Why I drive faster in TVR than in SLK350 - discuss
Discussion
There is no universally agreed definition of a sports car, nor or a GT. So any argument based on these as categories is doomed to failure, doomed to arguments, because most people base their opinions on their own bias.
So the good thing is that everyone can be right and can also prove everyone else is wrong.
I've driven an AMG SLK and to suggest that one is soft is rather silly. There's the V8 of course. I'd love to drive one of those.
I've owned an SLK350 and its ride is great on adequate roads but poor on poor ones.
I've owned a Chimaera and its ride is very good on adequate roads and dreadful on poor ones. I'm not sure if the differences are enough to condemn one for being soft and raise the other to being macho.
I've gone long distances in a T350 and if anything is a very similar car to the SLK350. Lack of driver aids is the main difference but I used to drive my Chim in all weathers and having to be so careful of one's right foot is not one of the most enjoyable factors.
If I was going to drive a long distance I'd pick the Chim as it was the more comfortable car. Nice big, upholstered seats make a big difference.
I think that the function of both cars from the driver's pov is very similar. The cars are fast, fun to drive, are engaging and respond to enthusiastic driving.
300bhp, 0-60 in 5.2 secs - that falls comfortably within my personal definition of sports car.
So the good thing is that everyone can be right and can also prove everyone else is wrong.
I've driven an AMG SLK and to suggest that one is soft is rather silly. There's the V8 of course. I'd love to drive one of those.
I've owned an SLK350 and its ride is great on adequate roads but poor on poor ones.
I've owned a Chimaera and its ride is very good on adequate roads and dreadful on poor ones. I'm not sure if the differences are enough to condemn one for being soft and raise the other to being macho.
I've gone long distances in a T350 and if anything is a very similar car to the SLK350. Lack of driver aids is the main difference but I used to drive my Chim in all weathers and having to be so careful of one's right foot is not one of the most enjoyable factors.
If I was going to drive a long distance I'd pick the Chim as it was the more comfortable car. Nice big, upholstered seats make a big difference.
I think that the function of both cars from the driver's pov is very similar. The cars are fast, fun to drive, are engaging and respond to enthusiastic driving.
300bhp, 0-60 in 5.2 secs - that falls comfortably within my personal definition of sports car.
I had a W203 C350 and own a Chimaera 400. Not driven a SLK350 but I did like my C350.
I came from an E39 M5 so the C350 felt a lot slower but I found it really needed a lot of revs to get the best out of it.
I loved the 7spd box and it was always a joy to rev it to the line but it never felt the right thing to do, it was much better at wafting around.
The Chimaera is always going to feel a lot faster than it is due to the weight, noise (mine is decatted) and the sheer fun of dropping a gear or two for the sheer hell of it.
I came from an E39 M5 so the C350 felt a lot slower but I found it really needed a lot of revs to get the best out of it.
I loved the 7spd box and it was always a joy to rev it to the line but it never felt the right thing to do, it was much better at wafting around.
The Chimaera is always going to feel a lot faster than it is due to the weight, noise (mine is decatted) and the sheer fun of dropping a gear or two for the sheer hell of it.
DJRC said:
Ari said:
Pffftt, what do you know, you've only got one. 
Don't you read The World Authority On Motorcars that is Autocar?
Ahem, er two actually Don't you read The World Authority On Motorcars that is Autocar?
And I've always regarded mags opinion as second to my own because it's my hard earned that buys my motors. Old retail saying: he who pays...says.
I thought about this thread briefly yesterday, whilst engaged in a seven hour 300 mile round trip mostly on A roads that my SLK does so very well. It is a superb compact GT car, which is precisely why I bought it.
I think the fact that, what, 90%? are autos rather nicely proves the point that this is no hairy chested 'sportscar'.
S
Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
Ari said:
I suspect that just means that you doubly don't know what you're talking about!
I thought about this thread briefly yesterday, whilst engaged in a seven hour 300 mile round trip mostly on A roads that my SLK does so very well. It is a superb compact GT car, which is precisely why I bought it.
I think the fact that, what, 90%? are autos rather nicely proves the point that this is no hairy chested 'sportscar'.
If your last comment were true it would mean there are very few 'hairy chested sports cars' left. I thought about this thread briefly yesterday, whilst engaged in a seven hour 300 mile round trip mostly on A roads that my SLK does so very well. It is a superb compact GT car, which is precisely why I bought it.
I think the fact that, what, 90%? are autos rather nicely proves the point that this is no hairy chested 'sportscar'.
Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
I'm not sure you can compare the 911's PDK transmission to the torque-converter automatic in the SLK and conclude they are identical or even similar, save to the extent that each is a transmission and each has seven forward ratios.
And I'm also not sure that the 911—at least in PDK-equipped, non-GT guise—is a hairy-chested sportscar anymore, either. The latest 991 is an abortion of a thing, too big and too flash and too often used for parking up outside shops. The problem here is that none of you has defined what a sports car is. Or a GT car for that matter.
The Boxster, SLK, Z4 and TT are all two-seat roadsters competing in a very wide market place. The needs, means and priorities of the buyers in that market place are very diverse. And the cars likewise. Does the purchaser of a Boxster really consider for more than a nano-second a non-AMG SLK? And does the purchaser of a SLK250 CDI ever realistically entertain the possibility of the (much more expensive) Boxster?
And I'm also not sure that the 911—at least in PDK-equipped, non-GT guise—is a hairy-chested sportscar anymore, either. The latest 991 is an abortion of a thing, too big and too flash and too often used for parking up outside shops. The problem here is that none of you has defined what a sports car is. Or a GT car for that matter.
The Boxster, SLK, Z4 and TT are all two-seat roadsters competing in a very wide market place. The needs, means and priorities of the buyers in that market place are very diverse. And the cars likewise. Does the purchaser of a Boxster really consider for more than a nano-second a non-AMG SLK? And does the purchaser of a SLK250 CDI ever realistically entertain the possibility of the (much more expensive) Boxster?
Oh I think the poverty spec Boxster market is exactly what the 250 was aimed at, the style of roadster (per se) but now with 50/ish mpg.
When I first looked at buying a new one I stole the 250slk from Pompey Merc for an afternoon. Five mins in I decided that this really was a boring as f
k car and I drove it five miles up the 27 to Pork to poke about Coxsters. Then I came to my senses as I remembered how fat and big arsed they were now and how that vertu phone interior really does make me want to hit someone. So I decided hell no to the Coxster stuff and hell no to the 250.
And bought a real one instead
When I first looked at buying a new one I stole the 250slk from Pompey Merc for an afternoon. Five mins in I decided that this really was a boring as f
k car and I drove it five miles up the 27 to Pork to poke about Coxsters. Then I came to my senses as I remembered how fat and big arsed they were now and how that vertu phone interior really does make me want to hit someone. So I decided hell no to the Coxster stuff and hell no to the 250.And bought a real one instead
I've been driving TVR's for years, enjoying the rawness and noise yes but also still great for European road trips.
I bought the SLK for my Wife after she complained that I had all of the fun cars while she had to make do with the Family stuff.
She hasn't done bad over the years with Audi Coupe's, Calibra V6's, recent and Evoque and now a Disco 4 (to name just a few).
Anyway, I very much enjoyed the SLK myself. It was a huge contrast against the Tuscan that I had at the time. I never felt that the SLK wanted me to die while the Tuscan ended up at the breakers in the sky.
I certainly don't have a bad word to say against the SLK but at the same time I don't think that a comparison is really possible.
By the way, the Speedsix engined TVR T cars are fine at low speeds.
I'm still mad on TVR's with a fantastic 2006 Tuscan Convertible and for the refined side I've treated myself to a lovely CLS.
PS. My Chimaera'S and Tuscans were more practical than the SLK for shopping and touring, both having huge boot space.
SLK was great for my Wife as her shopping bills dropped significantly
I bought the SLK for my Wife after she complained that I had all of the fun cars while she had to make do with the Family stuff.
She hasn't done bad over the years with Audi Coupe's, Calibra V6's, recent and Evoque and now a Disco 4 (to name just a few).
Anyway, I very much enjoyed the SLK myself. It was a huge contrast against the Tuscan that I had at the time. I never felt that the SLK wanted me to die while the Tuscan ended up at the breakers in the sky.
I certainly don't have a bad word to say against the SLK but at the same time I don't think that a comparison is really possible.
By the way, the Speedsix engined TVR T cars are fine at low speeds.
I'm still mad on TVR's with a fantastic 2006 Tuscan Convertible and for the refined side I've treated myself to a lovely CLS.
PS. My Chimaera'S and Tuscans were more practical than the SLK for shopping and touring, both having huge boot space.
SLK was great for my Wife as her shopping bills dropped significantly
Edited by so called on Thursday 6th November 21:20
REALIST123 said:
If your last comment were true it would mean there are very few 'hairy chested sports cars' left.
Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
Big big difference between an automated manual and a torque converter autobox...Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
And as has been said, is the latest 911 really a 'hairy chested sportscar'?
Ari said:
REALIST123 said:
If your last comment were true it would mean there are very few 'hairy chested sports cars' left.
Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
Big big difference between an automated manual and a torque converter autobox...Try and find a manual 911 these days..........
And as has been said, is the latest 911 really a 'hairy chested sportscar'?
That's what you said. You didn't say 90% are torque converter autos, did you?
You said that the fact that most SLK's are autos proves that they are not hairy chested sports cars.
The 911 is sold as an auto, by any other name, in larger numbers than manual. The GT3 is not available except as an auto. I doubt there are many cars more hairy chested that the latest GT3 these days, especially in RS form which, though it may well be available as a manual is likely to be mostly built with PDK.
Let's try another. What about the V8 F type? Is that proven to be not a sports car by don't of its auto gearbox? Really?
I don't really care what you think the SLK should be classified as, but your statement was clearly nonsense.
Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 8th November 13:35
The F-Type is a poseur's chariot. It's a disgrace. It's form is dictated not by sporting function but by the marketing department. I guess the design brief was:
(1) must be really, really flash;
(2) must have biggest possible wheels;
(3) must have fake exhaust pipes fat enough to drive a tube train up;
(4) must make too much noise.
Of course, this brief has been doing the rounds among the manufacturers lately.
(1) must be really, really flash;
(2) must have biggest possible wheels;
(3) must have fake exhaust pipes fat enough to drive a tube train up;
(4) must make too much noise.
Of course, this brief has been doing the rounds among the manufacturers lately.
REALIST123 said:
"I think the fact that, what, 90%? are autos rather nicely proves the point that this is no hairy chested 'sportscar'."
That's what you said. You didn't say 90% are torque converter autos, did you?
You said that the fact that most SLK's are autos proves that they are not hairy chested sports cars.
The 911 is sold as an auto, by any other name, in larger numbers than manual. The GT3 is not available except as an auto. I doubt there are many cars more hairy chested that the latest GT3 these days, especially in RS form which, though it may well be available as a manual is likely to be mostly built with PDK.
Let's try another. What about the V8 F type? Is that proven to be not a sports car by don't of its auto gearbox? Really?
I don't really care what you think the SLK should be classified as, but your statement was clearly nonsense.
My statement was nonsense..!? That's what you said. You didn't say 90% are torque converter autos, did you?
You said that the fact that most SLK's are autos proves that they are not hairy chested sports cars.
The 911 is sold as an auto, by any other name, in larger numbers than manual. The GT3 is not available except as an auto. I doubt there are many cars more hairy chested that the latest GT3 these days, especially in RS form which, though it may well be available as a manual is likely to be mostly built with PDK.
Let's try another. What about the V8 F type? Is that proven to be not a sports car by don't of its auto gearbox? Really?
I don't really care what you think the SLK should be classified as, but your statement was clearly nonsense.
Edited by REALIST123 on Saturday 8th November 13:35
r129sl said:
The F-Type is a poseur's chariot. It's a disgrace. It's form is dictated not by sporting function but by the marketing department. I guess the design brief was:
(1) must be really, really flash;
(2) must have biggest possible wheels;
(3) must have fake exhaust pipes fat enough to drive a tube train up;
(4) must make too much noise.
Of course, this brief has been doing the rounds among the manufacturers lately.
Ah, but it has two pedals and therefore is exactly the same as a Porsche 911 GT3. Or indeed a Formula 1 car. Apparently. (1) must be really, really flash;
(2) must have biggest possible wheels;
(3) must have fake exhaust pipes fat enough to drive a tube train up;
(4) must make too much noise.
Of course, this brief has been doing the rounds among the manufacturers lately.
Or a Rolls Royce Phantom, also a 'hairy chested sportscar' I've no doubt...
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff