 | |
'03 E320 vs '89 300E
Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz Cars Discussions (alt.auto.mercedes)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#11
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: '03 E320 vs '89 300E -
04-17-2007
, 07:05 PM
| Bottom line; my wife let me buy it  |
an automatic, personally want a manual, so that she can drive it 'IF' the
mood might strike her to drive it.... bad back - she says.
Quote:
|
Actually I looked closely at the boxster, the audi TT and the honda as well as the SLK. The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding HT. |
reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in particular
after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should wont
hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car so gas
usage isn't a bit concern.
Quote:
|
I did not like the audi Fwd/4WD it felt funny and seemed to have oversteer. The boxster was a much more refined (fun) sports car, but would not be as practical. The Honda was nice, but under powered (like the SLK230) and had very little in the way of creature comforts. I would like to have found an SLK32 AMG, but no such luck (maybe someday). I ended up finding a 2002 SLK320 with the sports package, zenons etc. for under Edmunds trade in value, so I (quick like a bunny) bought it before my wife had time to reconsider . It is an automatic, so mywife could drive it, but she won't want to (does not feel safe). I love the car, but three caveats; 1) it is like riding a motorcycle, people cannot/will not see you and will pull out in front of you, run into you changing lanes etc. 2) Do not pull in too far in a parking space. The AMG bumper is expensive and not very forgiving. 3) With the top down there is *very* little trunk space. The exhaust note could be a bit better, and I may have the resonator removed. I would like to add the aftermarket one touch top converter rather than having to hold the switch. |
cheers, guenter
#12
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <S19Vh.23452$254.11238 (AT) bignews7 (DOT) bellsouth.net>, me <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote: |
Quote:
|
The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding HT. I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in particular after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should wont hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car so gas usage isn't a bit concern. |
I can drive from RTP, North Carolina to Atlanta (~5 hours) and still
walk when I get there. I knew I could not do that in the porsche or
honda (stiffer suspension), I might have been able to do that in the
audi, but the hard top, heated seats, rear wheel drive and decent HP
etc. on the SLK, sold me.
The 3.2 is a "torque-y" engine and the quasi manual slush box is fun
once you get use to it (I passed some bicyclists today "downshifting"
and braking before I got to them, once it was safe to pass, I could
wind it out a bit selecting the upshift at around 6 grand. It sounded
good. The top was down, life is good. All I need is my hair back
Even with the more comfortable ride, the car corners very well, it
goes where you point it with good manners. It is well balanced and
really "happy" on a back road at about 80 mph
I definitelyrecommend the "sport" package (wheels). It is fun but *not* a porsche,
though.
I don't drive that much either, but with this car on days like today,
I am looking for excuses. After time, I may be able to get my wife in
the car. She refuses to let me have a motorcycle
Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car?
#13
| |||
| |||
|
|
"Guenter Scholz" <scholz (AT) sciborg (DOT) uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message news:f03nbs$dm0$1 (AT) rumours (DOT) uwaterloo.ca... In article <S19Vh.23452$254.11238 (AT) bignews7 (DOT) bellsouth.net>, me <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) net> wrote: The SLK320 won mainly because of two things: 1) it is more comfortable, and 2) creature comfort is much better; it has a folding HT. I guess, the competition between these is to be expected. Your two reasons are exactly why I'm leaning toward the SLK and the 320 in particular after noting how rough the 4 cylinders run and the extra zip should wont hurt - especially since I won't be putting a ton of miles on the car so gas usage isn't a bit concern. Not only that but it is comfortable. I can drive from RTP, North Carolina to Atlanta (~5 hours) and still walk when I get there. I knew I could not do that in the porsche or honda (stiffer suspension), I might have been able to do that in the audi, but the hard top, heated seats, rear wheel drive and decent HP etc. on the SLK, sold me. The 3.2 is a "torque-y" engine and the quasi manual slush box is fun once you get use to it (I passed some bicyclists today "downshifting" and braking before I got to them, once it was safe to pass, I could wind it out a bit selecting the upshift at around 6 grand. It sounded good. The top was down, life is good. All I need is my hair back Even with the more comfortable ride, the car corners very well, it goes where you point it with good manners. It is well balanced and really "happy" on a back road at about 80 mph I definitelyrecommend the "sport" package (wheels). It is fun but *not* a porsche, though. I don't drive that much either, but with this car on days like today, I am looking for excuses. After time, I may be able to get my wife in the car. She refuses to let me have a motorcycle Did I mention it is comfortable for a sports car? |
#14
| |||
| |||
|
|
...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK! cheers, guenter ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to crawl out of the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what you mean re comfort in the SLK. Right, but driving the boxster "S" for me is aerobic exercise |
#15
| |||
| |||
|
|
...... all good points. You've sold me on the 320 SLK! cheers, guenter ps, did in fact try a Boxster last night... geez, almost had to crawl out of the seat after the drive, which was pretty 'bumpy' .... I see what you mean re comfort in the SLK. [...] |
#16
| |||
| |||
|
|
Have you considered a CLK Cab to get even more space? Again, at least the 3.2 l engine. Very popular in London. It's almost practical, even... at least it's the least impractical of the impractical cars... DAS |
along... mistake. Should have given it to her for a birthday present :-)
Seems only a practical sedan will do ... I then decided on a 2003 E320 (the
newer style, and I like to buy a bit older since I'm cheap) didn't particular
like it and TOWMBO thought it was on the gaudy side inside wht with all the
wood trim, swoops etc, I liked it, but who am I to argue. I've now decided to
get the A/C on my 300E (89) fixed.... that was her major problem with it since
she in fact likes the 2nd gear start and the fairly plain/practical inside
along with lot's of room and very quiet engine. Sooooo, maybe I'm allowed to
buy 'her' a little sports car like the SLK 320 .... she's going to NY with
our daughter for 10 days soon and I'm planning to possible have something
at home when she get's back and try to weather the storm....
- cheers, guenter
#17
| |||
| |||
|
|
The M-B V-6 is a 90 degree "V" with a counter rotating balance shaft that's supposed to cancel the engine's inherent imbalance. A 60 degree V6 needs no counter shaft, cylinders fire every 60 degrees of rotation so the motor IS in a balanced state. A V-8 is even smoother as a cylinder fires every 45 degrees of rotation. A 60 degree V-12 is even smoother. And a straight six has no balance problem either for each cylinder fires at 60 degrees and the cylinders are in a single row. I believe that's the reason you felt the M-B V-6 was harsher than your straight six, one of the smoothest sixes, IMHO. |
Reg: Harri
#18
| |||
| |||
|
|
Hi All I drove the '03 E320 today and found myself rather disapointed compared to my old '89 300E. What am I missing here? it seemed to me that the engine was not as smooth, almost a buzzy quality when accelerating... definitely not as quiet as my old warhorse. then driving a V6 Camery and comparing the two, I didn't think there was all that much difference, ie the front wheel drive was rather similar wrt engine noise during acceleration. I'm starting to wonder if aluminum based engines are inherently noiser compared to the old cast iron ones.... anyway, rather disapointed. Anyone have any thoughts? |
300E has a siple mechanical accelerating pedal but new one has
electrical and a computer between pedal and engine.
I had before a really great 190E 2,6 but now there is a E240 with V6
engine.
Reg: Harri
#19
| |||
| |||
|
#20
| |||
| |||
|
|
Dory, I was ready to purchase one and took the one who must be obeyed along... mistake. Should have given it to her for a birthday present :-) Seems only a practical sedan will do ... I then decided on a 2003 E320 (the newer style, and I like to buy a bit older since I'm cheap) didn't particular like it and TOWMBO thought it was on the gaudy side inside wht with all the wood trim, swoops etc, I liked it, but who am I to argue. I've now decided to get the A/C on my 300E (89) fixed.... that was her major problem with it since she in fact likes the 2nd gear start and the fairly plain/practical inside along with lot's of room and very quiet engine. Sooooo, maybe I'm allowed to buy 'her' a little sports car like the SLK 320 .... she's going to NY with our daughter for 10 days soon and I'm planning to possible have something at home when she get's back and try to weather the storm.... - cheers, guenter |
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.