986 Forum - The Community for Porsche Boxster & Cayman Owners - View Single Post

sgt brad · 02-08-2012, 07:25 PM

I just got the privilege of driving a new merc slk350 for 4 days in south Florida. I thought I’d post some comparisons just for the heck of it.

02 boxster s vs. 12 slk 350.

Steering on the slk is ok. Reminds me of the electric assisted bmw. Nothing to write home about. Definitely not as communicative as the boxster.
Radio in the slk was the Harmon kardon upgrade and while good, I’ve learned that no roadster has a particularly great radio.
Seats in the slk were amazing. Neck warmers, good side bolsters without causing difficulty with ingress and egress. Seats were comfortable after 3+hours. They are much better than the boxster.

Gauges in the slk are water and fuel just like the boxster. I don’t get it, but oh well.
Legroom in the slk was phenomenal. I had more legroom than in my 05 gmc 3/4ton crew cab long-bed!!! I am 6’2” and just barely fit in the boxster. I had room to spare in the slk.

Best most intuitive radio and navigation system I have ever used. Since I have none in the boxster there is nothing to compare, but merc hit a home run as far as I am concerned. Even my wife was amazed at how easy it was to master.

The engine in the slk was o.k., but nothing special. It had power, but you had to work for it. It was a dog below 3k rpms and there was constant multiple gear downshifts to get to the meat of the power to accelerate. Once the motor spooled up to 4k it pulled strongly and had a lovely sound, but it was a bit peaky, with a very short window. Low revving too with a 7k redline. It didn’t leave you a lot of room to play. It needs all of its 7 speeds to keep it entertaining. The boxster motor pulls strongly and more linearly with less fuss. Oh, one last note. And, this is a big one, at normal throttle and pulling away from traffic lights, etc. it sounds like crap!!! Honestly it reminded me of a 1984 v6 camaro with that raspberry exhaust crap that they tried in the 80’s. Just horrible. Bad enough that it would make me consider not buying it were I in the market for one.

The slk folding hardtop was sweet. Of course it takes up a lot of trunk space, but we were still able to fit a medium to large suitcase, a briefcase and satchel into the trunk and open the top as well. With 2 trunks it seems that the boxster would really shine with the folding hardtop. Of course it would add quite a bit of weight and that is where the trade-offs come into play.

The handling of the slk was ok, but nothing spectacular. It’s a little more show than go. It had a pretty good amount of under steer and the chassis had some odd transitions when trail-braking and throttle lift. It was never really consistent. I’m not Michael Schumacher, but I found it hard to develop confidence to push the car. The one time I turned off the traction control and power slid the car yielded a bit of “tank-slapper” recovery which was not very inspiring.

Lastly, I have to address the 7 speed auto-slush box. I now know why Jeremy Clarkson on top gear loathes “flappy paddle gearboxes.” The shifts in manual were slow and you had to tap the up shift or downshift before you needed it otherwise it would end up shifting as you were mid-transition and unsettle the whole chassis. Not just weird, but scary for high-speed driving. Forget any hard driving if you had it in auto-mode. It was always a gear too high (sometimes two) and would take far too long to drop down to the “right” gear. Most of the time I was already mid-apex and would suddenly find it coming on the cams. It would transition from lots of under steer to more neutral, but would do it so abruptly that it was disconcerting. I absolutely hated that tranny. In sport mode things were a little crisper, but it was still uninspiring.

As it stands there is really no comparing the two cars. The boxster I have is 10 years older, but had an msrp that was only 5-8k less than the msrp on the new merc. That’s certainly something to consider. The navigation, seats and cabin were head and shoulders above what my boxster offers. The slk also had a bottomless gas tank and gave us 400 miles of hard driving before needing a refill.
The slk seems to be more of a gt car. And that it does very well. 80mph on the highway was bliss. For the aging boxster driver that is tired of the pretzel shape and contortions needed to get in/out will find welcome relief in the slk.

Overall I was very impressed. But, hey I think I should have been impressed by a car with a 65-70k sticker price. The newer front and rear fascias give the slk a look much closer to the bigger mercs and it no longer is the hairdresser’s car. The exhaust note and crap tranny would be the only things that would really make me question purchasing one if I were comparing it to the non-s boxster nowadays. Fwiw my wife absolutely loved it. She’d have one tomorrow. While she really likes my boxster, she’d be much happier with a slk.

02-08-2012, 07:25 PM	#1
sgt brad 02 box s Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: alabama Posts: 226	2012 slk350 vs. 2002 boxster s I just got the privilege of driving a new merc slk350 for 4 days in south Florida. I thought I’d post some comparisons just for the heck of it. 02 boxster s vs. 12 slk 350. Steering on the slk is ok. Reminds me of the electric assisted bmw. Nothing to write home about. Definitely not as communicative as the boxster. Radio in the slk was the Harmon kardon upgrade and while good, I’ve learned that no roadster has a particularly great radio. Seats in the slk were amazing. Neck warmers, good side bolsters without causing difficulty with ingress and egress. Seats were comfortable after 3+hours. They are much better than the boxster. Gauges in the slk are water and fuel just like the boxster. I don’t get it, but oh well. Legroom in the slk was phenomenal. I had more legroom than in my 05 gmc 3/4ton crew cab long-bed!!! I am 6’2” and just barely fit in the boxster. I had room to spare in the slk. Best most intuitive radio and navigation system I have ever used. Since I have none in the boxster there is nothing to compare, but merc hit a home run as far as I am concerned. Even my wife was amazed at how easy it was to master. The engine in the slk was o.k., but nothing special. It had power, but you had to work for it. It was a dog below 3k rpms and there was constant multiple gear downshifts to get to the meat of the power to accelerate. Once the motor spooled up to 4k it pulled strongly and had a lovely sound, but it was a bit peaky, with a very short window. Low revving too with a 7k redline. It didn’t leave you a lot of room to play. It needs all of its 7 speeds to keep it entertaining. The boxster motor pulls strongly and more linearly with less fuss. Oh, one last note. And, this is a big one, at normal throttle and pulling away from traffic lights, etc. it sounds like crap!!! Honestly it reminded me of a 1984 v6 camaro with that raspberry exhaust crap that they tried in the 80’s. Just horrible. Bad enough that it would make me consider not buying it were I in the market for one. The slk folding hardtop was sweet. Of course it takes up a lot of trunk space, but we were still able to fit a medium to large suitcase, a briefcase and satchel into the trunk and open the top as well. With 2 trunks it seems that the boxster would really shine with the folding hardtop. Of course it would add quite a bit of weight and that is where the trade-offs come into play. The handling of the slk was ok, but nothing spectacular. It’s a little more show than go. It had a pretty good amount of under steer and the chassis had some odd transitions when trail-braking and throttle lift. It was never really consistent. I’m not Michael Schumacher, but I found it hard to develop confidence to push the car. The one time I turned off the traction control and power slid the car yielded a bit of “tank-slapper” recovery which was not very inspiring. Lastly, I have to address the 7 speed auto-slush box. I now know why Jeremy Clarkson on top gear loathes “flappy paddle gearboxes.” The shifts in manual were slow and you had to tap the up shift or downshift before you needed it otherwise it would end up shifting as you were mid-transition and unsettle the whole chassis. Not just weird, but scary for high-speed driving. Forget any hard driving if you had it in auto-mode. It was always a gear too high (sometimes two) and would take far too long to drop down to the “right” gear. Most of the time I was already mid-apex and would suddenly find it coming on the cams. It would transition from lots of under steer to more neutral, but would do it so abruptly that it was disconcerting. I absolutely hated that tranny. In sport mode things were a little crisper, but it was still uninspiring. As it stands there is really no comparing the two cars. The boxster I have is 10 years older, but had an msrp that was only 5-8k less than the msrp on the new merc. That’s certainly something to consider. The navigation, seats and cabin were head and shoulders above what my boxster offers. The slk also had a bottomless gas tank and gave us 400 miles of hard driving before needing a refill. The slk seems to be more of a gt car. And that it does very well. 80mph on the highway was bliss. For the aging boxster driver that is tired of the pretzel shape and contortions needed to get in/out will find welcome relief in the slk. Overall I was very impressed. But, hey I think I should have been impressed by a car with a 65-70k sticker price. The newer front and rear fascias give the slk a look much closer to the bigger mercs and it no longer is the hairdresser’s car. The exhaust note and crap tranny would be the only things that would really make me question purchasing one if I were comparing it to the non-s boxster nowadays. Fwiw my wife absolutely loved it. She’d have one tomorrow. While she really likes my boxster, she’d be much happier with a slk.