We can be Corvette lovers (as I am), and Corvette owners (as I am) and still see the car as it is, for what it is. Does enthusiasm have to cloud objectivity? Blind faith is for drones.

Reason for this tirade: the umpteenth iteration of the "best bang for the buck" argument, from Foosh this time, in another thread on some C6 test: "Guys, face it, there are better performing cars out there, but not for really less than $100K US and way up."

Uh... the Viper?

Or try this out: the new MB SLK55.

1. Buck: 60.5K base, but equiped with NO options to compare quite favorably with an optioned-out C6 vert that comes in at virtually the same price. And the MB has a RETRACTABLE HARD TOP.

2. Bang: GM is claiming around 4.2 (M6)/4.4 (A4) for the C6 (figures vary according to source). Historical note: GM's figures are typically faster, and sometimes way faster, than those from independent testers. This is confirmed once again by the first tests, which are coming in around the high 4's. Reaction of several CF members: "No way! Wasn't broken in! Driver must have been a jerk!" etc. So what are we to make of Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s report (quoted in a recent thread here) that, in repeated runs in his C6 M6 Z51, which he had been driving for a month (so it was broken in), he was getting times between 4.7 and 4.9? Maybe he didn't know how to drive it...

As for the MB's bang, the claimed time is 4.8 (4.9 0-62). Historical note: MB's claimed figures are typically slower than those from independent testers. The C55 AMG was just confirmed at 4.9, and it weighs almost 200 lbs more than the SLK55. So there is speculation on the MB boards that the SLK55's real time might turn out to be closer to 4.5.

Bang for the buck?

Yeah, I know: the MB's no Corvette. The Corvette's no MB either. C'mon, guys, off with the blinders.

 

Uuuuuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhh.....Frenchie....... .....I'm speechless. I think what you said was exactly my point on that "other" thread.

Why do you think I bought a Corvette? What's your point?

 

Frenchie
I have to agree with you. The phrase is getting a little old. The phrase might not even apply once people see the cost of the new z. 500/500 ain't going to come cheap.

 

My ignore list is getting bigger.

 

Frenchie,

Thanks for quoting me. I'm a 2-week Corvette owner, never liked them before, so I don't think I'm drinking any Kool-Aid here. I've owned exclusively German stuff as daily drivers for 18 yrs., and driven just about everything, but admittedly, I'm not Dan Gurney, or even Dale Earnhardt, Jr.

But, I think you're playing a little fast and loose with the facts here. $50K is not very much for a car these days. Yes, the Viper is probably quicker on the strip, and probably on road courses, but I don't see many of them in parking lots around the USA, not great for daily consumption.

The MB is a great car, but I don't think it would compare on the track, or in price. We're not talking about drag racers here....just fairly inexpensive high-performance daily drivers, that can go to the track pretty respectably too.

 

The SLK350 and the SLK55 AMG, while very nice cars, are not sports cars, IMO. More in the type the Lexus SC430 falls into. A comparison between them is pointless, I think.

The Viper is a great sports car under $100K, but so brutal as a daily driver that it just doesn't have the combination of power, handling, and cush that the Corvette offers up for $30,000 less.

Granted the Viper has more power, but after 4 C5s, a Viper, a Honda S2000, Nissan 350Z Roadster, Camaro SS, and Mitsu 3000GT, I realize that horsepower isn't everything. A balance of power, handling, and comfort is what I look for now, and no American car does that like Corvette. My bias is towards American cars at the moment.

 

First off, Foosh, congrats on your new c6. Nothing like that feeling.

No, I'm not playing fast and loose with the facts. I was reponding to your statement: "There are better performing cars out there, but not really for less than 100K or way up", as well as to the apparently unsinkable "best bang for the buck" refrain. The Viper costs a lot less than 100K, and outperforms the C6. No mention in your original post, nor in my reply (above) about "daily driver" qualities. True, we don't see lots of Vipers in parking lots, but how is that relevant to "performance for under 100K"?

While the Viper costs a lot less than 100K, it also costs a lot more than the C6, which is why I mentioned the SLK55. You write that you don't think it would compare in price. But I quoted the prices! They've been announced; they're not speculation. To compare comparables (drop-top to drop-top), I used the price of the C6 vert. They're just about equal. So why the denial?

As for performance, while we don't KNOW yet, the information we have so far would indicate that the MB WILL outperform the C6 in at least one aspect of performance: 0-60 times, by a long nose (and if you've seen the new SLK's nose...)

Same reflex denial from FASTRNU: "A balance of power, handling and comfort is what I look for now, and no American car does that like the Corvette." Ah, so now it's "no AMERICAN car"? Very true, but that's a different claim, and a different thread. BTW, FASTRNU, saying that the SLK55 AMG isn't a sports car is a giant stretch. And why is a comparison between the MB and the C6 "pointless"? I was comparing their 0-60 times and price, which was precisely to the point of the thread ("bang for the buck").

 

I think the Corvette is the best bang for the buck.

 

Need to hop in on this one... the SLK55 I have been a MB owner for a long time including Ellen and I having on of the first SLKs in North America and then having a SLK AMG 32... I know the SLK inside and out...literally and know what it can do and not do AutoX and on the track. I have in the past and will continue to sing the praises for the AMG program...their engines are some of the best out there...our SLK32 dynoed at 360 hp and 333 lbs torque coming from a supercharged 3.2 L V6...not bad stuff. The Speedshift tranny (an AMG set up) is excellent but still a automanual which is not MY taste...love the manuals (thus why my C6 hope to be here soon is the 6 sp)...
Now to my issue with what some have said about 'bang for the buck' and performance...
-the new SLK55 optioned is going to be more like $65K-$68K which is a FAR cry from what I am paying for a C6 coupe 1SB Z51 and trans top etc... like about $10K-$13K less which in my book is not chump change.
-performance...the SLK32 is .1 sec FASTER than the new SLK55...the later is a naturally aspirated V8 rated at 360 hp...so what is up? Weight..the new SLK weighs in at around 3500 lbs... 225 lbs heavier than the SLK32 and about 300 lbs heavier than the C6. The Euro cars need to go on a MAJOR weight loss program…they keep jumping the HP and torque and equally keep adding weight…the new M5 has a beast of an engine…V10 500 hp or so…and what does it weigh? How about 4300+ lbs! That is over two tons for freakin sake.
-The SLK32 and then with the SLK55 have what I consider way undersized rubber and no lock diff...I don't give a d*mn about how much hp you put in a car if you can not get it to the road you end up with all show and no go...driving the SLK32 aggressively required shutting off the trac control and then learning modulation big time..could light up the rear and melt the tires...big deal...get it really moving requires a skill.
-I am a total Mercedes person and the C6 is my first American sports car since my ownership of a 1972 455 Trans Am (yes..some would argue that is not a sports car...whatever) and there is a reason now-soon-to-be a C6 owner...the car makes no apologies to the Euro cars...I find it immensely more comfortable than the SLK, fit and finish is excellent (on par with Mercedes/BMW and IMO more so than Porsche)...the exception is Mercedes paint jobs are better...the OP thing which I think has been beat into the ground enough.
-I will remain in the MB club, do club track and AutoX events etc but will proudly and do with a C6...and look forward to the day to 'play' with a SLK55
Michael

 

Ditto

 

Please read before you reply. Yes, C6Firstvette, as you write, "the new SLK55 optioned is going to be more like $65K-$68K which is a FAR cry from what I am paying for a C6 coupe 1SB Z51." Yes, a FAR CRY. But I was comparing the price of the C6 VERT--repeat: the C6 VERT--not the coupe (apples to apples, not to oranges), and the price I gave was for the BASE SLK55 (60.5K). The prices are just about equal. More bang (maybe), same bucks. And retractable hard-top. Why compare, you might ask, a BASE MB to a FULLY-OPTIONED C6 vert? Because their equipment and gadgets are comparable; a lot of the C6's options are standard on the Benz. Let me repeat: I WASN'T comparing the SLK55 to the C6 coupe.

(This isn't an MB forum but, BTW, Michael, you write: "The new SLK weighs in at around 3500 lbs." No, it's 3397 lbs. The MB's you know needed a diet; the new SLK55 has been on one.)

 

Frenchie,
I don't think it is a stretch to say the SLK 55 is not a sports car. No SMG, no manual. A nice 7 speed auto. Just because it has a drop top and a lot of power does not make it a sports car.

I like the SLK and SLK 55. I have test driven an SLK 350, but I sure didn't feel like I was driving a sports car. It felt like I was driving a Lexus SC 430.

 

Sorry, but you're not getting any of the more expensive Mercedes-Benzes for MSRP. They tend to have significant markup. If the MSRP is 90k, for example, expect to pay more like 120k.

If by "independent testers" you mean "only performance magazines," then yes. Mostly because they're not experienced with the vehicle, don't know how to launch, and generally don't SAE correct their numbers for accurate comparisons.

If by "independent testers" you mean "people who independently race the vehicle," then you are wrong. In the C4 and C5 the official GM numbers have been not only matched, but exceeded by individuals. GM publishes what the car is capable of with SAE conditions and an experienced driver. They do not publish what a newbie would do in 100% humidity on a 95-degree day on top of a mountain.

 

Lets look at the SLK55 AMG, shall we?

355 HP
376 lb-ft.
3.06:1 rear axle
0-60 in 4.9

Fuel Economy will almost certainly be worse.
Curb Weight of approximately 3,500 lbs.

Sorry, but there is no way that a 3,500 lb., 355 HP SLK55 is going to outperform the 3,199 lb., 400 HP Corvette.

Besides, performance is about more than just going in straight lines. And "bank for the buck" is about not spending tens of thousands more for worse performance.

 

Although they are terrific cars, when driving a MB you still have the "yuppie" tag attached to it. I know, I own (just for another 30 days however) a 2001 BMW M3 and I still get that "moniker". And an M3 is about as close to a sports car as you can get in the BMW and MB line. Just one man's opinion.

 

Sheeeech! And now Scissors. Yes, the nearly infallible Scissors (no sarcasm there, guy; I mean it), who writes: "Sorry, but you're not getting any of the more expensive Mercedes-Benzes for MSRP. They tend to have significant markup. If the MSRP is 90k, for example, expect to pay more like 120k."

Scissors, were you implying that the SLK55, at 60.5K, is one of "the more expensive" MBs? Have you looked are MB prices lately? The SLK55's is toward the lower end.
But to your point: There are two MB dealerships close to where I live. Both, as a matter of policy, sell their MBs at MSRP. (I know this to be true from numerous customers.) Both assure me that the SLK55, if I choose that route, will be no exception.

Never thought I'd see so much resistance to simple facts.

 

Yes, but apparently you haven't. In your rush to assume, you've forgotten to M-B sells not only in America, but in Europe as well. So, yes, the SLK55 AMG is one of the more expensive Mercedes Benzes. They have several vehicles in the below-50k range. And those, too, suffer from markup.

Yes, salesmen say many things.

Calling something a fact does not make it so.

Find me a brand new SLK55 AMG with the same price and performance as a C6. Or at least has the same performance:cost ratio. Until you can do that, your "facts" aren't.

Or prove that an SLK55 exceeds the C6's 7:56 Nordschleife time by an amount which approximately matches its price increase over the 1SX with Z51 (which is the optioning of the car that made that time.)

 

Agreed with every word,but didn't want to get beat up.The c6 is a great car and will become better in coming years.I'm doing a wait and see.After 3 c5's and knowing GM and how they operate.the 07,8,and 9 model years will be better still.Can you say "New Z" listening watching and waiting is the route I'm taking.I think history will prove me correct.

 

From Mercedes:

General Information
Year 2005
Manufacturer Mercedes-Benz
Model SLK55
Trim AMG
Body Type Roadster
Base MSRP -----
Curb Weight 3,500 lbs.

Engine / Transmission
Type 5.4 Liter
Cylinders 8
Horsepower 362 @ ---- RPM
Torque 376 @ ---- RPM
Redline -----
Drive Train Front Engine / RWD
Gear Type 7-Speed Automatic

Performance
0-60 mph 4.9 sec
0-100 mph -----
¼ Mile -----
Top Speed -----
Gas Mileage -----

And for Sissors... MB will NOT allow their dealers to do additional markup over MSRP...you will pay MSRP in most cases for a AMG model and less than MSRP for certain models such as the C class series, MLs and base SLKs... Ahh but you say you have seen that additional mark up! Yes...the loop...sell car and buy back and thus it becomes a 'used' (with less than 20 mi or so) car and then it is open season on pricing. MB very rigidly controls its dealerships...for example you used to see MB dealership having other brands on the floor such as Audi or Porsche or Land Rover or Rolls...no more..all dealerships must have a separate stand alone facility exclusively for MB.

Frenchie...I read your post in detail and know you were talking about verts but I was reacting more to your "...the umpteenth iteration of the "best bang for the buck" " comment...thus my C6 coupe comparison...even using the Vert there is still a premium on the SLK55...BUT I definitely perfer the vario top over a rag top which is the main reason I went with the coupe with the targa top...just my taste and preference.

And I don't think this thread is "resistance to simple facts" but rather an exchange of views with some of us having a little more experience in the car the C6 is being compared to...
M

 

Yes, Scissors, as you write, "lets look at the SLK55 AMG, shall we?"

1. "355 HP"? No, it's 362.
2. "Curb Weight of approximately 3,500 lbs"? No, it's 3397. (The 3500 figure was an early one and has been corrected in MB's literature.)
3. "0-60 in 4.9"? Well, as I wrote, we don't know yet. But they're claiming, almost certainly on the low side, 4.8 (and not 4.9, which is the 0-100 km/hr or 0-62 mph time).

"Fuel Economy will almost certainly be worse." Um, OK.

"Sorry, but there is no way that a 3,500 lb., 355 HP SLK55 is going to outperform the 3,199 lb., 400 HP Corvette." We'll see. I'm pretty sure you're wrong. In any case, our egos shouldn't be involved in this.

"Besides, performance is about more than just going in straight lines. It's also not about tens of thousands more for worse performance." Huh? Tens of thousands more? Maybe it's my computer. Could the server be translating what I wrote into some other language?