Eunos Cosmo's Car Thread: Clarksonian urges

INEEDNAWZZZ
Weirdly, I’ve been using cycling as my primary way of getting around, meaning I’ve been toying with buying a slightly silly car that I wouldn’t need to drive daily; the SLK was on my hit list after rewatching that TG review as well, funnily enough.

Sure, it’s not razor sharp or anything (especially compared to a Porsche of a similar vintage, hell, maybe not even a Z4) but for putting the roof down and hearing V8 noises, I think it just makes up for all of that in character. Even the yearly maintenance costs don’t seem that bad, and they generally appear to be mostly problem free, probably owing to them being relatively simple compared to the rest of the AMG line up at the time.
Click to expand...
While having a razor sharp sports car is genuinely fun sometimes...I don't find that the optimal circumstances for that kind of driving happen very often...even living in a place with a ton of amazing driving roads. I find myself wishing I had something a little more long-legged with more of a characterful 'main event' engine. I'm not going to go careening down highway 9 like I'm trying to LARP initial D...it's not worth it. In that light, the SLK makes so much sense. Still plenty capable in the corners (it's not a Dodge Challenger) but equally at home on the freeway blasting over to Tahoe or down to LA with a trunk full of luggage.

Almost all of my desire hinges around the fact that this is the final evolution of the M113 V8, which even from the beginning was an overbuilt motor, and I've heard they can last 300k+ miles without much trouble. The gearboxes are more sensitive. Still strong - but they require a service every 40k miles. The rest is pretty simple honestly...nothing like an SL or S Class. The convertible part to me is neither here nor there. Despite living in CA I rarely use my own softop, so the fact that the SLK can go top down is fine but neither a benefit nor detriment IMO. I can tell you that the V8 sounds amazing and all-enveloping, even roof up.

If I had to rank my favorite Mercedes Benzes, it would go:
Mercedes SLR Mclaren
Mercedes SLS AMG
Mercedes CLK63 AMG Black Series
Mercedes SLK55 AMG

The ones above the SLK on the list start at $100k...if you're lucky. The fact that my 4th favorite can be had for 25k in terrific shape is a huge part of the appeal.
 
I had an AMG S55 until a flood took it from me, and I DO miss that engine!!!! Car had lots of problems, though, with the hydraulic suspension, the air system for the seats, and the A/C died a few week before the flood, so the insurance money was actually a really nice bailout!!!

But that MOTOR!!!!
 
Last edited:
Tornado
I will say that it could be entirely possible that I've been researching potential Ryoko IIs and there may very well be plug and play solutions to the hopelessly outdated infotainment and it may also be possible to shove 245s/275s under the notoriously undertired chassis.


You know, if I had been theoretically been looking myself. And can keep from finally just buying a C5.
Click to expand...
A C5 (Z06) is probably a more reliable way to achieve the same kind of built around the motor experience...but I just can't bring myself to own a late model Corvette
wfooshee
I had an AMG S55 until a flood took it from me, and I DO miss that engine!!!! Car had lots of problems, though, with the hydraulic suspension, the air system for the seats, and the A/C died a few week before the flood, so the insurance money was actually a really nice bailout!!!

But that MOTOR!!!!
Click to expand...
Yeah now just imagine the S55 with almost 1000lbs less weight and significantly more aggressive gearing

S55: 3.59:1, 2.19:1, 1.41:1, 1.00:1, 0.83:1, :1. final drive, 2.82:1
SLK55: 4.38:1, 2.86:1, 1.92:1, 1.37:1, 1.00:1, 0.82:1, 0.73:1. final drive, 3.06:1

First gear torque / weight ratios:
S55: 0.94lbs-ft of torque per lb
SLK55: 1.55lbs-ft of torque per lb

For reference a C6 Z06 Corvette with the LS7 has 1.35lbs-ft of torque per lb in first gear. So the SLK55 has a better peak torque to weight ratio in the first two gears than a C6 Z06...no wonder it felt like such a rocketship. If you've never driven or ridden in one, the C6 Z06 is an absolute monster and definitely faster than an SLK but the above math implies that the SLK would have a higher peak acceleration force, provided traction is not a problem.

I need to put together a graphic spectrum of acceleration based on the above method - the butt feel spectrum. One thing thats interesting is that higher hp cars tend to have longer gearing, so while they definitely get faster, they don't necessarily feel faster because the of the gearing and also typically the weight.

<0.75lbs-ft / pound - Slow
0.75-0.89lbs-ft / pound - First gen BRZ. Feeble
0.90-0.99lbs-ft / pound - ND MX-5. Brisk
1.00-1.09lbs-ft / pound - Second gen BRZ. Quick
1.10-1.34lbs-ft / pound - 370z, E46 M3. Fast
1.35-1.59lbs-ft / pound - C6 Z06, F40, SLK55. Savage
1.60lbs-ft / pound + - Challenger Hellcat. Painful

edit: just realized that @wfooshee had a 2003 which was the supercharged M113. Probably a good bit closer to the SLK, but I think those still had the 5 speed.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back