SLK230 0-60 Time?

[Matty H]

Does anyone know the true 0-60 time of a 1997 SLK230 Auto?

I have seen anything from 6.9 secs up to 8.2 secs quoted.

That is obviously a signifcant difference - how can people can be so inacurate?

 

[pascal]

7.1 secs

Autocar tested it on 20-11-1996

SLK 230K (A) MAX SP: 140
...................0-60: 7.1
...................0-100: 20.0
...................60-0 : 2.6

They use sophisticated timing equipment like that used in motor sport

Pascal

 

[mlc]

Thats a great bit of info Pascal, we also have a 97 230 SLK and just like Matty I have seen a huge spread of figures. We actually ended up trying to measure ours with herself holding the stop watch - and got 7.2seconds, however that assumed that the speedo is accurate.

Thanks again.

 

[Matty H]

Thats a great bit of info Pascal, we also have a 97 230 SLK and just like Matty I have seen a huge spread of figures. We actually ended up trying to measure ours with herself holding the stop watch - and got 7.2seconds, however that assumed that the speedo is accurate.

Thanks again.

Her stopwatch was only 0.1 different than the official figure - so good stopwatch eh..

 

[Matty H]

Autocar tested it on 20-11-1996

SLK 230K (A) MAX SP: 140
...................0-60: 7.1
...................0-100: 20.0
...................60-0 : 2.6

They use sophisticated timing equipment like that used in motor sport

Pascal

Thanks Pascal - but this means it's SLOWER than a crappy MG TF160 - which comes in at 6.9, but obviously it has a lower top speed than the Merc.

 

[mlc]

Matty - Go and wash your mouth out then write 100 lines of "I will not compare MG cars with MB's"!!

I am not an expert of the MG you mention, however just to confirm:

Does it have an electric hard top (which God only knows how much that weighs)?
Does it look perfect in a classic drop dead wonderful sort of way?
Is it a babe magnet?
Do strangers compliment you in the street when you own one?

More important - will it still be worth around 50% of its cost price at 7 years old - will it still actually work when its seven years old - its a Rover (sort of)!!!

I suspect (don't know) that the MG is manual - in the slk you point, press and hold on. In a manual to obtain the top acceleration you need 1. skills that most people dont have 2. to abuse the clutch / gearbox in a way that the owner wont want to do. also ask the MG owner what his 0 -140 mph time is - that should shut them up.

Bottom line Matty - we are the chosen few, if God drove he would have an MB. If one of your friends has the MG you just tell them in a knowing sort of way that one day they will see the light and join us. It works every time

Mark.

 

[davidsl500]

Matty - Go and wash your mouth out then write 100 lines of "I will not compare MG cars with MB's"!!

I am not an expert of the MG you mention, however just to confirm:

Does it have an electric hard top (which God only knows how much that weighs)?
Does it look perfect in a classic drop dead wonderful sort of way?
Is it a babe magnet?
Do strangers compliment you in the street when you own one?

More important - will it still be worth around 50% of its cost price at 7 years old - will it still actually work when its seven years old - its a Rover (sort of)!!!

I suspect (don't know) that the MG is manual - in the slk you point, press and hold on. In a manual to obtain the top acceleration you need 1. skills that most people dont have 2. to abuse the clutch / gearbox in a way that the owner wont want to do. also ask the MG owner what his 0 -140 mph time is - that should shut them up.

Bottom line Matty - we are the chosen few, if God drove he would have an MB. If one of your friends has the MG you just tell them in a knowing sort of way that one day they will see the light and join us. It works every time

Mark.

Your wrong MLC, According to the the bible - Genesis - "and God burned up the desert in his Triumph" How long have I been waiting to use that one !

 

[mlc]

David - A biblical argument, great!!

I thought the Triumph was Moses - "and the sound of his Triumph could be heard throughout the land".

May be wrong of course! However God or Moses - surely both matured and upgraded to MB's in the fullness of time

Mark.

 

[talbir]

"Does it have an electric hard top (which God only knows how much that weighs)?"

A nice feature but nothing for MB or MB fans to be proud off - the folding hard top on both the SLK and current SL were designed and built by Porsche.

And no Porsche haven't adapted this to their models. Probably because it just wouldn't be right...a folding hard top on a 911? A supercars car that is all about minimal weight and maximum performance.

Mercedes and Porsche go back a very long way. The best cars DO come out of Stuttgart !

 

[davidsl500]

David - A biblical argument, great!!

I thought the Triumph was Moses - "and the sound of his Triumph could be heard throughout the land".

May be wrong of course! However God or Moses - surely both matured and upgraded to MB's in the fullness of time

Mark.

i think they did car sharing mlc or maybe he sold it on to Moses - you know the sort of thing, one owner full creation and service history....

From my distant memory the early 230 was around 8 secs to 60 but modifications to the auto box and other area's bought this down to around the 7 sec mark.

Also the Germans (please pronounce in Stan Boardman style..) usually quoted their performance figure as a 0-100 KPH timing - which of course is 0-62.5 MPH - this may explain the slightly slower times listed by some mags which didnt make this clear.

 

[Matty H]

Matty - Go and wash your mouth out then write 100 lines of "I will not compare MG cars with MB's"!!

I am not an expert of the MG you mention, however just to confirm:

Does it have an electric hard top (which God only knows how much that weighs)?
Does it look perfect in a classic drop dead wonderful sort of way?
Is it a babe magnet?
Do strangers compliment you in the street when you own one?

More important - will it still be worth around 50% of its cost price at 7 years old - will it still actually work when its seven years old - its a Rover (sort of)!!!

I suspect (don't know) that the MG is manual - in the slk you point, press and hold on. In a manual to obtain the top acceleration you need 1. skills that most people dont have 2. to abuse the clutch / gearbox in a way that the owner wont want to do. also ask the MG owner what his 0 -140 mph time is - that should shut them up.

Bottom line Matty - we are the chosen few, if God drove he would have an MB. If one of your friends has the MG you just tell them in a knowing sort of way that one day they will see the light and join us. It works every time

Mark.

Agree with you 100% mate - I hate MG's / Peugeot 206cc etc, but people still actually try & race me in them... Idiots.

I actually had a guy in a Puma (yes a ****ty Puma) pull alongside me and look at me as if to say "I'll race ya mate", I floored it and waved at him, he was absolutely miles behind me when I looked in rear view mirror...

Why do people think they stand a chance in cars like this? I was just worried that the MGTF may be close if you tried it, and how embarrasing that would be?

 

[pascal]

7.1 secs

Hi Tabir, You Quote

'A nice feature but nothing for MB or MB fans to be proud off - the folding hard top on both the SLK and current SL were designed and built by Porsche.

And no Porsche haven't adapted this to their models. Probably because it just wouldn't be right...a folding hard top on a 911? A supercars car that is all about minimal weight and maximum performance.'

I was under the impression that it was a subsiduary of Porche, and that MB gave them a spec. based on the SL (r129), which MB spent 11,000,000 euro developing.

I don,t agree that the fact that its a folding hardtop makes it top heavy. Most of the extra weight is as a result of the strenghtening of the chassis, and the mechanicism to fold the roof. The metal roof mechanicism is not 'all that different' to the softop mechanicism (r129). The actual alloy roof panels themselves do not weigh very much.

But this is the price we pay for opentop driving and we dont mind, because we the customers decide.

Our cars were bullt from the ground up as roadsters (topless). As such they have brilliant chassis's, unlike some other manufacturers who take a sedan/coupe and chop the roof off, add a couple of RSJ's (steel girders) for strenth, and sell a car the weight of a tank, and the power of a 'Trabant.'

Pascal

.

 

[talbir]

Hi Pascal,

It was Porsche which designed the folding roof system for the Mercedes SLK roadster, and also the current Mercedes SL. Porsche and Mercedes then went on to form Car Top Systems in 1996, in order to supply folding roof hardware for the wider industry, the jointly owned, Hamburg-based company being bought out by Porsche in 2003.

The additional weight coming form the mechanisms and framework was what I was referring too. And whilst it may not seem much to MB drivers, it's alot as far as Porsche are concerned.

For example, an SL 129 weighs a massive 1.9 tonnes (varies with options fitted).

A Porsche 911 cabriolet weighs only 1.45 tonnes.

Adding a roof mechanism + panels for a total weighing approx 80 kilos is going to make a signifcant percentage difference w.r.t. both performance and handling on the 911.

Of course the other problem Porsche would have is where the folding roof would fold back into - as the engine is back there already....!

Porsche's Carrera GT is revolutionary in being a open-top car with the rigidity of a hard-top. Porsche have invested more money into open-top R&D than any other car manufacturer, for their Boxster, 911 and Carrera GT models.

The Boxster is probably the best of the roadsters to date though - mind-blowing performance and handling with it's mid-engine set-up. In every single road-test with the BMW Z4 and current Mercedes SLK, it has come out on top everytime.

talbir

 

[mlc]

Worrying as it is I have to agree with Talbir. I am sure that the Porsche is more of an outright "sports car" than the SLK which I would describe as a "sporty car". Matty mentioned earlier a Puma wonting a go, Mrs C's SLK is a replacement for a Puma, in a striaght line the Puma would have no chance at all, but on a country road run the SLK would be left for dead. Thats because it isnt really aimed at the market that buys the Porsche or a Lotus, its aimed at the buyer who wants all the seriously sporty looks whilst still having the ease of driving - for instance for the first 3 years ( I think) they were all autos. That said the SLK is certainly a success in terms of sales, so they must have done something right.

In terms of being proud of the Porsche designed and built roof. I think it is fine to be proud of an item designed by someone else. MB choice to use the system, if it hadnt been up to their standards I suppose they could have looked elsewhere. The motor industry has always bought in designs from each other, for instance Lotus Cortinas in the 60's, Lotus Carltons in the 80's (or was that early 90's). What about Cosworth powered MB's - wasnt Cosworth owned by Ford at the time? It also changes over time - in the 80's Ford bought big diesel engines from Peugeot because they didnt have the skills to build there own, today Ford diesels go into some Jaguars. Finally I suppose the ultimate is that whole cars are built by one and badged by another - the Ford / Volkswagen / Seat people carrier comes to mind - one car three badges.

Mark.

 

[SLinKyjoe]

Ahhhh A good argument brewing.

Had a Puma. Was great for a 127hp car and handled well. brakes failed and it let water in when you opened the rear hatch. It may have beaten the SLK (R170) round corners but certainly wouldn't touch the new R171 slk anywhere.

I had a scoobie before I got this one. And I used to laugh at the boy racers who just insisted on pulling up and wanting races. How I used to laugh as they revved and destroyed the clutch whilst I used to pull off like an old man and tootle off in chortle mode. It was the T5 volvo or BMW drivers who used to get a shock. especially as I was going home on a morning needing the bed. They insisted on attempting to out accelerate at the roundabout where the 2 lanes went into 1. Not once did i get beat. I did however on one occasion very naughtily drive just fast enough to make a 6 series slam all on. I was watching him and just kept the car in front. no matter what he did. Sorry Mate!!!

Scoobie had to go tho and the new SLK doesnt quite have the corner grip but only just not quite. it doesnt role as much but it is a bit stiffer. Put together a lot better than any other car i Have had tho.

I was gonna go for a porsche but couldnt bring myself to do it. Mind you I had given consideration to the Lotus 111R but remembered it stood for Lots Of Trouble Usually Serious.

I did laugh today as I left the car park. My boss has a Picasso! that will teach him, kids, wives etc,

 

[davidsl500]

I must say that I have noticed that the more powerful car that I am driving the more people out there want to have a go or are just discourteous towards me.

And the other typical British Disease is in the UK you park your nice car up and get free racing stripes from jealous or mindless idiots - in the USA you get admiration and almost a pat on the back.

 

[talbir]

True point David.....but this is the beauty of the w124 500E. In stock standard form it looks like a German taxi - LHD W124 e-class !

Then you match or beat almost any car out there, especially the boy racers. The look on their face is worth a million dollars when they struggle to comprehend that a bog-standard looking LHD Merc has just laced their rice rocket !

I know a guy in the States who has the bespoke nitrous system fitted to his w124 500E, giving him 430hp and a 0-60 time of approx 4.7 secs (tested times on a drag strip). He really ought to remove the 500E badge and fit a E200 badge in place of it, with the 'Turbodiesel' badge on the right of the bootlid. THEN put some manners on these kids....

Anyway, I digress....I'm just in love with the 124 500E.......


Talbir

 

[Matty H]

I can see the appeal of Puma's / Tigras / 206cc and the like, but they are surely much more "Girly" than any Merc, and people who buy them actually think it's a Sports Car.. GET REAL

I actually heard a guy in a pub boasting he'd just bought a Saxo 16v as if it was a sports car.. I just smiled to myself & thought.... Idiot.

My previous cars were Vauxhall Calibra (too heavy & not powerful enough, but looked good at the time), then Toyota Celica (not new shape, but last one) that was a fairly quick car (173bhp in a 2Ltr) but it lacked driveability..

Since owning the SLK I have not looked back, and love the "boy racers" trying to take me on...

Another one you'll see them in is an Astra Coupe... Shocking...

 

[pascal]

Athins diets for cars?

Ok Tabir,

I see your point. But I dont necessary agree that an SLK should be compared to a boxster. There is big difference in starting price for one. Personally I dont like the boxster at all. To put R129's, boxsters, slk's, and 911's in the one frame is a little strange, as they are all completely different.
Yes the porsches are a lot lighter, and as every super light M3(or 911RS) owner knows, less means more £'s.
True, originally the letters SL used to mean sportslight, but MB changed the meaning of sl some years back as the car got heavier. This is as a result of giving us what we want.....electric everything.....mod cons
Most of us will never take our cars near to the limits of track testing, so these tests are only academic.
All the cars you mention have way above average performance figuires, handling, brakes, etc. Some are better than others at certain tasks, but none are the best at everything......so what..........We all have different needs.
If one wanted to go extremely fast, only, one could buy an 'Atom' or westfield 'Eight'. But they would not be very practical for the school run, me thinks.

Pascal

 

[talbir]

An SLK shouldn't be compared to a Boxster ? !!

EVERY car magazine has performed this test - indeed MB's own benchmark is to be able to surpass the benchmarks set by the Boxster. They are in the same class of car.

And the 911 Cabriolet vs the SL 129 is a road test that has been undertaken by numerous car mags - including Top Gear on TV. So that is a perfectly valid comparison too.

In almost every single one of those road tests by the independants, the Boxster surpassed the 2004 SLK(and BMW Z4) in EVERY single department, except on looks. The Boxster handles better, is quicker, even has better ergonomics and luxury. I have driven both and the difference is VERY significant. I too use to hate Boxsters - but all the people that do are usually those that have never driven one.

Whilst the SL has all the mod-cons, today's 911 (996) does as well - air-con, electric seats, traction control(PASM), Tiptronic gearbox (which infact was built and supplied by Mercedes but modified by Porsche to incorporate Tiptronic) etc etc. I'm not sure the SL has anything the 911 does not, apart from the hard-top folding roof.

Of course, I agree on the point of horses for courses. But the SL has proved it's versatility over the past 40 years in various guises - just as the 911 has done. Both are cars that can be driven every day, year-on-year.

Talbir