|
Chicane-UK
2,585 posts
54 months
|
SLR - always loved the look of that thing  The SLS doesn't quite appeal to me in the same way.
|
|
|
LotusOmega375D
Original Poster
2,118 posts
22 months
|
Having not been in either and probably never will, I am actually now siding with the SLR. I was also not a massive fan when it was launched, but it is a beast of car and possibly half a notch above the SLS in prestige terms. Thinking long-term I reckon the SLR with its McLaren connection and presumably shorter build run will hold its value better from this point onwards.
Unusually I think time will prove that both cars will be more desirable in coupe form. The convertibles just seem a bit dull in comparison with the drama of the coupes. Rather like the original 1950s 300SL.
|
|
|
Leins
1,193 posts
17 months
|
Would have no desire for either. A CLK DTM coupe on the other hand...
|
|
|
S3_Graham
10,677 posts
68 months
|
|
|
icetea
846 posts
11 months
|
LotusOmega375D said: Thinking long-term I reckon the SLR with its McLaren connection and presumably shorter build run will hold its value better from this point onwards. Sort of a similar line of thought to the Bugatti prices thread... but who's going to want a 10 year old SLR with the massive running costs? Anyone who can afford to run it will be able to afford (and want) a newer toy... I suspect the market for these is going to be tiny.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
Dave Hedgehog
5,320 posts
73 months
|
neither, both far too phallic imo
|
|
|
Ozzie Osmond
12,088 posts
115 months
|
SLR - driver sits much too far back so very ungainly at junctions. Terrifying maintenance costs.
SLS - not quite as long, but still lengthy. More sensible maintenance, slightly. Buy the convertible not the daft gull-wing version, although pricey as still recent model.
|
|
|
Fleckers
1,515 posts
70 months
|
This one  [/quote]
|
|
|
2902326
27 posts
11 months
|
I've driven an SLR and it was quite possibly the most uncomfortable car I've ever driven & I've driven a fair few.
|
|
|
JordanTurbo
148 posts
10 months
|
Topless SLS for me please 
|
|
|
bulldong
1,238 posts
72 months
|
|
|
Deerfoot
1,881 posts
53 months
|
Fleckers said: This one 
|
|
|
luke111s
790 posts
57 months
|
|
|
Dapster
475 posts
49 months
|
If I had to have a lottery win Merc, it would be a ddebadged 1979 450 SEL 6.9 in metallic black with tan hide... Cool as.
|
|
|
Sexual Chocolate
843 posts
13 months
|
If it was a 722 then I would go for the SLR otherwise SLS for me.
|
|
|
Muzzer79
370 posts
56 months
|
SLS for me
The SLR I've always thought of as a tarted up previous-generation Mercedes SL.
I know it's not, and the noise is fantastic, but I wish they'd made it more unique.
|
|
|
LeoZwalf
1,979 posts
99 months
|
Ozzie Osmond said: SLR - driver sits much too far back so very ungainly at junctions. Terrifying maintenance costs.
SLS - not quite as long, but still lengthy. More sensible maintenance, slightly. Buy the convertible not the daft gull-wing version, although pricey as still recent model. Sir this is FAR too sensible a reasoning. Please reconsider immediately! It's a difficult choice though. The SLR holds a bit of a legendary status for me, when it came out I was in my late teens and remember seeing it at the NEC Motorshow very clearly. The side pipes, loooooong bonnet and supercharger sell it for me. The SLS on the other hand looks better overall and has the achingly cool gullwings. One would like to commission a hybrid of the two please - SLS body with SLR bonnet leeeeength, side exit exhausts and a supercharger.
|
|
|
Mini1275
9,417 posts
51 months
|
SLR, in black please.
Or orange with black wheels.
I don't really mind.
|
|
|
DeolTheBeast
129 posts
15 months
|
I think I'd take the SLR - am I right in thinking they are more exclusive than the SLS?
|
|
|
C.A.R.
1,273 posts
57 months
|
MarJay said: SLS. Its better looking and has gull wing doors. But but but  OK so they're not 'gullwing' but they are still cool! SLR for me, the SLS just doesn't look as 'special' And it's full name includes the word 'McLaren'
|
|
