sl or slk ?

[terance]

May be looking to purchase amg sl or slk in the near future.

sad that I sold my tuscan and am looking for a car that can give me the same performance.
Looking to purchase over the next 3 months.
Price may be better after summer

[AlexRWD]

I tried an SLK 55 and SL 55 before buying the SL, they're both very fast and sound great, don't think you will be disappointed with either but it comes down to personal preference which one will be right for you, you just need to try them both - I used to have a TVR Tamora and you won't be disappointed with the performance!

[MadeInEngland]

I'm thinking of going the same route, from a Cerbera to a SLK55. What are the servicing charges like for AMG's, do they differ a lot from a standard Merc?

[terance]

Just enquired about an sl 600 bi turbo
what is the difference if any from sl55 amg?

[r129sl]

Why don't you spend, ooh, say, 30 seconds, maybe a minute, of your own time looking into this before asking the most generalised question possible of complete strangers who give the benefit of their knowledge out of sheer generosity. You never know, you might be able to find the answer for yourself.

It's like: I've just enquired about some chalk. What is the difference (if any) between this and some cheese? If any? If any? It's insulting.

Edited by r129sl on Wednesday 22 July 22:24

[MadeInEngland]

r129sl said:

Why don't you spend, ooh, say, 30 seconds, maybe a minute, of your own time looking into this before asking the most generalised question possible of complete strangers who give the benefit of their knowledge out of sheer generosity. You never know, you might be able to find the answer for yourself.

It's like: I've just enquired about some chalk. What is the difference (if any) between this and some cheese? If any? If any? It's insulting.

Edited by r129sl on Wednesday 22 July 22:24

Why are you being so hostile? Unless you have had the priviledge of driving both, how, other than asking are you supposed to find out. Isn't that what forums are for ?

[christer]

Hi

I think that sometimes it gets a little repetitive thats all - and if the poster above has just read say 30 posts on different forums along the same lines, it can get a bit frustrating and he/she reacted that way. Lets move on

[terance]

Oh my I had no intention to offend.
I just figured I would get a more honest opinion from someone who is not selling me amg or 600 you know nothing to gain.

As i have not owned any of them before I was seeking advice maybe just maybe someone would know more than I do.

Still thank you for the feed back it has been helpfull

[G9 NGR]

I went from a TVR Tamora to an SLK55 AMG in April 08 and I have to say I have never looked back. They are very different beasts to drive but I love how easy it is to use the Merc everyday, and how I am not constantly worried about it breaking!!!

The car goes and handles superbly - performance wise there is very little in it compared to the TVR, and the noise from the big V8 in the AMG is incredible!! Only downside is it can be very tirsty if you drive it hard (10-12 mpg) and it goes through back tyres very regularly (3 new sets in 9000 miles!). Saying that though my other half can get 27 or 28 mpg out of it driving sensibly.

I have never managed to hold onto a car for longer than 6-9 months as I have always got itchy feet and got a bit bored with everything I have previously owned, it doesnt seem to be the case with the SLK though - 15 months gone and looking forward to many more!!

Good luck with your purchase.

[terance]

Thanks for that.
I am used to the fuel costs because of the tuscan.
I need a car that can be used more than the weekend and having spent 7 k repairing the tuscan I wanted performance with reliability.

Hence looking at sl amg but a guy near me has a 600sl for sale and tells me if anything the 600 has more grunt,
I am a bit wary about the bi turbo cost if they go wrong,

2003 30,000 miles 600sl bi turbo £28,000.

[G9 NGR]

terance said:

Thanks for that.
I am used to the fuel costs because of the tuscan.
I need a car that can be used more than the weekend and having spent 7 k repairing the tuscan I wanted performance with reliability.

Hence looking at sl amg but a guy near me has a 600sl for sale and tells me if anything the 600 has more grunt,
I am a bit wary about the bi turbo cost if they go wrong,

2003 30,000 miles 600sl bi turbo £28,000.

The SL/SLK will defintely give you the performance with reliability combination you are looking for, as I say I use mine every day with no issues.

I think the 600 does have slightly more horsepower (517bhp??) but I'm not sure what the torque figure is compares with the 55. I dont imagine the 600 would sound as good as the V8 and I would also expect it to be set up more for comfort rather than the sporty set up of the AMG? I might be wrong

I went for the SLK over the SL after looking at both as the SLK has much more of a sports car feel to it, rather than the SL which is more of a big comfortable GT.

[r129sl]

terance said:

Just enquired about an sl 600 bi turbo
what is the difference if any from sl55 amg?

OK, OK.

The SL55 AMG has a 5.4litre 24-valve V8 with a super charger. It puts out 497bhp (post-2006 509bhp) and 516lb/ft (post-2006 531lb/ft) torque, the latter relatively low in the rev range and over a wide-ish band (2,750-4,000rpm). It is fitted with AMG brakes and suspension as well as the AMG bodykit and wheels. Typically it will have silver, metal-effect interior trim. The car is set up to be a sports car, has a wonderful, gruff sound and goes like stink.

The SL600 bi-turbo has a 5.5litre 36-valve V12 with twin turbo chargers (one per bank, not sequential). It puts out precisely 500bhp and 590lb/ft torque, the latter from even lower in the rev range and over an equally wide band (1,800 to 3,000rpm) than its AMG sibling. It is fitted with AMG brakes but not the suspension, body kit and wheels, at least, not as standard. A lot of cars were specified with AMG accessories, however. The car typically will be trimmed with wood and higher quality leather than on the AMG car. The cat is set up as a fast grand tourer and has a relatively uninvolving motor (at least in comparison with the AMG). It goes like stink.

Both cars have the same 5-speed 722.6 automatic transmission but in AMG cars it comes with speedshift software programming and buttons (or paddles in later cars) on the wheel.

There are no known issues with the V12 bi-turbo M275 engine. While the M113-ML55 V8 is fundamentally sound, there have been problems with auxilliary accessories.

At the end of the day, straight line performance is comparable but in reality the cars have completely different characters. The AMG is more of a sports car and is dominated by its engine; the SL600 is more of an effortlessly fast and luxury grand tourer and is a complete package in which the motor, impressive though it is, is but one element.

So, what is the difference, if any? they are like chalk and cheese.

Edited by r129sl on Friday 24th July 13:51

[anonymous-user]

r129sl said:

OK, OK.

The SL55 AMG has a 5.4litre 24-valve V8 with a super charger. It puts out 497bhp (post-2006 509bhp) and 516lb/ft (post-2006 531lb/ft) torque, the latter relatively low in the rev range and over a wide-ish band (2,750-4,000rpm). It is fitted with AMG brakes and suspension as well as the AMG bodykit and wheels. Typically it will have silver, metal-effect interior trim. The car is set up to be a sports car, has a wonderful, gruff sound and goes like stink.

The SL600 bi-turbo has a 5.5litre 36-valve V12 with twin turbo chargers (one per bank, not sequential). It puts out precisely 500bhp and 590lb/ft torque, the latter from even lower in the rev range and over an equally wide band (1,800 to 3,000rpm) than its AMG sibling. It is fitted with AMG brakes but not the suspension, body kit and wheels, at least, not as standard. A lot of cars were specified with AMG accessories, however. The car typically will be trimmed with wood and higher quality leather than on the AMG car. The cat is set up as a fast grand tourer and has a relatively uninvolving motor (at least in comparison with the AMG). It goes like stink.

Both cars have the same 5-speed 722.6 automatic transmission but in AMG cars it comes with speedshift software programming and buttons (or paddles in later cars) on the wheel.

There are no known issues with the V12 bi-turbo M275 engine. While the M113-ML55 V8 is fundamentally sound, there have been problems with auxilliary accessories.

At the end of the day, straight line performance is comparable but in reality the cars have completely different characters. The AMG is more of a sports car and is dominated by its engine; the SL600 is more of an effortlessly fast and luxury grand tourer and is a complete package in which the motor, impressive though it is, is but one element.

So, what is the difference, if any? they are like chalk and cheese.

Edited by r129sl on Friday 24th July 13:51

Ok, but do you have any detailed information on either car?

sorry!

[markbe]

r129sl said:

terance said:

Just enquired about an sl 600 bi turbo
what is the difference if any from sl55 amg?

OK, OK.

The SL55 AMG has a 5.4litre 24-valve V8 with a super charger. It puts out 497bhp (post-2006 509bhp) and 516lb/ft (post-2006 531lb/ft) torque, the latter relatively low in the rev range and over a wide-ish band (2,750-4,000rpm). It is fitted with AMG brakes and suspension as well as the AMG bodykit and wheels. Typically it will have silver, metal-effect interior trim. The car is set up to be a sports car, has a wonderful, gruff sound and goes like stink.

The SL600 bi-turbo has a 5.5litre 36-valve V12 with twin turbo chargers (one per bank, not sequential). It puts out precisely 500bhp and 590lb/ft torque, the latter from even lower in the rev range and over an equally wide band (1,800 to 3,000rpm) than its AMG sibling. It is fitted with AMG brakes but not the suspension, body kit and wheels, at least, not as standard. A lot of cars were specified with AMG accessories, however. The car typically will be trimmed with wood and higher quality leather than on the AMG car. The cat is set up as a fast grand tourer and has a relatively uninvolving motor (at least in comparison with the AMG). It goes like stink.

Both cars have the same 5-speed 722.6 automatic transmission but in AMG cars it comes with speedshift software programming and buttons (or paddles in later cars) on the wheel.

There are no known issues with the V12 bi-turbo M275 engine. While the M113-ML55 V8 is fundamentally sound, there have been problems with auxilliary accessories.

At the end of the day, straight line performance is comparable but in reality the cars have completely different characters. The AMG is more of a sports car and is dominated by its engine; the SL600 is more of an effortlessly fast and luxury grand tourer and is a complete package in which the motor, impressive though it is, is but one element.

So, what is the difference, if any? they are like chalk and cheese.

Edited by r129sl on Friday 24th July 13:51

I would add if it is ultimate power you want then the SL600 is the only option.
A quick visit to Kleemann ups the power to 627+bhp and 770fpt, they also can upgrade the gearbox to AMG spec.
My car currently gives better straight line performance than a SL65Black.

Mark.

[alc]

The build quality of the Mercedes far out ways that of any TVR. Having owned both the Mercedes is sublime. We have recently bought our second SLK55AMG. For that kind of money there is no contest. Better than the SL, same performance better looking.

[rsstman]

SL definately, unless you are a lady.

[alc]

The standard version maybe but not the AMG version of the SLK, Clarkson will vouch for that he owned one!!!

[terance]

Am going out tuesday for a test in the sl600 reading this I think thats the one for me.
To all Thank you for the advise

[terance]

advice
sorry

[kilarney]

terance said:

Am going out tuesday for a test in the sl600 reading this I think thats the one for me.
To all Thank you for the advise

Coming from a Tuscan I doubt it is. SLK 55 will be the one closely followed by the sl55.