Slk32
- Thread starter C240Sport97
- Start date
-
- Tags
- slk32
hmmm Try 5.0 0-60 for the latest one IF you are VERY good at changing through the gears!
SLK32 is nice and very quick has the same engine as the c32 but the SLK is lighter, but I just don't like the look of it at the back!
Now bellow is what i'm talking about it's my fav car!! It's like a small SLR and in white it looks stunning and a monster!
I saw one of these yesterday on the M1, it was in black and it really was stunning.
BenzedUP
MB Enthusiast
These are unreliable sources to be fair, plus these tests are all done in the USA.
All the ones you listed before like Top gear, Evo and autocar and even parkers have said it's between 5 to 5.2secs and they can't all be wrong! Anyway who cares It still looks ugly car in my opinion, looks like it's been choped at the back!! I'd much rather have a SLK55 AMG anyday even if the slk did 0-60 in 20secs, it's just so beautiful with the AMG kit!
LowMilerAMG
Active Member
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 265
I think a couple of the US mags got the SLK32's time down to 4.3 -4.4 secs but Autocar tested it at 4.9 to 60 and thats each and every time
US Mercedes brouchers quote 4.8 for the sprint and it was at one time the fastest Mercedes Road car until the SL55! Great little cars for straight line speed but could really do with a LSD to make the best of avaliable traction as the ESP can pull you back quite a bit at times
US Mercedes brouchers quote 4.8 for the sprint and it was at one time the fastest Mercedes Road car until the SL55! Great little cars for straight line speed but could really do with a LSD to make the best of avaliable traction as the ESP can pull you back quite a bit at times
The reason the slk trounced the m3 is purely because of the torque of the supercharger just like when a turbo diesel comes on cam and then really shifts.
As vehicles were already moving this is where the supercharger wins in the real world.
Same as my car is quick as hell from a standing start but mid range is dissapointing until you get the revs up again.
Lynall
As vehicles were already moving this is where the supercharger wins in the real world.
Same as my car is quick as hell from a standing start but mid range is dissapointing until you get the revs up again.
Lynall
horsesuitedfool
Active Member
Yes this does make sense however i had changed down to 4th and had the revs at about 5k so when we both floored it i was right in the zone where the double vanos system kicks in and all hell brakes loose right up to the red line and yet still the SLK just tore away from me!!!
horsesuitedfool
Active Member
BMW M Coupe - 4.3 0-60
Those M Coupes are not as quick as that in standard form......Plus they look like one of those old Hovis bread delivery vans, which is not high on anyone's list of desires......!!
Don't make me dig through, scan and post an Evo from 11 years ago
I stand by this one - an M Coupe will do 0-62mph in 4.3 seconds, in standard form (the later one with the non-explodey con rods). Probably with Michelin semi slicks, but still.
I stand by this one - an M Coupe will do 0-62mph in 4.3 seconds, in standard form (the later one with the non-explodey con rods). Probably with Michelin semi slicks, but still.
horsesuitedfool
Active Member
Don't make me dig through, scan and post an Evo from 11 years ago
I stand by this one - an M Coupe will do 0-62mph in 4.3 seconds, in standard form (the later one with the non-explodey con rods). Probably with Michelin semi slicks, but still.
I found quite a few places saying it can do 4.3......although all in the states strangely, not sure why that is relevant!! I stand corrected i think, maybe they can do it that quickly...
But having beaten one in my TT that was Quattro 300BHP and having had an EVO M3 and also two E46 M3s i still think one of those little SLK32 AMGs would murder it.......
Doesnt the C32 AMG famously have official performance timed 0-60 of 5.2 or similar yet Autocar couldnt get it to do it any slower than 4.2 or something??? Imagine that in an SLK with that engine......
horsesuitedfool
Active Member
Agreed, their performance times are usually made up and well on the side of caution....
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 29,471
- Location
- Mittel England
- Car
- Smart ForFour AMG Black Series Night Edition Premium Plus 125 Powered by Brabus
I found quite a few places saying it can do 4.3......although all in the states strangely, not sure why that is relevant!! I stand corrected i think, maybe they can do it that quickly...
Some irregularity may result from US publishing 0-60mph, UK publishing 0-60mph or 0-62mph, and Europe publishing 0-100km/h.
The C32 AMG was indeed quoted as 0-62mph in 5.2 seconds in the brochures, and Autocar tested it at 0-60mph in 4.6 seconds, and 0-100mph in 10.8 seconds.
Source: http://c32life.com/C32reviews/autocar/617d9410005.jpg
For reference they also tested the W211 E55 AMG at 4.6 and 10.6 seconds respectively.
I have the SLK32 figures at home - if memory serves it's about 4.9 and 11.X respectively but I'd need to check.
I suspect part of the reason manufacturers publish slower figures than reality is to avoid cheaper AMGs being as quick as - or quicker than - more expensive AMGs. These days they overcome it with limiting power output of the 6.2 AMG V8 with a difference of around 50bhp between the C63 and the flagship models.
