New MX5 or 2000 SLK320?

[lhalha]

Hi there

I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it (albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.

The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my face....

The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the Merc?

Discuss.

Thanks people :-)

lhalha

[Ext User(Neil Gerace)]

"lhalha" <lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au...


> The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
> perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
> low mileage and "one lady owner".

Hopefully not one like Emma Peel or Batgirl :)

.. It looks a bit dated with the roof
> up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
> down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
> face....
>
> The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
> the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
> Merc?

Well, I've never driven an SLK, but I think I would have more fun in the
Mazda, because they handle like go-karts, or rather, they're supposed to.

[Ext User(EMC2)]

buy the MX5 and then spend 5K on a turbo upgrade :P

5K change and something a bit faster


>
>Hi there
>
>I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my
>first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am
>looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it
>(albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and
>my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's
>very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.
>
>The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
>perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
>low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof
>up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
>down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
>face....
>
>The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
>the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
>Merc?
>
>Discuss.
>
>Thanks people :-)
>
>lhalha
>
>
>--
>lhalha
>
>

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

lhalha wrote:

> Hi there
>
> I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my
> first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am
> looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it
> (albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and
> my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's
> very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.
>
> The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
> perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
> low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof
> up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
> down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
> face....
>
> The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
> the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
> Merc?
>
> Discuss.
>
> Thanks people :-)

I think our recommendations should be based on your idea of a sports car when
you admit to liking the auto merc.

You will have a lot more fun in a manual MX5 than in an auto merc, but the merc
will probably be easier to live with if you want a lazy drive to work most days.

The merc would surely be much more expensive to maintain.
--
Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[Ext User(Neil Gerace)]

"Ben Thomas" <nosp@m.thanks.mate> wrote in message
news:c1gj23-i8c.ln1@centauri.unico.com.au...

> The merc would surely be much more expensive to maintain.

I would say so. Just about *any* roadster would be more expensive to own
than an MX-5, I reckon.

[lhalha]

I think our recommendations should be based on your idea of a sports car when
you admit to liking the auto merc.


I did put "sports" in inverted commas though ;-) And it is a tiptronic so there is at least some potential for novelty psuedo gear changing. Your comment on servicing is something I had been trying not to think about - but at around 50,00 km on the clock, it has recently had a "B" service ($700) and will only require an "A" service ($400) at some point over the next year. Tyres are brand new and should last me the length of time I'll be owning it.

Compared to the Mazda which will come with what amounts to a 7 year warranty, no maintenance required (hopefully) and cheap servicing. New Car smell and much lower fuel consumption....

It's a weird choice to find myself making - but there really doesn't seem to be much else to try and balance the mazda out with. Don't want a used honda, don't like the Z3, can't afford a Z4 or 350Z.... Really want a Boxster S but that aint gonna happen so this is why I have found myself deliberating overthis unlikely pair!

[Ext User(Ben Thomas)]

lhalha wrote:

> Ben Thomas Wrote:
>
>>
>>I think our recommendations should be based on your idea of a sports
>>car when
>>you admit to liking the auto merc.
>>
>
>
> I did put "sports" in inverted commas though ;-) And it is a tiptronic
> so there is at least some potential for novelty psuedo gear changing.
> Your comment on servicing is something I had been trying not to think
> about - but at around 50,00 km on the clock, it has recently had a "B"
> service ($700) and will only require an "A" service ($400) at some
> point over the next year. Tyres are brand new and should last me the
> length of time I'll be owning it.
>
> Compared to the Mazda which will come with what amounts to a 7 year
> warranty, no maintenance required (hopefully) and cheap servicing. New
> Car smell and much lower fuel consumption....
>
> It's a weird choice to find myself making - but there really doesn't
> seem to be much else to try and balance the mazda out with. Don't want
> a used honda, don't like the Z3, can't afford a Z4 or 350Z.... Really
> want a Boxster S but that aint gonna happen so this is why I have found
> myself deliberating overthis unlikely pair!
>
>

Alfa 147 GTA? 3.2 V6 and very sexy.

--
Ben Thomas - Melbourne, Australia
Opinions, conclusions, and other information in this message that do not
relate to the official business of my employer shall be understood as neither
given nor endorsed by it.

[lhalha]

did I mention it has to be a convertible? Thanks guys.

[Ext User(v)]

Honda S2000?

"lhalha" <lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> Hi there
>
> I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my
> first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am
> looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it
> (albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and
> my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's
> very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.
>
> The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
> perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
> low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof
> up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
> down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
> face....
>
> The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
> the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
> Merc?
>
> Discuss.
>
> Thanks people :-)
>
> lhalha
>
>
> --
> lhalha

[lhalha]

I'm not really a Honda fan and would assume a used S2000 to have been potentially well thrashed, as by all accounts they demand to be driven hard. Comfort levels don't sound ideal either. I agree that they are great looking vehicles though. And of course, I have never actually driven one....

[Ext User(Dan---)]

On Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:52:36 +1000, lhalha wrote:

>
> I'm not really a Honda fan and would assume a used S2000 to have been
> potentially well thrashed, as by all accounts they demand to be driven
> hard. Comfort levels don't sound ideal either. I agree that they are great
> looking vehicles though. And of course, I have never actually driven
> one....

Also you would have to put up with the cruddy digital dashboard as well.
But yeah you would have to push em hard to get any performance out of them.


--
Regards
Dan

[lhalha]

The one I am looking at has a weird, kind of polished aluminium sparkly checkerboard pattern all over the console surrounding the gearstick, stereo etc. Kind of like you would expect to find on a fairground ride, and fairly reminiscent of the stickers I used to put on my pencil case.

Any one know if this is this the standard trim for a 2000 SLK320? It's pretty bloody weird!

[Ext User(mf1@project1221.com)]

lhalha wrote:
> I'm not really a Honda fan and would assume a used S2000 to have been
> potentially well thrashed, as by all accounts they demand to be driven
> hard. Comfort levels don't sound ideal either. I agree that they are
> great looking vehicles though. And of course, I have never actually
> driven one....
>
>
> --
> lhalha

<<<<I'm not really a Honda fan

AMEN to that

[Ext User(Charlie)]

I'd have the mazda for it's handling goodness and fun. If it was too
slow I'd fix it so it wasn't.
What about a used turbo mx5?

Charlie

[Ext User(mf1@project1221.com)]

Other than the price they have nothing in common

The base SLK is no *sports* car, unless you go for a burn in the
current AMG V8 which is a 100% ANIMAL, but it is around $160k so not in
your price range.....for now [finance boy finance...].
Its insane fast, as in brutal, you will shit yourself its a rocket and
sounds horn to boot.

I would rather the old SLK even a 200SLK/4 over the new MX5 but it is a
bit hairdresser, car but most importantly a chick magnet and the metal
folding roof is full genius something the MX5 will never have/be

Just watch the micro switches in the folding roof of the SLK, they just
stop working when they feel like it and the roof will stop at/in any
position [ouch!].Dont get paranoid about it and deal with it when it
happens or just run around with it shut or opened and stop playing with
it.

For mine the SLK by miles, but in the end its your choice [get the
AMG!:-)]

CHEERS




lhalha wrote:
> Hi there
>
> I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my
> first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am
> looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it
> (albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and
> my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's
> very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.
>
> The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
> perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
> low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof
> up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
> down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
> face....
>
> The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
> the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
> Merc?
>
> Discuss.
>
> Thanks people :-)
>
> lhalha
>
>
> --
> lhalha

[lhalha]

For mine the SLK by miles, but in the end its your choice [get the
AMG!:-)]

CHEERS


Excellent - that is just the sort of crazy arsed reply I am looking for - Nice one :-)))

This is the 3.2 V6 we are talking about remember, as used in the base model S class of the time... so in the roadster it does a pretty good job. Whilst standing next to the new AMG350 (I think) at the motor show on monday, I just had to try and imagine being there 5 years previously when this car was brand new and top of the range. The owner paid 120k for it on the road in July 2000..... I like the thought of that ;-)

[Ext User(Fraser Johnston)]

"lhalha" <lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhalha.1x6hf6@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> Hi there
>
> I am trying to toss up between purchasing the above 2 cars. This is my
> first "sports" car so I guess I am still trying to work out what I am
> looking for.... The Mazda seemed a little slow when I test drove it
> (albeit with only 57 km on the clock, a full tank and 2 passengers) and
> my other car is a Magna Wagon so I am used to that V6 power... but it's
> very comfortable and of course has reviewed well.
>
> The SLK has all the power I need, the electric metal roof, and is in
> perfect condition. Of course it is an auto and it's 5 years old but has
> low mileage and "one lady owner". It looks a bit dated with the roof
> up, but roof down I reckon it's still got it. And when I put my foot
> down on the Bondi overpass... that noise certainly put a smlie on my
> face....
>
> The SLK is 10k more than the Mazda, but sitting in the Mazda again at
> the motor show I thought to myself - will I have 10k more fun in the
> Merc?
>
> Discuss.
>
> Thanks people :-)

The MX-5 will probably be better built, more fun to drive and hold it's
value better. Of course it doesn't have a Mercedes badge though.

Fraser

[Ext User(D Walford)]

lhalha wrote:
> I'm not really a Honda fan and would assume a used S2000 to have been
> potentially well thrashed, as by all accounts they demand to be driven
> hard. Comfort levels don't sound ideal either. I agree that they are
> great looking vehicles though. And of course, I have never actually
> driven one....
>
>
I'd take a Honda over any Mazda but I'm not a Mazda fan:-)
My son had 2 Preludes and they were excellent cars, sports cars are
meant to be revved to get performance, learning how to drive one
properly is half the fun.
If you want low down torque buy a diesel or a V8.



Daryl

[Ext User(Allan A)]

Sounds like partial carbon fibre interior trim.

Some of the top range Euro cars (and maybe others also) offer this as one of
the trim options - typically dark or light timber (maple or walnut),
aluminium, carbon fibre, leather. Often as a partial (some areas only) or
full option. Along with things like different coloured instrument faces or
seat belts or crests embossed in the headrests.

Cost is normally extra $000s as an original option, but doesn't reflect in
the resale value so next buyer gets it for next to nothing extra.

The owners manual or original delivery papers (if available) should have the
codes for the factory fitted options, or they may be on a sticker fixed
somewhere on the car. A Merc dealer would be able to tell you what they
mean.

Allan A


"lhalha" <lhalha.1x6tx3@no-mx.phorums.com.au> wrote in message
news:lhalha.1x6tx3@no-mx.phorums.com.au...
>
> The one I am looking at has a weird, kind of polished aluminium sparkly
> checkerboard pattern all over the console surrounding the gearstick,
> stereo etc. Kind of like you would expect to find on a fairground ride,
> and fairly reminiscent of the stickers I used to put on my pencil
> case.
>
> Any one know if this is this the standard trim for a 2000 SLK320? It's
> pretty bloody weird!
>
>
> --
> lhalha

[Ext User(Stan Marsh)]

> The MX-5 will probably be better built, more fun to drive and hold it's
> value better. Of course it doesn't have a Mercedes badge though.
>
> Fraser
>

You have to remember that the SLK has already taken a huge resale hit - I
assume the price would now be on a much slower decline.

Whereas, you'll instantly lose thousands on the brand new MX-5.

Purely IMHO
Pete