining in here.

 

[da_nailgun]

1) Is there any reason to prefer the SL over the SLK?

Not at all. They are larger, cost much more, use more fuel and dont look as sporty.

2) Not driving much, I don't tend to go fast. For someone who isn't planning to race or anything, is there an advantage of the 55 AMG over the 350?

The AMG 55 has a slightly different interior, qual exhaust pipes, racing brakes and suspension and an old style V8 engine and only slightly faster.
IMHO if youre not planning on racing it, the 350 or even 280 is a great buy.
Then again you can get the AMG kit for the car and it will look like the 55AMG

4) Lots of threads here about bluetooth. The consensus is that the dealer can put in an MHI + MHI bluetooth and my Treo will at least share audio hands-free, correct?

From what i know.. YES ull be able to use ur phone hands free in the car

5) There's no way to get distronic or parktronic on these things, right? Browsing the website, they looked cool, but it doesn't seem to be an option on the SLK. [Hey, I'm a gadget freak, not a car guy...]

Parktronic is avilable on the SLKs





I hope i helped. anything i didnt answer will shorly be answered by the other cool members of this board.

 

[etyu]

I bought the SLK 280 mainly for commuting. I thought I might as well enjoy the drive.

Ask for the SLK catalog from www.mbusa.com or visit a local dealer. Study the last few pages as to the options available for the different engine class. Research the price and try autodirect.com.

It took about 12 weeks for the car I ordered to be delivered mainly because of the interior, brown nappa leather. When I was shopping in late December and January, there was only one in the entire U.S.A. with pewter exterior and brown nappa leather interior and it had too many options for my taste.

 

[fastroo]

Not at all. They are larger, cost much more, use more fuel and dont look as sporty.

That was my impression too.

The AMG 55 has a slightly different interior, qual exhaust pipes, racing brakes and suspension and an old style V8 engine and only slightly faster.
IMHO if youre not planning on racing it, the 350 or even 280 is a great buy.
Then again you can get the AMG kit for the car and it will look like the 55AMG

Sounds like good advice, though I suppose I'll have to test them both out and see if I can notice a difference the way I drive. If there's a noticable difference in day-to-day driving, I'm happy to pay the extra money. But, I never plan to take it to the track, so if I can't tell them apart, no sense throwing away money.

Thanks da_nailgun -- this was very helpful.

 

[fastroo]

It took about 12 weeks for the car I ordered to be delivered mainly because of the interior, brown nappa leather.

Hmm. I wouldn't consider 12 weeks without a car an option. I suppose I'll find the closest thing in stock and cope.

Thanks etyu.

 

[mcat]

da_nailgun - 4/3/2006 7:33 AM

5) There's no way to get distronic or parktronic on these things, right? Browsing the website, they looked cool, but it doesn't seem to be an option on the SLK. [Hey, I'm a gadget freak, not a car guy...]

Parktronic is avilable on the SLKs

Parktronic is available as an option everywhere but the US as far as i know. I guess cars are so big (and therefore garages, etc) in the US that a dinky car like the SLK just doesn't need a parking aid

 

[ponzese]

The 55 is faster and you will feel the difference if you drive for wile the 350 and than you drive the 55, but 55 only autotrans,

 

[Zut]

fastroo - 4/2/2006 10:20 PM
2) Not driving much, I don't tend to go fast. For someone who isn't planning to race or anything, is there an advantage of the 55 AMG over the 350?

I am a lot like you as far as speed is concerned but the reason I chose the 350 over the 55 is mainly the price tag. Besides, I don't think the 55 experience is only about speed. It's engine is hand-built and there are a few other special features such as the M mode, the double-double exhaust pipes, etc. Many proud owners of 55's in this forum can explain the benefits of their car better than I ever could. Especially those who went from a 350 to a 55. Even though the 55AMG is a great vehicle, I can assure you that the 350 is nothing to sneeze at! I love my 350! [][][]

 

[SIlver_Lana]

I went from a 350 to a 55 and I must say the AMG is a very different car.
While I loved my 350 w 6-sp manual and am sometimes infuriated with the 7-sp auto in the AMG, at other times, I could swear it was reading my mind - it really is that good - sometimes.
The 350 had a pleasing bark with very brisk acceleration (0-60 5.4 seconds C/D Magazine).
The AMG is like having a small barely controllable incendiary device under the hood wailing out of 4 exhaust tips whenever you tap the accelerator - hold on smile and enjoy the ride. (0-60 4.5 seconds C/D Magazine)

I dont really consider the interior differences worth the extra money, it's all in the engine.

Just FYI, drive them both and decide for yourself.

Cheers!

 

[adf3786]

Trust me on this one. I owned an SL500 and went from it into an SLK55 and have never looked back. Major reasons why its better.
1. SL500 is ridulously expensive to run. £1,000 for a service is not uncommon. Insurance, I pay half with my SLK.
2. The SL is getting a bit tired looking even with the VERY mild facelift. However the new V8 in the SL may have made my descision more difficult. The pre facelift models were way underpowered for the price tag.
3. Distronic, complete and utter waste of money. It used to drive me nuts!!
4. SLK55 compared to SLK350, pays your money and takes your choice, you are getting alot more bang for your buck with the 55 but all I would say is that I don't think the same reasoning applies between an SL500 and a SLK350.

 

[Dinoman]

I think that the SL/SLK comparison is one of apples and oranges. For starters, the SLK is 17" shorter than the SL. If performance were the only criterion, the smaller car would almost always win out, given powerplants of equivalent output. There are good things to be said for both. Cost of operation is another factor that is often affected by weight. The degree of complexity of an SL (in some cases, too much, imo) is another factor affecting operating costs. The fact is, a person with one car might be very pleased with either, and just as easily annoyed by either. Different strokes, as they say. I use mine for different purposes, and find them both to my liking. However, as is the case with children, don't ask me to choose a favorite. The one I'm driving at the time would be it![]Dinoman

 

[swag72]

IMHO I love the SL and must be about the only person that went FROM SLK to SL. I much prefer the SL. It is lovely to drive, a real cruiser and comfy. My SLK was better to look at quickly, but long lingering looks and I think my SL is just as pretty just in a different way.

I have to say that I do not regret the decision I made to trade my SLK for and SL.

Expense? Well if you've got to ask then you just can not afford it - Buy a Ford Focus!!

[8)]

 

[Zut]

adf3786 - 4/4/2006 2:21 PM
3. Distronic, complete and utter waste of money. It used to drive me nuts!!

I am disappointed to hear this. Distronic was definitely on my wish list for the SLK (that and the Panorama roof). I love the SL although I have never driven one yet. In fact, this used to be my dream car before the SLK was launched. Of course, the outrageously high price burst my bubble. [V]

 

[Dinoman]

Zut, Your color combination would do any SL proud. The SL is a great touring car, but is no sportscar, and I am fine with that. I think that you are getting more for your money by driving the SLK, which is very definitely a sportscar. When you no longer lust for the thrill of sheer speed, you can get an SL![]Dinoman

 

[Zut]

Dinoman - 4/4/2006 3:50 PM
Zut, Your color combination would do any SL proud. The SL is a great touring car, but is no sportscar, and I am fine with that. I think that you are getting more for your money by driving the SLK, which is very definitely a sportscar. When you no longer lust for the thrill of sheer speed, you can get an SL![]Dinoman

Although I love the SL, I simply adore my SLK and I have no regrets whatsoever. I think all R171 for from 280 to 55AMG are excellent cars. You love my colour combination? Cool! Here is a close-up! [][][]

 

[Dinoman]

Zut, All I can say is, "Wow!"[]Dinoman

 

[Zut]

Dinoman - 4/4/2006 4:13 PM

Zut, All I can say is, "Wow!"[]Dinoman

I must have said it a thousand times and I'll say it again: All SLK colours are beautiful! I had a hard time choosing. I wanted them all! I believe that good taste is one of MB's qualities.

I have never seen red on red yet. Do you have photos of your SLK in a thread somewhere? []

 

[Duo-Art]

Zut, Your car looks great. I saw a Caspian Blue car with a blue interior when they first came out in the US. Ugly. The beige interior is a fantastic contrast. No wonder they discontinued the blue interior.

 

[Zut]

Duo-Art - 4/4/2006 10:17 PM
Zut, Your car looks great. I saw a Caspian Blue car with a blue interior when they first came out in the US. Ugly. The beige interior is a fantastic contrast. No wonder they discontinued the blue interior.

Thanks for the compliment. [:I] I was a little sceptical when I first saw the blue leather sample next to the Caspian blue paint sample at my dealership and I thought blue couldn't match any of the SLK exterior colours with the possible exception of black or white. I must admit that I have never seen a blue-on-blue SLK in person. Samples can be misleading. Perhaps it looks great. Who knows? If anyone here has photos of a Caspian blue SLK with blue leather interior, I sure should like to see them.

What is a mystery to me is that MB did not recommend beige with Caspian blue. They recommended grey, black or blue but beige was barely considered a "possible" colour. Go figure! I think the wood steering wheel and trims add a nice touch. I wonder what colour the standard steering wheel is with the Caspian blue/beige combo. Grey or black?

 

[Dinoman]

Zut, As my car was March '06 production, I am still about three weeks away from delivery. If a similar red had been available when I ordered my '04 SL, I would have probably ordered it. I was amazed at the time that you got so few choices in that price range. I guess that it is a function of the long pipeline for purposes of parts stocking/replacement. I think that the new S 550 has only three available choices for interior color. The SLK has five, by comparison (excluding the blue, which I don't believe was ever available in the U.S.).[8D]Dinoman