It still continues to amaze me to read in the FEB/2010 issue of Automobile where the critics heap volumes of praise on the BMW Z4 and Porsche Boxster/Cayman models. Both of these made their 10 All-Stars list in this issue. With the Z4's 3.0 liter twin turbo 6 rated at 300 hp/300 lb-ft and the Porsche Cayman S having 320 hp/273 lb-ft from its 3.4 liter flat-6, both of these marques still haven't quite caught up to the Crossfire SRT-6 performance ratings for the 2005/2006 model years. (Note: I'm not convinced that the Z4 or Cayman/Boxster models out handle our cars either.)

I'm envious to those of you that have been lucky enough to have an SRT-6 in your stable and you should be proud that your 4-5 year old car still out performs the latest & greatest from the 'other guys'!

 

You can thank the tree huggers for that. The Political game of 'Climate Change' and high fuel costs are holding back the potential of these cars to make them more attractive and affordable.

 

The price/performance of an SRT6 cannot be beat. That's why I went looking for one two years ago, when low mileage and relatively low price were both available. What a great car. The ones listed above cost, what, around $60k new? And the Z4 is butt ugly. I looked at the Z3 before I bought my roadster, and I ran away from it. It was over $50k if you wanted to buy all the options (like an insulated top) that were standard on the XF.

 

Not sure what your point is or you would like for the magazine to show in the FEB 2010 issue. No SRT6 were made this year so what car(s) were you expecting to see in the magazine?

 

Didn't expect to see a XFire in the issue. Just expressed my opinion that here we have a couple of 2010 marques and they still haven't caught up to the XFire SRT-6 performance available back in 2005/2006. And even when the SRT-6 was new back then, it still was more 'bang for the buck' than the BMW or Porsche comparable models. IMHO

Thought I made that pretty clear in my original posting. Oh, well. Sometimes, communication doesn't work the way we intended it to.


Later,

 

dedwards, I got your point....keep in mind auto magazines writers seldom know squat about cars...oh they get to drive them, may even own one now and then, but what have they really done in life? Write? It's a job, nothing more. The only time I read a car magazine is when I am stuck at the doctor's office waiting...I wouldn't waste good money on any magazine. Since the internet, there isn't a reason too...you can just about find any info you want on the internet now, and, talk directly to the experts, the guys getting their hands dirty...not some want-a-be writing about something, they had to ask the experts about to begin with...and I agree in what you say...I tried out all the others as well, when looking for a sports car...was going back to a vette when I accidently stumbled onto the SRT6. I have to thank my wife for that, I wouldn't have given it a look...lol

 

I'm not sure I see the point of this thread. Lots of cars are faster than a Boxster or Z4. The magic to both cars are how they drive. A couple of years ago, I drove my crossfire back to back with a Z4 3.0. The Z4 is just a more visceral and rewarding drive. That makes the car more fun to drive. Even when you look at mercedes badged cars vs the BMW competitor, the BMW typically gets the nod because it's a better car to drive, even if the Mercedes is faster. And the Porsche? I drove a base boxster a number of years ago, and it was amazingly fun. That car was designed for the pure joy of driving and nothing else. IMO, the best part of the crossfire (that's it's a mercedes that's much better looking than almost any mercedes) is also it's achilles heal when it comes to driving dynamics. But hey, for the price our vehicles go for, it's hard to do better.

 

well, there you have it...I didn't like the boxer or the Z's none of them. But I like the sound of old muscle, so what would I know about these "sporty" cars. I am not a MB fan, although they are grt in the ride and performance dept....but, I did like the SRT for some reason...I can throw this little car around, and still have power coming out, much like the Camaro and Vettes of my day....I didn't find this in Nissans, BMWs, and others. Porsche of today might get my attn, but not a boxer....so, it is an individuals perspective when it comes to what one likes....as is true to writers in a car magazine....srt is still the bang for the buck in hp and handling...5 yrs later...his point...

 

I've driven the Boxster, Boxster S, Z3 and Z4, and none of them compare to the SLK32, which is an 9 year old car and a 13 year old design!!!!

The Boxster S is an incredible car new, but it feels terrible with age. Most of the used ones I've driven, even with very low mileage, felt like they were going to fall apart.

The Z3 was a better driving car than the 4, imo. But the clown shoe look is awful. I just can't get past the design. I like the 4, but I don't think the engine stands up to the Boxster S and AMG.

I still feel that the SLK was one of the most influential designs that has been produced recently. It brought back the roadster. The hardtop convertible has been copied by almost every single manufacturer. It's design still stands up more then a decade later. It introduced a whole new buyer to Mercedes, and because of it's success Mercedes and other luxury manufacturers instroduced entire new lines. I could go on and on, and obviously I'm biased, but I don't think the SLK has ever got the praise it deserves.

 

Did you really just say that?
The original SLK was one of the most influential designs that has been produced recently?
Oh my.
I would suggest "one of the most widely criticized designs that has been produced recently" would be more accurate.
I mean, I love my 6, and happen to love the SLK32 as well, but the original gen SLKs were generally regarded as a let down performance wise, as well as not particularly attractive. The performance was largely rectified in the 32, but it is still a general design that no other car has tried to imitate.
If no other cars tried to copy it, it seems difficult to call it influential.

 

Anyone with a little bit of car knowledge knows that it's impossible to determine the historical value of a car upon its release. Some of the most influential cars in history were panned by the press and consumers initially.

Please name some other cars that were produced in the last 20 years that had more of an impact on other manufacturer's lines than the SLK. I can come up with a couple, maybe. Almost all other manufacturers now have a roadster in its line. Almost all of them now have a hardtop convertible in its line. This is a direct result of the success of the SLK. The SLK changed how Mercedes markets some of its vehicles. It influenced the direction of the SL and C class.

I can probably name 20 cars that wouldn't have been produced if it weren't for the SLK. Show me an example of another car with this impact.

Obviously we won't know the value of these cars for another 30 or 40 years, but I think the SLK32 and the Crossfire SRT will be looked upon very favorably.

 

I'm in love with my car,
Got a feel for my automobile.....

Happy SRT owner

 

BMW Z8?
Spawned the Z3 and Z4, proved there was a market in the modern world for a high powered, 2 seater luxury convertible sports car.
I would suggest the SLK ITSELF would not have existed without it.

Saying that one feature being imitated makes a car "influential" seems unreasonable, but if you want to play that game-the first production convertible hard top was the Ford Skyliner in the fifties, and the first to repopularize it in modern times was the Mitsubishi GTO in 1995.
I therefore claim that the GTO is an "influential" car.

Don't get me wrong-I love these cars, but they were NOT regarded as any kind of success.
The SLK was widely criticized for looking bad, handling sloppily and being too heavy.
The steering is woolly and unresponsive, and the brakes fade.

I love mine anyway.

 

Obviously this is a pointless discussion, but surely you realize that a design and/or feature doesn't have to be unique or new to be influential. The design/redesign just has to be successfully implemented in a way that causes other manufacturers to take notice.

Certainly the SLK wasn't the first roadster or hardtop convertible, but its success did prove that there was a market for an entry level luxury two-seater convertible. It proved that you could have an attractive design with a hardtop convertible, and that customers wouldn't care about the lack of trunk space.

You must be the only person in history to buy their Mercedes thinking it should handle as well as a BMW and Porsche. Mercedes has never been as sporty as similar models from other performance oriented manufacturers. The SLK's flaw was that Mercedes wanted to be true to past roadsters, and thus the poorly designed interior. It was too cheap and lacked amenities.

The fact is that a decade later your beloved BMW is still playing catch-up.

 

More like ECAP bumper heights (regulating passenger strikes on your side of the pond) and a tough economy than anything else. It's hard to find a decent coupe now, period. It's even hard for board members wanting to get an SRT6 used.

Why attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by sheer stupidity?

 

When I got my SRT my wife was given the use of a Porsche Boxster S for a week. Both were brand new with low miles. The SRT was way better in my opinion. The roof on the Porsche broke twice in that week and the clutch felt like it was made of marshmellow. Not my idea of a great car. Handling didn't seem any better either.

 

Although I can't comment on the perfomance and handling characteristics of a Cayman or Cayman S I have driven a couple BMW Z4's. For me, the Z4 (3.0i) remains one of the most pleasurable and exciting driving experiences to date. I have driven or owned various performance vehicles including Ferraris and the Z4 still stands out as providing the most connected driving feel ever. I often wonder how awesome the Z4 M Roadster or M Coupe perform with the additional HP on tap. I love my SRT6 but the disconnected feel really takes away from the driving experience and I wish we had a better transmission. I would definitely recommend driving a Z4 if given the opportunity. I would be surprised if anyone wouldn't be even mildly impressed running this car through the gears and throwing it into turns.

Has anyone driven the current generation Z4? It looks larger and more refined but I'm wondering if it's more watered down than the previous generation?

 

Strange, I thought the Z3 3.0 was a lot more fun to drive than the Z4. Unfortunately I haven't driven a M Roadster, but I bet it's a blast.

The Cayman S is a fun car as long as you're driving it aggressively. It's not a great car to just cruise around town. Like the Boxster it feels like a hay-wagon, and sounds like it's going to come apart over a rough road.

 

I'm not a BMW person as such, just using an example.
I really don't see what you're doing to bolster your position.
By adding "mass market" to the description you seem to be pointing out that the Z8 was expensive. This is true, but the Z3 still came out a year earlier than the Slk, was about the same price and was successful. It was likely the Z3 that provided the impetus for the SLK, if anything.

It seems that once again you have to come back to the folding roof, as it is the the only (kind of) pioneering feature the car possessed, and I don't think that makes a car "influential".

Possibly it makes it influential in the specific area of convertible technology, but not as a car as a whole.

The first mass-market use of heated seats occurred in the Saab 99 in 1972 Does that make the 72 99 "influential"? More cars have heated seats than convertible hard tops...

Also, on the "outperform" issue-I've driven a standard 3.0 z4, and found the handling to be considerably better than the '6, though of course the straight line speed is not a patch on it.
Reviews consistently praise both the Cayman S and the Z4 for feeling like "drivers" cars while the '6 is usually described as a straight line rocket.
Even that great Road and Track article in which it comes out on top at Willow Springs pointed out that the brakes fade, the steering feels disconnected and the cornering is scary. they made it clear that it came out on top through raw power, that made up for its sub-par handling.

If you are willing to acknowledge that one copied feature is not enough to make a car influential (heated seats), and that an affordable, sporty roadster existed prior to the SLK (Z3), then I ask you again, what was influential about the car?

I bought my '6 instead of either of those others, so clearly I love it.
I am also a realist when it comes to popular opinion.

ps/
Your final comment seems to be regarding the Z8.
If so, catch up in what regard?
The Z8 was faster in a straight line as well as on a track, had a far more luxurious interior, and in the eyes of most looked far better than the SLK.

 

It's really hard to convey my point because you seem to view your minority opinion as fact.

Had the SLK not been produced, I'm not sure if the Z would've been regarded as anything but a better Miata. It was universally panned by the public for its design. The engine was god awful. Plus, BMW already had a market for lower priced "luxury" sports cars.

I'm looking at the SLK as a total package, and not just as a hardtop convertible. I was considering the impact it had on Mercedes' sales, marketing, customer base, design, and other cars it produced. I was referring to the impact it had on other manufacturers, and the preconceived notions on what the industry thought would work and what would sell.

My last comment was in reference to the '09 Z4 hardtop.


We're going to have to agree to disagree because this discussion sucks.