06 s2000 or SLK
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
06 s2000 or SLK
All of a sudden I'm itching for a convertible. Mid life crisis maybe. Anyone tossed around the idea of a s2000 vs. SLK (base model 228HP)?
There's about 15k difference in price but it buys a retractable hardtop (+), V6 (+), styling (+) , nicer and functional interior (climate control, storage, dials, gauges etc) (+).
But I've owned an A4 before so I know if it a German car, I'm gonna have to live with the little electrical annoyance and possible engine problem as well, as the car ages.
It will not be a daily driver. Just for cruising when the weather permits.
Anyone in the same boat? These are the only 2 choices I'm contemplating. No 350Z, no Vettes, no Miata etc.
There's about 15k difference in price but it buys a retractable hardtop (+), V6 (+), styling (+) , nicer and functional interior (climate control, storage, dials, gauges etc) (+).
But I've owned an A4 before so I know if it a German car, I'm gonna have to live with the little electrical annoyance and possible engine problem as well, as the car ages.
It will not be a daily driver. Just for cruising when the weather permits.
Anyone in the same boat? These are the only 2 choices I'm contemplating. No 350Z, no Vettes, no Miata etc.
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
From: Houston
Some people here have owned both, including me (previous SLK). If you haven't driven both, they are quite different. One is a great sports car and the other a great cruiser. Also, the reliability is at different ends of the scale.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,981
Likes: 10
From: mount airy
I drove a SLK350 a few months ago. Overall a very nice car without a doubt. good enough to stand alongside a C6 vert and Boxster S ... in the ~$50k-$60k price range.
I don't know about the small engine V6. I guess it's quite a bit slower than the SLK350.
The S2000 is a very different kind of car from the SLK. IMO the SLK is a more mature, more comfortable car with less sporting pretensions.
Also the SLK weighs (I think) 400 lbs more than a S2000. With the 3.5L engine it still has good pep, I'm not sure what it'll be like with the small V6.
IMO the S2000 even tho it's not the new kid on the block still has a lot to offer at a cheaper price.
I'd bet the SLK230 (or whatever it's called) is a very nice car, but is it worth mid-$40s that's another question. Also you can get an Elise for that price or Z4 or Base Boxster.
IMO the base boxster 240hp should eat it's lunch.
Here's my lsit for mid-$40s verts:
1a) Boxster base
1b) Elise (OK not a vert)
3rd/4th) Z4/SLK230 not sure what order
I don't know about the small engine V6. I guess it's quite a bit slower than the SLK350.
The S2000 is a very different kind of car from the SLK. IMO the SLK is a more mature, more comfortable car with less sporting pretensions.
Also the SLK weighs (I think) 400 lbs more than a S2000. With the 3.5L engine it still has good pep, I'm not sure what it'll be like with the small V6.
IMO the S2000 even tho it's not the new kid on the block still has a lot to offer at a cheaper price.
I'd bet the SLK230 (or whatever it's called) is a very nice car, but is it worth mid-$40s that's another question. Also you can get an Elise for that price or Z4 or Base Boxster.
IMO the base boxster 240hp should eat it's lunch.
Here's my lsit for mid-$40s verts:
1a) Boxster base
1b) Elise (OK not a vert)
3rd/4th) Z4/SLK230 not sure what order
Trending Topics
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
The base SLK is SLK280 w/ a 3.0l engine 228HP.
The reason for the SLK is because I like a retractable HARDTOP. So, basically it is the only choice under $50k.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
If the SLK is $35k vs. $30k for the S2000, it's a no brainer. But because it is $15k more rather than $5k more, it makes it harder to compare.
I'm not too concern about 0-60 time regardless of whether the S2000 is faster or not. I don't really care about 0.5s or 1s. Both car are plenty fast for me (I've driven the S2000 - 02 model back in 02). I have not driven the SLK yet, but I'm sure it is *good*.
The reason for the SLK is because I like a retractable HARDTOP. So, basically it is the only choice under $50k.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
If the SLK is $35k vs. $30k for the S2000, it's a no brainer. But because it is $15k more rather than $5k more, it makes it harder to compare.
I'm not too concern about 0-60 time regardless of whether the S2000 is faster or not. I don't really care about 0.5s or 1s. Both car are plenty fast for me (I've driven the S2000 - 02 model back in 02). I have not driven the SLK yet, but I'm sure it is *good*.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,981
Likes: 10
From: mount airy
Originally Posted by hamproof,Dec 6 2005, 11:32 AM
The reason for the SLK is because I like a retractable HARDTOP. So, basically it is the only choice under $50k.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
But if you are willing to look at the S2000 why wouldn't you look at the Boxster? With either you can get a hardtop...
Basically you are saying, I'll take the car with the retractable HT no matter that it weighs several hundred pounds more than a Boxster, no matter than the Boxster is just as up-scale and has similar features and amenities.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,906
Likes: 1
From: Chicago
Originally Posted by hamproof,Dec 6 2005, 11:32 AM
The base SLK is SLK280 w/ a 3.0l engine 228HP.
The reason for the SLK is because I like a retractable HARDTOP. So, basically it is the only choice under $50k.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
If the SLK is $35k vs. $30k for the S2000, it's a no brainer. But because it is $15k more rather than $5k more, it makes it harder to compare.
I'm not too concern about 0-60 time regardless of whether the S2000 is faster or not. I don't really care about 0.5s or 1s. Both car are plenty fast for me (I've driven the S2000 - 02 model back in 02). I have not driven the SLK yet, but I'm sure it is *good*.
The reason for the SLK is because I like a retractable HARDTOP. So, basically it is the only choice under $50k.
So for European brand, that means no Boxster, Z4 or TT.
On the other end of the spectrum, the Japanese end, I have S2000, 350Z, Miata etc. Of course the choice is obviously S2000.
That's the reason for S2000 vs. SLK280.
If the SLK is $35k vs. $30k for the S2000, it's a no brainer. But because it is $15k more rather than $5k more, it makes it harder to compare.
I'm not too concern about 0-60 time regardless of whether the S2000 is faster or not. I don't really care about 0.5s or 1s. Both car are plenty fast for me (I've driven the S2000 - 02 model back in 02). I have not driven the SLK yet, but I'm sure it is *good*.