FYI
Registered User
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 5,252
Likes: 1
From: Hong Kong
I've owned three MBs (1 E-class, 2 C-classes, still own the current generation C with sport package). They are comffy to ride in and smooth to drive, but they are of no match with S2000s and my previous TypeSH when it comes to fun-to-drive and reliability comparisons respectively.
I love both MBs and Hondas, but I'm not going to buy a SLK for sure if I'm looking for true sports car
I love both MBs and Hondas, but I'm not going to buy a SLK for sure if I'm looking for true sports car
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 11,244
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
I've driven a few different MB's and I can really care less what those people think about our cars. I've never like Mercedes or their products so their opinion means nothing 
. If the review came from a BMW owner then it would be a different story 
. If the review came from a BMW owner then it would be a different story
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,063
Likes: 4
From: Durango, Colorado
One thing I hope all will understand is this: Mercedes did not and does not even TRY to design and build a car to compete with the s2k in terms of what it has to offer and price point. Most Mercedes sold are sedans. Nice RWD lux/sporty sedans --- the kind Honda doesn't even TRY to design and build. So any attempt to compare ANY Mercedes with the s2k is an "apples to oranges" thing.
Thanks,
Richard
Thanks,
Richard
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 7,981
Likes: 10
From: mount airy
My friend has a SLK350 it's a very nice car.
Let's be flattered they're comparing a $46K car to a $33K car. You want a HT on a S2000? Call it $36K.
We're talking $13K above the S2000 for a similar performing car. Maybe the SLK350 is a tiny bit quicker, but they're so very close you might as well call it a tie.
Sure with the SLK you can get nice features such as power operated "no touch" hardtop, NAV, AirScarf, etc...but you have to pay extra for them. My friends SLK cost more than $50K.
IMO if there's a line from elise to thunderbird, the S2000 is closer to the Elise and the SLK is closer to the Thunderbird.
Not saying the SLK is bad, I'm not saying that at all. But hey it's pushing $50K, isn't a $50K supposed to be good/great? Isn't it impressive that a $33K car is near as good in most areas? What could you do with $13K to spend on a S2000?
As for no-TQ or low-TQ in the S2000... May be, same can be said with an Elise, but still the S2000 is near as fast as the SLK350 and the Elsie puts the SLK350 to shame.
You have to know how to drive the S2000 you shouldn't be scared to rev the engine. It's got some TQ and (some ways) rpms make up for TQ.
Let's be flattered they're comparing a $46K car to a $33K car. You want a HT on a S2000? Call it $36K.
We're talking $13K above the S2000 for a similar performing car. Maybe the SLK350 is a tiny bit quicker, but they're so very close you might as well call it a tie.
Sure with the SLK you can get nice features such as power operated "no touch" hardtop, NAV, AirScarf, etc...but you have to pay extra for them. My friends SLK cost more than $50K.
IMO if there's a line from elise to thunderbird, the S2000 is closer to the Elise and the SLK is closer to the Thunderbird.
Not saying the SLK is bad, I'm not saying that at all. But hey it's pushing $50K, isn't a $50K supposed to be good/great? Isn't it impressive that a $33K car is near as good in most areas? What could you do with $13K to spend on a S2000?
As for no-TQ or low-TQ in the S2000... May be, same can be said with an Elise, but still the S2000 is near as fast as the SLK350 and the Elsie puts the SLK350 to shame.
You have to know how to drive the S2000 you shouldn't be scared to rev the engine. It's got some TQ and (some ways) rpms make up for TQ.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post