SLK55 Vs S2000
Discussion
Want to purchase a lower volume “modern classic” small decently to overly powered 😈 convertible and the above two are top of my list.
I have another practical car so don’t need the space / 4 seats.
Both almost at opposite ends of the approach to the theme and both with their quirks but also charms.
Owner experiences appreciated….
I have another practical car so don’t need the space / 4 seats.
Both almost at opposite ends of the approach to the theme and both with their quirks but also charms.
Owner experiences appreciated….
Very different cars, I’d imagine (I’ve not been in the SLK).
I loved my S2000, but it wasn’t “fast” (particularly by today’s standards) - it also needed revving to get the most out of it. Now, that’s rather the point of the car and I enjoyed it, but if you’re looking for low down grunt then the S2000 isn’t for you. It does have a brilliant gear change, whereas the SLK is auto only I presume.
Also hard top vs. soft top - the SLK is going to be more refined, and probably warmer in winter. I had a hard top on my old S2000 which I used in winter, so I’m not really sure how warm the soft top would be, but I would think not very.
The cockpit is very driver centric, with everything falling nicely to hand, and the start button is quite a nice touch.
Full running costs for mine are in my garage.
I loved my S2000, but it wasn’t “fast” (particularly by today’s standards) - it also needed revving to get the most out of it. Now, that’s rather the point of the car and I enjoyed it, but if you’re looking for low down grunt then the S2000 isn’t for you. It does have a brilliant gear change, whereas the SLK is auto only I presume.
Also hard top vs. soft top - the SLK is going to be more refined, and probably warmer in winter. I had a hard top on my old S2000 which I used in winter, so I’m not really sure how warm the soft top would be, but I would think not very.
The cockpit is very driver centric, with everything falling nicely to hand, and the start button is quite a nice touch.
Full running costs for mine are in my garage.
I’ve had a MY00 S2000 and currently a MY05 55. The 55 is a much better car in my view. My S2000 was tricked with a 4.77 final drive, coilovers, single exit exhaust and a tune. It was a great car, cramped for someone of average height (I’m 5’ 10) and quite juicy on fuel.
They sound amazing in VTEC but you’ll be going at a fair lick to get to there. Torque is an issue and they get binned a lot unless you get a MY06 onwards version with traction control, but then you’re paying higher VED.
Funnily enough I was having a little play with an S2K the other day. No contest.
They sound amazing in VTEC but you’ll be going at a fair lick to get to there. Torque is an issue and they get binned a lot unless you get a MY06 onwards version with traction control, but then you’re paying higher VED.
Funnily enough I was having a little play with an S2K the other day. No contest.
On paper they are incredibly different I reckon, and one is gutsy and the other is gutless. I never read a bad word said about the S2000 though, whereas apart from the engine you don't read many good things about the SLK though in comparison. I'd personally go for the SLK55 because I've never really been a fan of high rev/low torque engines, and I didn't get on with my E92 M3 either, because absolutely nothing happened in that at low revs(it was fantastic at 6k revs plus though).
trevalvole said:
Other than the rear subframes which MB often do free of charge, what other items have the potential for huge bills?
Here you go, my journey with my SLKhttps://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
I am probably unlucky in regards to costs, but then again everything has been done that could be a weak point/age related. So looking forward to a few years of smooth motoring now. Even the brakes are reasonable now (I keep an alert on autodoc for prices and when they do a 'special' I'll pick some up for the future)
juice said:
Thanks - I'll have a read through that.trevalvole said:
bennno said:
SLK55 has potential for huge bills, rear subframes rust, lots of go.
Other than the rear subframes which MB often do free of charge, what other items have the potential for huge bills?Mb subframe free of charge would be unlikely on a 15-17 year old car…. Perhaps newer ones a few years back
I’ve got a ‘99 S2000 after having a Griffith 4.3 Big Valve, an Elise 111S, a Boxster Spyder and 996.1.
The S2000 is my favourite for all round character, usability and fun. The others excel in one area or another but the balance overall isn’t there the way it is for the S in my opinion. However, I do love a revvy engine and I am more than happy with 4 cyls.
The reputation for the S2000 being gutless is over exaggerated hyperbole usually based on what someone read somewhere. I forget the figures but the torque to 6k rpm is near enough the same as the contemporary 2.0 MX5. The difference is that after 6k the Mazda runs out of puff. The Honda suddenly goes to the dark side and takes you with it, all the way to 9k!
The S2000 was originally designed with geo for responsiveness and sharp handling, but the public (and many journalists) couldn’t deal with it and so the car the engineers wanted was dumbed down for the market. That said, both early and later cars can be made to handle more or less how you want thanks to adjustable double wishbones at all four corners. It really is a proper sports car from the ground up.
I’ve no experience of the SLK. To be honest, torquey supercharged V8s are just not my thing. I can see the appeal, but would the novelty wear off?
S2000s do rust, but if it’s bad it’ll be visible (as well as in hidden areas). You’ll need £15k for a good one although good cheaper cars do pop up.
They are chalk and cheese! It’s an interesting choice. Good luck!
The S2000 is my favourite for all round character, usability and fun. The others excel in one area or another but the balance overall isn’t there the way it is for the S in my opinion. However, I do love a revvy engine and I am more than happy with 4 cyls.
The reputation for the S2000 being gutless is over exaggerated hyperbole usually based on what someone read somewhere. I forget the figures but the torque to 6k rpm is near enough the same as the contemporary 2.0 MX5. The difference is that after 6k the Mazda runs out of puff. The Honda suddenly goes to the dark side and takes you with it, all the way to 9k!
The S2000 was originally designed with geo for responsiveness and sharp handling, but the public (and many journalists) couldn’t deal with it and so the car the engineers wanted was dumbed down for the market. That said, both early and later cars can be made to handle more or less how you want thanks to adjustable double wishbones at all four corners. It really is a proper sports car from the ground up.
I’ve no experience of the SLK. To be honest, torquey supercharged V8s are just not my thing. I can see the appeal, but would the novelty wear off?
S2000s do rust, but if it’s bad it’ll be visible (as well as in hidden areas). You’ll need £15k for a good one although good cheaper cars do pop up.
They are chalk and cheese! It’s an interesting choice. Good luck!
griffter said:
I’ve got a ‘99 S2000 after having a Griffith 4.3 Big Valve, an Elise 111S, a Boxster Spyder and 996.1.
The S2000 is my favourite for all round character, usability and fun. The others excel in one area or another but the balance overall isn’t there the way it is for the S in my opinion. However, I do love a revvy engine and I am more than happy with 4 cyls.
The reputation for the S2000 being gutless is over exaggerated hyperbole usually based on what someone read somewhere. I forget the figures but the torque to 6k rpm is near enough the same as the contemporary 2.0 MX5. The difference is that after 6k the Mazda runs out of puff. The Honda suddenly goes to the dark side and takes you with it, all the way to 9k!
The S2000 was originally designed with geo for responsiveness and sharp handling, but the public (and many journalists) couldn’t deal with it and so the car the engineers wanted was dumbed down for the market. That said, both early and later cars can be made to handle more or less how you want thanks to adjustable double wishbones at all four corners. It really is a proper sports car from the ground up.
I’ve no experience of the SLK. To be honest, torquey supercharged V8s are just not my thing. I can see the appeal, but would the novelty wear off?
S2000s do rust, but if it’s bad it’ll be visible (as well as in hidden areas). You’ll need £15k for a good one although good cheaper cars do pop up.
They are chalk and cheese! It’s an interesting choice. Good luck!
Comparing the s2000 torque to that of a latter day car that’s also recognised as relatively gutless just emphasises the point, although the Mazda is 20% lighter.The S2000 is my favourite for all round character, usability and fun. The others excel in one area or another but the balance overall isn’t there the way it is for the S in my opinion. However, I do love a revvy engine and I am more than happy with 4 cyls.
The reputation for the S2000 being gutless is over exaggerated hyperbole usually based on what someone read somewhere. I forget the figures but the torque to 6k rpm is near enough the same as the contemporary 2.0 MX5. The difference is that after 6k the Mazda runs out of puff. The Honda suddenly goes to the dark side and takes you with it, all the way to 9k!
The S2000 was originally designed with geo for responsiveness and sharp handling, but the public (and many journalists) couldn’t deal with it and so the car the engineers wanted was dumbed down for the market. That said, both early and later cars can be made to handle more or less how you want thanks to adjustable double wishbones at all four corners. It really is a proper sports car from the ground up.
I’ve no experience of the SLK. To be honest, torquey supercharged V8s are just not my thing. I can see the appeal, but would the novelty wear off?
S2000s do rust, but if it’s bad it’ll be visible (as well as in hidden areas). You’ll need £15k for a good one although good cheaper cars do pop up.
They are chalk and cheese! It’s an interesting choice. Good luck!
I’ve owned both, the s2000 needed to be trashed to make progress, whilst the SLK55 just made you chuckle at any speed - a good one with 360bhp almost has the sharpness of a decent 911.
bennno said:
Comparing the s2000 torque to that of a latter day car that’s also recognised as relatively gutless just emphasises the point, although the Mazda is 20% lighter.
I’ve owned both, the s2000 needed to be trashed to make progress, whilst the SLK55 just made you chuckle at any speed - a good one with 360bhp almost has the sharpness of a decent 911.
Maybe, but it’s the comparison everyone seems to make, including in this thread already. I don’t doubt the merits of the SLK55, however I’m more than happy crossing country in the S, regularly changing gear. I don’t find it’s lacking anything keeping up with traffic in 4/5/6. I’ve owned both, the s2000 needed to be trashed to make progress, whilst the SLK55 just made you chuckle at any speed - a good one with 360bhp almost has the sharpness of a decent 911.
One thing to bear in mind is that the S really isn’t a motorway car. 70 in 6th is using the engine at something just under 4k rpm and cruise control on UK cars is rare (if available at all). I assume the SLK has cruise as standard?
cerb4.5lee said:
I've never really been a fan of high rev/low torque engines, and I didn't get on with my E92 M3 either, because absolutely nothing happened in that at low revs(it was fantastic at 6k revs plus though).
I've got to call you out on this cerb4.5lee - the way you talk about the lack of torque in your old M3 makes it sound like it had an asthmatic 800c 4 cylinder, whereas they actually have a 4 litre engine and 250 lb/ft of torque at 2.5k rpm. I think you actually mean that *in comparison to modern 3+ litre turbo engines with absolutely huge torque*, they have comparatively little torque. The S2000 has less than half the torque again of the E92 M3, so imagine it being far, far more gutless still, and the E92 M3 seeming like it's got a 7 litre Hemi V8 in comparison.I think having the Cerbera before the M3 didn't help either. The S65 never felt like a V8 engine to me because I associate V8's as being gutsy/torquey engines, and the M3's V8 just wasn't like that though. The car always felt its weight for me as well, but I think that if I'd gone for the DCT instead of the manual then that would've helped with that I reckon.
cerb4.5lee said:
I think having the Cerbera before the M3 didn't help either. The S65 never felt like a V8 engine to me because I associate V8's as being gutsy/torquey engines, and the M3's V8 just wasn't like that though. The car always felt its weight for me as well, but I think that if I'd gone for the DCT instead of the manual then that would've helped with that I reckon.
Again don't try the S2000 then, it's got 100 lb/ft of torque where your M3 had 250 lb/ft. Even taking weight into account the M3 is going to feel astonishingly and hugely more torquey, or putting it the other way the S2000 is much, much more gutless low down.Olivera said:
Again don't try the S2000 then, it's got 100 lb/ft of torque where your M3 had 250 lb/ft. Even taking weight into account the M3 is going to feel astonishingly and hugely more torquey, or putting it the other way the S2000 is much, much more gutless low down.
Yes and I've never really liked the idea of the S2000 to be honest. I have always liked them shape wise though, and I would also like to try the manual gearbox as well. The engine does absolutely nothing for me(on paper anyway). Get a compromise. Z4 3.5i straight 6 turbo 304bhp , nice auto dct box. such as this at £15k 43k miles
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211282...
Buy the Bmw warranty ( about £45/month with £250 excess) at less than 60k miles you will need it. Dont rust this one has adaptive suspension so can be in comfort or normal or sport, but dampers will need replacing at 50-60k miles.(hence warranty.
Loads of info on z4 forum and friendly guys
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202211282...
Buy the Bmw warranty ( about £45/month with £250 excess) at less than 60k miles you will need it. Dont rust this one has adaptive suspension so can be in comfort or normal or sport, but dampers will need replacing at 50-60k miles.(hence warranty.
Loads of info on z4 forum and friendly guys
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff