OK, since a Crossfire is really nothing but an SLK320 with a Chrysler body on it (much better looking in my opinion), how does the Crossfire REALLY compare to the SLK320? I just saw that there is an SLK320 (2001 model) for sale in my area for a price that seems quite low. I think that 2001 was the last year of production for the SLK320, and this one is advertised as a low mile original "factory hot rod". Were the SLK's really a faster car than the XF? I know that the SLK had the retractable hardtop, but was there anything that made them "better" or faster cars than the XF (other than Mercedes snobbery)? And why was the SLK320 discontinued in 2001 and Chrysler didn't pick it up until 2004? Seems weird to me.

 

According to Wikipedia the slk320 model run ended 2004

SLK 320 (2000–2004) - 3.2 L (3199 cc) 218 bhp (163 kW; 221 PS) V6 engine, 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds, top speed of 245 km/h (152 mph).
SLK 32 AMG (2001–2004) - 3.2 L (3199 cc) 349 bhp (260 kW; 354 PS) V6 engine, 0-62 mph in 5.2 seconds.[7]

 

Check this out:

SLK 320 vs Crossfire 3.2 : Battle 1411

 

I have owned both. The only difference l noticed is that the XF feels more taught.

 

I really would've figured with the vario roof the slk was heavier... Crazy.

 

Interesting! I guess I was wrong about the SLK320 years of production. The 2004 "end" date of that car makes a lot more sense for using it as the basis for the Crossfire. And, from the "matchup" that was posted, it appears the cars were really quite similar in performance. And, from the few listings that I have seen for the SLK320, it would also appear that their current values are quite similar. I wonder if the two cars share the same mechanical gremlins?

 

exactly the same gremlins, except for the rear window falling out on the XF Roadster .......

 

The SLK model continued after 2004 as the SLK350.

 

They are Mercedes Benz. They are great little cars just like ours. The 32's are just as fast...

 

Slk (170) cars have a lot of interior noises..rattles and such, and ride on smaller wheels with larger (taller) tires. Vario roof aside, they're basically the same...more chassis flex on the slk naturally as it doesn't have a fixed roof. I've also noticed that slk interiors don't hold up as well.

 

Paint on the interior was prone to flaking off on some of the earlier models. I think they fixed this in the later years before it became a Chryzler. I've been in 4 R170's, 2 32's, 1 320, and 1 230. None of them had the flaking problem and none of them rattled.
The Hydraulic pistons were prone to leaking too. Something they fixed when they made the R171.
The 320 had didn't have the solid seats the crossfires received. Instead the seats the base models had, except they were wrapped in leather.
The 32 and crossfires had the same seats.
The R170 had better arm rests. both were cushioned and wrapped in leather. The Crossfire door arm rests are the worst. This wasn't a big deal on short trips, but on long trips my elbows were bruised. (Yeah I'm a wuss)
The R170 had a 6 disc cd changer and a tape player.

These are the things I can remember.

 

According to Motor Trend's December 2003 comparison road test between the Crossfire Coupe automatic, and a 2003 SLK32 Automatic, titled: All In The Family, the SLK only out performed the Crossfire in the 1/4 mile because of the smaller diameter tires. It ran a 14.84 to the Crossfire's 15.18.
The Crossfire was 70lbs. lighter, stopped quicker, and ran the slalom faster, all because of its huge tires, and wheels.
They went on to say that the Crossfire suspension tuning falls on the sporty side of the fence, while the SLK's is more luxurious.

 

Automatic's?

 

So, if I put 14" rears on my NA, can I get in the 12's ?
( I'd ignore all the pointing fingers and derisive remarks )

 

No, but installing 225/50/16's on a NA "stock" automatic coupe that's weighs 70lbs less than the SLK, means it should run nearly 4/10's faster than a coupe with the stock 255/35/19's. Simply because the larger wheel and tire is more massive, and creates more rotating inertia according to the Motor Trend article. (Personally, I think the 1.17" smaller diameter tire works out to something more like a 3.45 gear ratio).
Since you own a non-stock NA roadster that's heavier than a coupe, there's no telling what your results would be.
With a 3.27 gear, nobody has broke out of the 14's in a NA car without using NOS.