Comparison: New Mercedes SLK vs BMW Z4

BlueZ4AZ · 01-20-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guydude

Agreed

I have a real good optometrist here in Phoenix I can suggest.

BlueZ4AZ · 01-20-2011, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by samchoi604

I'm a great fan of the Z4 but I have to admit, the SLK looks much better than before and even better than the Z4.

I have a real good optometrist here in Phoenix I can suggest.

Reliableron · 01-20-2011, 07:19 PM

Hi - first post.
I'll start by saying I own a Crossfire roadster (bastard child of Chrysler and Mercedes based on slk/clk/c-class mechanicals and built by Karmann in Germany)
I have been looking at buying an E89 Z4 for the last month and it is a beautiful car- l have not been able to find a bad angle on it - it flows smoothly like the Z8 but has a meaner look to it. I am sure it will remain a classic.
I've always wondered why Mercedes couldn't come up with something that was close to the good looks of the Crossfire roadsters. The new SLK is much better than the large nosed thing it replaces but doesn't look nearly as cohesive as the Z4. I can see trading up to a new Z4 but not much chance for the SLK.
Ron

maxzander · 01-20-2011, 07:55 PM

both also very nice...im want both!!! i already got the z4,so now it's time to get the new slk... ^__^

Mr. ///M3 RD · 01-21-2011, 10:06 AM

2011Z4

You asked a question in the HPFP Thread ... I quote ....

"To risk more off-topic hate....Z4 35i vs. SLK350?

Thoughts?

I need to make a decision within 2 weeks, to order one by the time the lease on my 335i is up."

End Quote.

To get the true reply to this question you need to drive both and then decide. I for one will very seriously look at the SLK 350 once I decide to change my Z4 35i.

I say this because of the RFT on my Z4 I very strongly believe that the RFT are the main cause (combined with the 2.5 degree camber on the rear wheels) of my 2 rear wheels having suffered cracks after only 18,000 KM.

I regret that I have not researched the forum on the tire issue and the 19 inch wheel cracks before purchasing my Z4 (my bad). If I had researched this issue I would have purchased the SLK 350 in a heartbeat.

So my advise to you if you go to a Z4 then order it with 18" wheels NOT 19" Google "UK Watchdog Cracked Wheels" and read all about it. Further if you do purchase a Z4 change the RFT to None-RFT as soon as you can as so many other people have done.

So as I've said it is your decision, you are the best judge after you take both for a good spin.

Cheers,

Rolf-Dieter

PS. The Z4 is a wonderful car now that I run on None-RFT

maxzander · 04-04-2011, 11:19 AM

i wan the z4 which has r172 slk auto tint magic roof function!! tat is soooo coool!

Frank Costanza · 04-04-2011, 06:27 PM

I've seen the new SLK in person a few times and it definitely looks fresh again though I still don't believe that the new SLK exterior looks better than the Z4. More importantly the interior of the Z4 with the extended leather is light years ahead of the new SLk in terms of design and execution

The best feature is the SLK's vario roof but it's an expensive option which I'm sure most SLK's will not come equipped with. Other than that the roof actually looks identical to the outgoing SLK. The second biggest advantage the SLK has is AIRScarf. That feature kicks ass and I really wish BMW had incorporated that into the E89.

Once they're in showrooms I'll go take one out. Generally speaking I prefer Mercedes over BMW but with the E89 I think BMW really hit a home run.

Mr. ///M3 RD · 04-04-2011, 11:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by benn.

I'm pretty sure the current z4 was designed by women both inside and out..
Also.. just thought i'd add since we are on a bmw forum it's not a surprise that most votes go to the z4... but IMHO the slk is so much nicer.

You are not telling me anything new my friend. I was in München on May 9th 2009 when BMW introduced the Z4 with the retractable roof to the Germans ... I fell in love with it then and purchased a 2008 Z4 30is then traded up to a 2009 Z4 35i ... that ended in bitter disappointment for me ... so I am back in a M3

My next car may very well be the new SLK I will test driver her in the Summer and let you know

Mr. ///M3 RD · 04-04-2011, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frank Costanza

I've seen the new SLK in person a few times and it definitely looks fresh again though I still don't believe that the new SLK exterior looks better than the Z4. More importantly the interior of the Z4 with the extended leather is light years ahead of the new SLk in terms of design and execution

The best feature is the SLK's vario roof but it's an expensive option which I'm sure most SLK's will not come equipped with. Other than that the roof actually looks identical to the outgoing SLK. The second biggest advantage the SLK has is AIRScarf. That feature kicks ass and I really wish BMW had incorporated that into the E89.

Once they're in showrooms I'll go take one out. Generally speaking I prefer Mercedes over BMW but with the E89 I think BMW really hit a home run.

Frank, I agree with you 100% my daily car is a C350 4MATIC and a fine automobile. I don't know why everyone slams the Mercedes it is a fine car company. Something to be said about being bias ... I've driven BMW's for more then 20 years ... I think my M3 with normal tires will be my last

Mr. ///M3 RD · 04-04-2011, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

We actually have 332 HP in the 35i. It's already been proven with Dynos.

My friend you have 300 HP and be happy with it

BlueZ4AZ · 04-08-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

My friend you have 300 HP and be happy with it

I am happy with the 300 and then 10% happier, because it has already been proven as a fact that BMW underestimated the HP on the 35i. Same for the 35is. The 35i has consistently dynoed at 332 HP+/-. It feels like it has more than 300 HP, and low and behold...it does!!!! ....an extra 32 to be exact, and I am very happy with all 32 of them.

It is a fact that manufacturers from time to time will over or underestimate HP. Basically they can and will twist the truth in whatever direction ultimately benefits them. The Nissan GT-R is another example of underestimating HP. The 2011 GT-R was rated at only 485 HP. What a joke.

integraworks · 04-09-2011, 09:21 AM

Why would any manufacturer or high end, performance autos 'estimate' their horsepower? If they have the facilities to manufacture the engines etc surely they have the technology to map and measure the output. Also why would any OEM want to understate horse power... that just does not make any sense at all.

richard in NC · 04-09-2011, 09:41 AM

In the 60s, insurance costs were tied to HP. Most manufactures under-rated their muscle cars to keep owner's costs down, and avoid bad reputations of over powered cars. That is probably still the case.

However, there are much tighter guidelines for HP ratings today. The guidelines are to prevent over-rating the cars but it is still better to under rate them. If you recall, they just changed the standard a few years back. Japanese cars lost up to 20 HP but BMW ratings didn't change a bit. Plus BMW is very conservative in many ways, to avoid law suits, and unrealistic expectations.

BlueZ4AZ · 04-09-2011, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by richard in NC

In the 60s, insurance costs were tied to HP. Most manufactures under-rated their muscle cars to keep owner's costs down, and avoid bad reputations of over powered cars. That is probably still the case.

However, there are much tighter guidelines for HP ratings today. The guidelines are to prevent over-rating the cars but it is still better to under rate them. If you recall, they just changed the standard a few years back. Japanese cars lost up to 20 HP but BMW ratings didn't change a bit. Plus BMW is very conservative in many ways, to avoid law suits, and unrealistic expectations.

Integraworks,

What he said.

Mr. ///M3 RD · 04-09-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueZ4AZ

I am happy with the 300 and then 10% happier, because it has already been proven as a fact that BMW underestimated the HP on the 35i. Same for the 35is. The 35i has consistently dynoed at 332 HP+/-. It feels like it has more than 300 HP, and low and behold...it does!!!! ....an extra 32 to be exact, and I am very happy with all 32 of them.

It is a fact that manufacturers from time to time will over or underestimate HP. Basically they can and will twist the truth in whatever direction ultimately benefits them. The Nissan GT-R is another example of underestimating HP. The 2011 GT-R was rated at only 485 HP. What a joke.

I loved to drive the Z4 the power was amazing when ever I hit the throttle I knew there was more then one needed in way of HP under the hood.

As to your comment about more or less HP estimate, there is no such thing. The horsepower of any new model is carefully checked once they develop the engine. If your car develops more then specified it simply means you have a very good engine under the hood. The difference you see is what is referred to as "accumulative tolerances" there are many fine machined parts in your engine and if the running clearances on your car are a bit tighter then the result will be a better performance output. You see no two engines are the same no mechanical part machined is ever exactly the same and if it is just a slight difference of a dimension such as say 0.0002"

So sorry I cannot agree when you say "It is a fact that manufacturers from time to time will over or underestimate HP. Basically they can and will twist the truth in whatever direction ultimately benefits them"

BlueZ4AZ · 04-10-2011, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

I loved to drive the Z4 the power was amazing when ever I hit the throttle I knew there was more then one needed in way of HP under the hood.

As to your comment about more or less HP estimate, there is no such thing. The horsepower of any new model is carefully checked once they develop the engine. If your car develops more then specified it simply means you have a very good engine under the hood. The difference you see is what is referred to as "accumulative tolerances" there are many fine machined parts in your engine and if the running clearances on your car are a bit tighter then the result will be a better performance output. You see no two engines are the same no mechanical part machined is ever exactly the same and if it is just a slight difference of a dimension such as say 0.0002"

So sorry I cannot agree when you say "It is a fact that manufacturers from time to time will over or underestimate HP. Basically they can and will twist the truth in whatever direction ultimately benefits them"

Now....this may come as a shock and I probabaly speak for 100's of other 35i and 35is owners when I say this - I don't really give a sh&^ about what any former or non 35i/35is owner's OPINION is about the HP (and several other aspects of the car). Nor do they influence what I believe. I feel no need for me to to continue this conversations any further. Sorry.

cdeslandes · 04-10-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolf-Dieter

I loved to drive the Z4 the power was amazing when ever I hit the throttle I knew there was more then one needed in way of HP under the hood.

As to your comment about more or less HP estimate, there is no such thing. The horsepower of any new model is carefully checked once they develop the engine. If your car develops more then specified it simply means you have a very good engine under the hood. The difference you see is what is referred to as "accumulative tolerances" there are many fine machined parts in your engine and if the running clearances on your car are a bit tighter then the result will be a better performance output. You see no two engines are the same no mechanical part machined is ever exactly the same and if it is just a slight difference of a dimension such as say 0.0002"

So sorry I cannot agree when you say "It is a fact that manufacturers from time to time will over or underestimate HP. Basically they can and will twist the truth in whatever direction ultimately benefits them"

The N54 engine (twin turbos) has been dyno'ed many times in excess of 325 bhp, often as high as 330. This by folks including Dinan.

The N55 (single twin-scroll turbo) delivers much closer to the adversised 300 bhp.

This has even been confirmed by my BMW dealership.

Frank Costanza · 04-11-2011, 12:36 AM

You guys that think N54's make 300HP exactly and every HP rating claimed by the manufacturer is precise are naive.

If you take the time to educate yourselves you'll see that these motors are consistently making 320+HP stock.

Another example of bogus factory HP ratings had to do with the V8 Kompressor 55K motors. Some were rated at 469, others 476 and 493 by the factory. In reality they were making 500+HP.

I don't know why companies do this, but its not an uncommon occurrence.

Dr Stig 2 · 04-11-2011, 11:11 PM

My view is that they play it safe based on fuel standards.
The top gear show tested the same high performance engine (an Evo) with different fuels an found very noticeable performance increases with the better fuels.
Manufacturers aim low to cope with poor fuel standards.

That being said. In the old days japan had a gentleman's agreement of 206kW for all cars to keep the government happy.
They produced lots of high end motors and simply said they matched the 206 cap, independent of their real power level.
This wasn't BMW though.

Mr. ///M3 RD · 04-16-2011, 01:36 PM

bump

just in case any of you had no opportunity to see the SLK at an auto show, here is what I captured in the Toronto auto show

turndown the sound and sorry for the first 15 seconds of the video at the start it was not to be there I am still a beginner in taking and editing clips

Clip at the 2011 Toronto Auto Show featuring the 2011 SLK 350 in red

tranquility · 04-16-2011, 01:59 PM

Is MB intentionally trying to make the SLK look uglier? The front of the old one looks much better (it was the best angle of the car imo); the rear hasn't significantly changed; the sides look extremely pedestrian and seems quite high off the ground; the list goes on. I don't see anywhere where it's better-looking than the Z4...maybe the steering wheel, seats and perhaps some other interior bits that I don't have a good view of... Wow...

Btw, Rolf, did you time travel? It says "2012" autoshow.

egtownsend · 05-14-2011, 09:15 PM

The Mercedes looks boring and dated, and seems cheaper in quality and feel than the BMW.

First of all, I'm not a fan of how the SLK is supposed to look like an SLS, just like I didn't like the last one trying to be an SLR. It's a mid-level luxury roadster, and it's not fooling anyone.

Building on that, the ridiculous gills and vents carved into it look silly on the sides and outer edges of the lower front fascia. Admittedly, BMW isn't entirely innocent on this count, but what little they have done on the Z4 is tremendously more discreet.

It all comes down to taste, but I'd buy the Z4 every time.

01-20-2011, 07:19 PM	#135
Reliableron Registered 0 Rep 1 Posts Drives: looking @ Z4 35i Alpine/coral Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Port Coquitlam,BC iTrader: (0)	Hi - first post. I'll start by saying I own a Crossfire roadster (bastard child of Chrysler and Mercedes based on slk/clk/c-class mechanicals and built by Karmann in Germany) I have been looking at buying an E89 Z4 for the last month and it is a beautiful car- l have not been able to find a bad angle on it - it flows smoothly like the Z8 but has a meaner look to it. I am sure it will remain a classic. I've always wondered why Mercedes couldn't come up with something that was close to the good looks of the Crossfire roadsters. The new SLK is much better than the large nosed thing it replaces but doesn't look nearly as cohesive as the Z4. I can see trading up to a new Z4 but not much chance for the SLK. Ron
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-20-2011, 07:55 PM	#136
maxzander Private 9 Rep 99 Posts Drives: z4 e89 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: singapore iTrader: (0)	both also very nice...im want both!!! i already got the z4,so now it's time to get the new slk... ^__^
	Appreciate 0 Quote

01-21-2011, 10:06 AM	#137
Mr. ///M3 RD Happy Camper 613 Rep 7,869 Posts Drives: C63 AMG & 280 SL on Weekends : Join Date: May 2010 Location: GTA, Ontario - Canada iTrader: (0) Garage List 1969 Restored Merce ... [7.50] 2011 M3 Coupe TRADED [7.34] 1987 BMW 535is [1.00] Cars from the Past [6.50] The ///M3 Engine S65 [9.59]	2011Z4 You asked a question in the HPFP Thread ... I quote .... "To risk more off-topic hate....Z4 35i vs. SLK350? Thoughts? I need to make a decision within 2 weeks, to order one by the time the lease on my 335i is up." End Quote. To get the true reply to this question you need to drive both and then decide. I for one will very seriously look at the SLK 350 once I decide to change my Z4 35i. I say this because of the RFT on my Z4 I very strongly believe that the RFT are the main cause (combined with the 2.5 degree camber on the rear wheels) of my 2 rear wheels having suffered cracks after only 18,000 KM. I regret that I have not researched the forum on the tire issue and the 19 inch wheel cracks before purchasing my Z4 (my bad). If I had researched this issue I would have purchased the SLK 350 in a heartbeat. So my advise to you if you go to a Z4 then order it with 18" wheels NOT 19" Google "UK Watchdog Cracked Wheels" and read all about it. Further if you do purchase a Z4 change the RFT to None-RFT as soon as you can as so many other people have done. So as I've said it is your decision, you are the best judge after you take both for a good spin. Cheers, Rolf-Dieter PS. The Z4 is a wonderful car now that I run on None-RFT __________________ Cheers, Rolf-Dieter Life will take us to some interesting places, fortunately The ///M3 will too with a many of us know this very well, now my C6.3 AMG with 487 HP does it too ---> Click here for some good stuff I found
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-04-2011, 11:19 AM	#138
maxzander Private 9 Rep 99 Posts Drives: z4 e89 Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: singapore iTrader: (0)	i wan the z4 which has r172 slk auto tint magic roof function!! tat is soooo coool!
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-04-2011, 06:27 PM	#139
Frank Costanza Private First Class 4 Rep 152 Posts Drives: 540i/6, Z4 35i Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Toronto iTrader: (0)	I've seen the new SLK in person a few times and it definitely looks fresh again though I still don't believe that the new SLK exterior looks better than the Z4. More importantly the interior of the Z4 with the extended leather is light years ahead of the new SLk in terms of design and execution The best feature is the SLK's vario roof but it's an expensive option which I'm sure most SLK's will not come equipped with. Other than that the roof actually looks identical to the outgoing SLK. The second biggest advantage the SLK has is AIRScarf. That feature kicks ass and I really wish BMW had incorporated that into the E89. Once they're in showrooms I'll go take one out. Generally speaking I prefer Mercedes over BMW but with the E89 I think BMW really hit a home run. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-09-2011, 09:21 AM	#144
integraworks Private 17 Rep 88 Posts Drives: 2010 Z4 s35i Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Ontario iTrader: (0)	Why would any manufacturer or high end, performance autos 'estimate' their horsepower? If they have the facilities to manufacture the engines etc surely they have the technology to map and measure the output. Also why would any OEM want to understate horse power... that just does not make any sense at all.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-09-2011, 09:41 AM	#145
richard in NC Colonel 1229 Rep 2,602 Posts Drives: 2009 Z4 35i Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Charlotte, NC iTrader: (0)	In the 60s, insurance costs were tied to HP. Most manufactures under-rated their muscle cars to keep owner's costs down, and avoid bad reputations of over powered cars. That is probably still the case. However, there are much tighter guidelines for HP ratings today. The guidelines are to prevent over-rating the cars but it is still better to under rate them. If you recall, they just changed the standard a few years back. Japanese cars lost up to 20 HP but BMW ratings didn't change a bit. Plus BMW is very conservative in many ways, to avoid law suits, and unrealistic expectations. __________________ 2020 X3M non-comp, Alpine White over black : Exec Pkg, ventilated M Sport seats, 20"s 2020 M2 Comp, Sunset Orange/Blk: Orange stitching, DCT, exec pkg, bicolor rims Gone '18 M550i, '16 X4 M40i, '15 M5, '13 X3 35i, '12 335is, '11 X5 50i, '09 Z4 35i, '08 550i, 06 X3, 06 650i, '02 M5, '99 540i
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-11-2011, 12:36 AM	#150
Frank Costanza Private First Class 4 Rep 152 Posts Drives: 540i/6, Z4 35i Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Toronto iTrader: (0)	You guys that think N54's make 300HP exactly and every HP rating claimed by the manufacturer is precise are naive. If you take the time to educate yourselves you'll see that these motors are consistently making 320+HP stock. Another example of bogus factory HP ratings had to do with the V8 Kompressor 55K motors. Some were rated at 469, others 476 and 493 by the factory. In reality they were making 500+HP. I don't know why companies do this, but its not an uncommon occurrence. __________________
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-11-2011, 11:11 PM	#151
Dr Stig 2 Criminally Insane 53 Rep 1,464 Posts Drives: Like a Demon! Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Brisbane, Australia iTrader: (0) Garage List 2010 BMW Z4 35is [10.00] 2013 BMW X5 30d [0.00]	My view is that they play it safe based on fuel standards. The top gear show tested the same high performance engine (an Evo) with different fuels an found very noticeable performance increases with the better fuels. Manufacturers aim low to cope with poor fuel standards. That being said. In the old days japan had a gentleman's agreement of 206kW for all cars to keep the government happy. They produced lots of high end motors and simply said they matched the 206 cap, independent of their real power level. This wasn't BMW though. __________________ Dr Stig 2010 Z4 35is 2011 X3 30d M Sport Australia
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-16-2011, 01:36 PM	#152
Mr. ///M3 RD Happy Camper 613 Rep 7,869 Posts Drives: C63 AMG & 280 SL on Weekends : Join Date: May 2010 Location: GTA, Ontario - Canada iTrader: (0) Garage List 1969 Restored Merce ... [7.50] 2011 M3 Coupe TRADED [7.34] 1987 BMW 535is [1.00] Cars from the Past [6.50] The ///M3 Engine S65 [9.59]	bump just in case any of you had no opportunity to see the SLK at an auto show, here is what I captured in the Toronto auto show turndown the sound and sorry for the first 15 seconds of the video at the start it was not to be there I am still a beginner in taking and editing clips Clip at the 2011 Toronto Auto Show featuring the 2011 SLK 350 in red __________________ Cheers, Rolf-Dieter Life will take us to some interesting places, fortunately The ///M3 will too with a many of us know this very well, now my C6.3 AMG with 487 HP does it too ---> Click here for some good stuff I found Last edited by Mr. ///M3 RD; 04-16-2011 at 02:33 PM.. Reason: Meant to say the 2012 SLK ... My Bad :(
	Appreciate 0 Quote

04-16-2011, 01:59 PM	#153
tranquility sportscars only 3245 Rep 3,195 Posts Drives: 2011 Z4 sDrive 35i Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Montréal iTrader: (0)	Is MB intentionally trying to make the SLK look uglier? The front of the old one looks much better (it was the best angle of the car imo); the rear hasn't significantly changed; the sides look extremely pedestrian and seems quite high off the ground; the list goes on. I don't see anywhere where it's better-looking than the Z4...maybe the steering wheel, seats and perhaps some other interior bits that I don't have a good view of... Wow... Btw, Rolf, did you time travel? It says "2012" autoshow.
	Appreciate 0 Quote

05-14-2011, 09:15 PM	#154
egtownsend Private 16 Rep 50 Posts Drives: 2013 BMW 550i Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: Long Island, NY iTrader: (0)	The Mercedes looks boring and dated, and seems cheaper in quality and feel than the BMW. First of all, I'm not a fan of how the SLK is supposed to look like an SLS, just like I didn't like the last one trying to be an SLR. It's a mid-level luxury roadster, and it's not fooling anyone. Building on that, the ridiculous gills and vents carved into it look silly on the sides and outer edges of the lower front fascia. Admittedly, BMW isn't entirely innocent on this count, but what little they have done on the Z4 is tremendously more discreet. It all comes down to taste, but I'd buy the Z4 every time.
	Appreciate 0 Quote