Anyone gone from a Z to an SLK or vise versa?

G

G-A-R-Y

Member
 North Bristol
I'm find the Z a little harsh with regards to the suspension (maybee I'm too old) and ride, plus wherever you go you can't go fast. I thought about the comfort of an SLK and wondered have any of you had one and how does it compare.
 
I've had both a couple of times , I've got a new slc 43 now . Z4 is a better sports car and does handle better but slk ,slc , suits my needs better these days , most of my journeys are straight line for a long time .
E85 3.0ltr was one of the best fun cars around the ring I've ever driven , a couple of others who drove it round said the same thing " much better than I expected "
Try before you buy though , slk 350 is more stiffly sprung than you may think . Slk drives better than a z4 out of the box but swap the tyres for non run flats and there's only the springs in it , z4 is unbearably hard on the rear end I always found . Slk 350 suffers an engine balance shaft problem so read up on that .
Otherwise I found them to be equally good or bad , whichever way you view them , similar performance and fuel economy in the real world .
Buy a boxster if you can afford one :rofl:
 
I owned a 2005 350SLK auto about 3 years ago and I am also sensitive to a hard ride.

The SLK was on 17 inch alloys and with the correct tyre pressures was comfortable, quiet and handled fine - a good daily driver, pretty economical as well. The engine is fantastic however I didn't feel I could really use the engine due to the autobox. The manual on the SLK got a lot of press criticism (rubbery apparently) but I would suggest you try one for yourself, it's very subjective.

When I bought my Z4 (7 weeks ago) I was also considering an SLK again but I found a nice Z4 first and went for it.

My Z4 has SE suspension and I've replaced the 18" alloys with 17's with brand new (very quiet) Dunlop normal non run flat tyres. For me the ride is just right for this type of car (although the SLK was still a little softer than my configuration)

I wouldn't fancy a Zed Sport on 18 inch alloys with run flats but I am probably in the minority !! Please note the move to non-run flat tyres makes a significant difference.
 
I sold my 2000 230 two months ago. I had it for nearly three years and apart from body rust had no problems. Metal roof and over all a more solid car. When you shut the door it gives a reassuring solid noise unlike the Z4. Trim and fittings far better than the Z4 and build quality much better. You can have the passenger temp set differently to the driver. The 230 engine pulled like a train. A big safe car. However at roundabouts she was not so good. Too much body roll and numb steering. But the SLK was best as a long distance cruiser. Great on motorways but no so good on long twisting roads.
 
Just my 2p worth , I went from a Boxster S to a SLK32 AMG to a Z4 E85 2.5 . The porker handled the best by a long way, the SLK was the most comfy, and certainly the fastest in a straight line but the Z4 is the best all rounder . On 16 inch wheels with run flats its close to the SLK for comfort , and it handles better , also the quaility of the interior is better than both the boxster and the SLK , it's more economic than both to run and insure and almost as fun as the boxster to drive . Personally I think its more masculine than the others and looks better too . I took my Z4 in part ex and really thought I'd be rid of it in a few weeks but here I am 3 years later still loving the car . One friend has my old boxster and another my SLK and we often meet up, and honestly in my opinion I've got the best car, I wouldn't want to go back . But if you put 18 inches or above on an E85 they do start to become harsh ride wise, but then I'm an old git now and less tolorent of such things :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom