bmw z4 vs mercedes slk, future classic

[z4dan]

Which is best does anybody know. I mean comparing two cars with similar size engines etc.....
without doing proper research I guess the slk might be the better car but z4's are cooler but in years to come the slk will more likely be a classic car. love to hear your opinions

 

[MrPT]

Boxster is best, closely followed by a shopping trolley full of cabbages.

 

[Ewazix]

Better how? I sold my SLK 320 after 3 months to buy the Z4 which I've had for nearly ten years 8)

The slk rides better, the hardtop roof is ............. er harder than a soft-top, the slk auto gearbox is the best... if you want an auto.
But it feels heavy and is heavy, the slk hasn't aged well looks-wise, has nowhere near the levels of grip or agility of the Z4 and as it turned out suffered from electrical gremlins that Mercedes couldn't sort. They are also very prone to rust around the arches and boot lid.

 

[scootr]

Better how? I sold my SLK 320 after 3 months to buy the Z4 which I've had for nearly ten years 8)

The slk rides better, the hardtop roof is ............. er harder than a soft-top, the slk auto gearbox is the best... if you want an auto.
But it feels heavy and is heavy, the slk hasn't aged well looks-wise, has nowhere near the levels of grip or agility of the Z4 and as it turned out suffered from electrical gremlins that Mercedes couldn't sort. They are also very prone to rust around the arches and boot lid.

Other than that it sounds lovely :lol: I think most of the Z4 owners made this comparison at some point with the obvious result being uhm, see below.

 

[Ewazix]

Better how? I sold my SLK 320 after 3 months to buy the Z4 which I've had for nearly ten years 8)

The slk rides better, the hardtop roof is ............. er harder than a soft-top, the slk auto gearbox is the best... if you want an auto.
But it feels heavy and is heavy, the slk hasn't aged well looks-wise, has nowhere near the levels of grip or agility of the Z4 and as it turned out suffered from electrical gremlins that Mercedes couldn't sort. They are also very prone to rust around the arches and boot lid.

Other than that it sounds lovely :lol: I think most of the Z4 owners made this comparison at some point with the obvious result being uhm, see below.

To be fair the SLK is a quality german motor that isn't as naff as it's image suggests, and you name me a two-seat rear wheel drive car with a respectable engine that doesn't end up being a classic after a few years? It just isn't a sports car.

 

[Sidewaze Samm]

I think the SLK can only be fairly compared to the E89. The E85 is too different.

 

[buzyg]

I think the SLK can only be fairly compared to the E89. The E85 is too different.

Would agree with this.

The AMG55 will surely be a classic simply due to the engine. The others have no USP can"t see them as any thing but old Mercs. May be why I have a Z4. :wink:

Did they ever do a AMG63? I'd have one of those :evil: 8)

 

[g3org3y]

Which is best does anybody know. I mean comparing two cars with similar size engines etc.....
without doing proper research I guess the slk might be the better car but z4's are cooler but in years to come the slk will more likely be a classic car. love to hear your opinions

I suppose it depends on the criteria you are defining 'best' by.

I think probably the Z4 (in E85) will be more likely to be considered a classic owing to its styling (imo).

If you are looking for the best driver's car, has to be the Boxster.

 

[stupot1]

E89 v SLK .....I'd agree with that, not keen on either! Think they're both a bit wallowy!
Think the E85/6 is more of a sports car, or what I imagine one to be, but only time will tell I suppose.

 

[ben g]

Anyone else hate the term future classic, or is it just me? It seems nowadays every model of car is labelled as a future classic and it really gets on my nerves

The Z4 in my eyes is the more raw of the 2. It's basic and has the right stuff e.g big engine up front, manual gearbox and rear wheel drive. Just enough gadgets to keep you comfortable, but nothing that will cost a fortune to fix.

 

[kinger]

I've had
2 Boxster S's
Audi TT
Audi TTs
SLK
35i
35is
XKR
the best sports car and the most raw i have ever had is my 1971 TR6..and ive kept that for almost 40 years

 

[bazza190]

I think the boxster/cayman is a far more accomplished car than the E85/86, probably the better car for longer trips but as a 2nd car for fun I think it is too dull.

 

[Jl-c]

I think the boxster/cayman is a far more accomplished car than the E85/86, probably the better car for longer trips but as a 2nd car for fun I think it is too dull.

But we all know that you only buy a Boxter or Cayman if you can’t afford a 911

 

[eddiemunster]

I think the boxster/cayman is a far more accomplished car than the E85/86, probably the better car for longer trips but as a 2nd car for fun I think it is too dull.

Boxster isn't, it's not as refined. The interior is poor, relative to the price, and they haven't used premium materials and as such it looks and feels dated compared to a Z4. The 3.2s (I can't speak for the 2.5/2.7 as I haven't owned them) is a tiring car over distance, the low rumble/chassis/suspension noise is very tiring, I couldn't stomach more than 30 minutes in mine. The Cayman was better, that'd cruise all day long, and the 3.4s engine was great, but, the threat of an IMS or gearbox issue meant it almost impossible to use every day as you'd be terrified of the £5k+ bill that'd be coming your way.

 

[eddiemunster]

But we all know that you only buy a Boxter or Cayman if you can’t afford a 911

Actually, in Porsche circles they prefer the Cayman to the 996; they despise the first water-cooled models. What'll be more contentious is that the 911s, of which I've owned a few, are fucking terrible in damp/wet weather to the point that any decent FWD car would shaft them all day long. Very few people have the balls needed to make quick progress in them in anything but the dry, and anything but billiard-smooth tarmac in the dry would give your a special gift in your pants.

The C4 was best, heavier and a bit slower, but the 4wd took away the "Today's journey; will it end in a hedge or ditch?".

 

[eddiemunster]

Oh, and before I'm accused of being pro-BMW, my E39 M5 was singularly the scariest vehicle to drive. Well, it was a toss-up between the handling in the wet or the 14mpg!!!!

 

[kinger]

I think the boxster/cayman is a far more accomplished car than the E85/86, probably the better car for longer trips but as a 2nd car for fun I think it is too dull.

Boxster isn't, it's not as refined. The interior is poor, relative to the price, and they haven't used premium materials and as such it looks and feels dated compared to a Z4. The 3.2s (I can't speak for the 2.5/2.7 as I haven't owned them) is a tiring car over distance, the low rumble/chassis/suspension noise is very tiring, I couldn't stomach more than 30 minutes in mine. The Cayman was better, that'd cruise all day long, and the 3.4s engine was great, but, the threat of an IMS or gearbox issue meant it almost impossible to use every day as you'd be terrified of the £5k+ bill that'd be coming your way.

I ran a 3.2 S as my everday car for 7 years including trips to the continent, never found it tiring, it never let me down and there was very little on the road that would keep up with it in the bends, the garage queen cars that sit there all week until they get taken out on a sunny day once in a while are far more prone to IMS failure....

 

[Jl-c]

But we all know that you only buy a Boxter or Cayman if you can’t afford a 911

Actually, in Porsche circles they prefer the Cayman to the 996; they despise the first water-cooled models. What'll be more contentious is that the 911s, of which I've owned a few, are f***ing terrible in damp/wet weather to the point that any decent FWD car would shaft them all day long. Very few people have the balls needed to make quick progress in them in anything but the dry, and anything but billiard-smooth tarmac in the dry would give your a special gift in your pants.

The C4 was best, heavier and a bit slower, but the 4wd took away the "Today's journey; will it end in a hedge or ditch?".

I agree the 996 was not the best move by Porsche the interior was in many peoples eyes too budget looking, but despise, No. A 911 is great in the wet, you just need to know how to drive it. My 930 was hairy yes but so much fun. The 997 is very capable and I would put it up against any front wheel drive thing. The driving technique for a 911 is unlike anything else but once you've got it, wow what a capable machine. Look at LeMans in the wet, 911's are awesome. Correct kinger, they are NOT supposed to be garage queens, use them!

 

[eddiemunster]

A 911 is great in the wet, you just need to know how to drive it.

There wouldn't be many 996 911 owners that'd say that about the wet handling, the excess weight over the axle made it impossible to control once it'd gone. In fact, on the occasions that I've seen them go, which is plenty at the Nurburgring, the back end can be seen in the side mirrors before the driver even knows it has gone.

Comparing a road-going 911 to a race-prepared 911 of any level is pointless; oddly, my road-going Integrale couldn't do what Sainz could in his Jolly Club Works Integrale, must have been the £500k price difference. :?

 

[Jl-c]

I refer you back to my previous comment