For some reason I get the impression you'll start complaining about harsh ride, twitchiness etc 2 weeks after getting the S2000.

Based on that, I'd say go with the SLK.

 

if budget allows why settle with lower ones? just
get higher one, doesn't neccessary mean higher the better, but
with SLK, you get prestige (if you want that), more refined interior, good enough performance, cool rectable hardtop.

But then, SLK has ugly ass except AMG version.

If i were you, i would get M3.

 

get the S and invest the rest!

 

I like the retractable hardtop coz' it adds to the styling but more importantly it seals out noise much better than a softtop. Also, everytime I'm park, I'm going to be putting the top up.

Also, I'm in Michigan and Michigan weather is crazy. You can have it nice and cool one day and it's hot and muggy the next. So, while heading out for lunch let's say around 11, it might still be nice and cool to have the top down, but after lunch and the rest of the day, it might be hot and muggy. So, I'll drive with the top up.

So my tendency would be 1/2 time top down, 1/2 time down up. So, having a retractable hardtop makes more sense than a softtop since I'm going to be using it a lot.

I think people who have tested both likes the SLK for styling and features. But then again, it is almost $15k more assuming one buys new which I plan to.

Well, I'm planning on getting it next year. So, if I can still stretch it then, I'll definitely get the base SLK. Maybe a used one might do as well. If I can't stretch it, definitely the S2000 unless of course 07 brings about a much nicer S2000. But the 06 definitely wins my heart coz' of VSA and LSD.

It is not about prestige or anything. These are not super expensive or exclusive cars. I'm not the type to see someone driving a 325 and say "Wow, you are driving a Bimmer/Beemer" Or in my words, a "Bummer". It is just a 3 series. Same as someone who drives a C230. What's the big deal?

The only thing I like about the SLK is the styling and retractable hardtop. What I like about the S2000 is reliability and price.

 

The XLR has very ancient roof technology, it's expensive, and it looks really poor.

Te SC430 is also a lot more expensive and drives like a dog compared to the SLK (even an AMG would be cheaper).

The S2000 is great due to the price and the shifter is awesome. The SLK is a lot more expensive, and the manual whilst fun, is quite different. My 55 has no electrical gremlins, and now that the first model year is out, the new SLK's should be just about as good as one can get.

Drive 'em both, you never know, you might prefer the SLK's torque over the S2000's high revving engine.

 

S2000 vs. SLK350= S2000
S2000 vs. SLK55= SLK55 without a doubt!!!

JMO.

 

Actually, it is more like

S2000 vs SLK280

I can't afford another $5k for the SLK350.

My limit is at the SLK280.

 

BMW is coming out with a 3series retractable hardtop.
http://www.autoweek.com/news.cms?newsId=103727

Miata is coming out with a retractable hardtop.
http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=103568

Volkwagen Eos is coming out with a retractable hardtop.
http://www.thecarconnection.com/Auto_News/...S290.A9232.html

Volvo has a coupe with a retractable hardtop.
http://www.volvocars.us/Showroom/newC70/default

 

it depends on what you want to do with it?

agressive track racing, tuning, suited more for younger = s2000

weekend cruiser, luxury feel, spirited driving suited for older types = slk


I think this is like comparing apples and oranges.

personally, If I was looking at spending near 50,000, I would be looking at Z06, and BMW M3, i'd also take a boxter s over a slk.

 

The S2000 has always had a LSD.

I'd have to agree that if you're cross-shopping these two cars you should shy away from the S2K. The cars were designed for very different things and your comments lead me to believe the SLK is more up your alley.