# SLK vs TT



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

I know that there isn't much relevance in this comparision, but anyway...

Yesterday i was getting home and when i was waiting for the elevator a silver brand new Mercedes SLK 200 was arriving at the same time and the guy was manouvering the car right beside where i was standing up. I had i good surprise on how good that car looked. For MY 09 in Brazil the SLK 200 has been offerd with the AMG exterior kit that makes the car looks almost the same as a SLK 55. 
I was amazed how agressive and purposeful that silver Merc looked. I've always been i big fan of the MK2 SLK; it was my first choice when i decided to go for a new car, i just ended up with the TT because the Merc is at the end of its life cycle. 
Of course i always thought the TT was better looking but that SLK AMG made me think twice. The long hood, short tail makes the car look almost exotic. What do you guys think, the Merc is a up with the TT in terms of style?

The car looked exactly like this:



















Of course the TT's interior wipes the floor with the SLK but in the exterior looks department they are pretty even... or what i'm saying is a big heresy?

And tell me if this white doesnt look like a million dollars?










How do you guys thing this two car compares to each other?


----------



## kingoftherodeo (Feb 10, 2010)

I agree. SLK 55 AMG looks the nuts - pretty sure clarkson drives one too so it can't be all bad to drive either!

I'm with you


----------



## sony (May 21, 2010)

it has to be the AMG though, I do prefer the TT in looks though. Proportions seem better on the TT imo.


----------



## Hoggy (May 8, 2002)

Hi, Almost P/Ex my TT for one, but as usual TT won again. 8) 
Hoggy.


----------



## pars_andy (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm personally not a fan of the merc front. Looks stunning from every other angle though.


----------



## SAJ77 (Nov 16, 2008)

pars_andy said:


> I'm personally not a fan of the merc front. Looks stunning from every other angle though.


I love the AMG version, particularly the front end...reminds me of a F1 car 8)


----------



## MINI-TTGuy (Sep 29, 2008)

kingoftherodeo said:


> I agree. SLK 55 AMG looks the nuts - pretty sure clarkson drives one too so it can't be all bad to drive either!
> 
> I'm with you


Jeremy did have one before he got his CLK Black. I thought about getting an SLK too, but then I realised that I could afford a MkII TT! No comparison - the SLK looks very, very small!


----------



## andyTT180 (Mar 19, 2010)

The SLKs a lovely looking car but I would never buy a mercedes when I was buying my mark 1 TT I had a look at a few Mercedes CLKs most were 02-03 plates and all had rusty wheel arches and I dont just mean a few bubbles they were totally covered in rust this was on cars with full service history and around the 50k miles mark, The interiors also didnt seem to wear very well many had the symbols on buttons rubbed off and for some reason on everyone I looked at the speaker covers on the doors were broken at the drivers side, This put me off ever buying a mercedes


----------



## igotone (Mar 10, 2010)

The SLK was on my short list this time - gorgeous looking car, but the interior was such a let down - and that steering wheel looks awful!


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

Tiny inside.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

,


----------



## xraytyd2 (Jan 17, 2010)

The SLK is great as it has the look of a coupe with the function of that roof to open to make it a convert, so you have the best of both world. As far at the proportions of that car its not too bad as usually the folding roof cars have big arses, which it does, bit not as bad as say a Pug.

Has to be AMG, and yes the comparision is not right as the TT and the AMG are in different leagues for price(Aus), and assume in UK as well. I like the formula 1 inspired front which does make it look distinctive. Of all the Mercs thats what I would get if I had the money, but the Mercs here are percieved as for the grey haired brigade not the young.

ON the AMG styling though the excess gille and flariing to the front are not so good as they take the styling too far. I think the pictures posted are the standard SLK which is a little nicer. Not sure about white. When I think of SLK I think Silver.


----------



## TeeTeeTwo (Jul 9, 2008)

Had a SLK 350 before my TT 2.0.

The SLK had a fantastic engine and looked good, especially with the optional 17 inch 10-spoke alloys I specced. But I can't say I've missed it since I've had the TT.

The TT is the better car by some distance.


----------



## tt-tony (May 6, 2002)

I've owned a couple of SLKs, one of each generation. The Mk1 SLK32 had a superb engine and the build quality was very good too, but it didn't handle well.

My Mk2 SLK350 was a dreadful car. It was a 2005 model and was mechanically and electrically faulty from delivery. The engine made a nice noise but used lots of oil. The interior was very poor quality compared to the TT although I liked that you sat lower in it than the TT. Only kept it about 6 months, then replaced it with my second Mk1 TT - enough said! Current TT is way better than current SLK.


----------



## barkbark (Jun 6, 2010)

I had an SLK 350 and then an SLK AMG 55 which I sold 2 months ago for a TT RS. Must say I loved the 55 but the TT RS is in my mind a better car, specifically the space inside, gearbox (the 7 speed semi-automatic on the 55 was a pain) and 4WD. However the 55 made the most wonderful growl.


----------



## hooting_owl (Sep 3, 2008)

i looked at both the slk and the tt.

slk does look good from the outside, and the vario-roof was a great temptation.

but the interior is awful - both in style and quality. the pockets on the door have the look, feel and finish of a 1970's lada. plus merc quality was at an all-time low when they designed the current slk so i figured that there were other quality shortcomings in the rest of the build.

finally, i wanted a manual transmission at that on the slk is not a good move because the 'box is not that good - and buying a manual merc is fiscal suicide.

the mk2 tdi satisfied all my needs - both head and heart were happy.

will take a serious look at the next-gen slk when it arrives.

and yes, that white slk does look fabulous.


----------



## VerTTigo (Nov 14, 2009)

barkbark said:


> I had an SLK 350 and then an SLK AMG 55 which I sold 2 months ago for a TT RS. Must say I loved the 55 but the TT RS is in my mind a better car, specifically the space inside, gearbox (the 7 speed semi-automatic on the 55 was a pain) and 4WD. However the 55 made the most wonderful growl.


Which one is faster? :twisted:


----------



## Sonatina (Jan 4, 2009)

Clarkson had the big brother of the SLK - the SL55 AMG - totally different beast - 490 bhp 517 lb/ft torque supercharged V8 in the stock model alone. Every engine is handbuilt so the bhp varies from one to the next. You can pick these up for 30K on Pistonheads for a 2003 model. I'm a huge fan of the SL55 AMG. It loses a few points for having a heavy kerbweight though. I wonder how it compares in performance to the TTRS? The other bonus of this Merc is it's a hardtop convertible. It also has lots of tuning capability as well. Respect. 8) 
For me, the SLK series still looks a bit girly, even in AMG guise ... UNLESS you get the Black series version with the SL65 bodykit.
:wink: 
Sonatina


----------



## barkbark (Jun 6, 2010)

VerTTigo said:


> barkbark said:
> 
> 
> > I had an SLK 350 and then an SLK AMG 55 which I sold 2 months ago for a TT RS. Must say I loved the 55 but the TT RS is in my mind a better car, specifically the space inside, gearbox (the 7 speed semi-automatic on the 55 was a pain) and 4WD. However the 55 made the most wonderful growl.
> ...


The TT RS is by far a quicker car on the roads I drive - bad A Roads and good B Roads in the far west of Wales.


----------



## TT-Newbie (Sep 18, 2009)

I'm lucky enough to have both - have to echo what most people are saying that the exterior styling is wow - but it was designed to be a roadster from the word go. Sadly the bits you see on a day to day basis i.e. the cabin aren't that special and are hand-me-downs from the old C-Class. To be fair (touch wood) I've never had anything break, so even though it feels flimsier than the TT it's lasted very well for the last four years. The seats are sag-free too!!!

The only other fly in the ointment is Mercedes dealers kicking you in the head and running off with your wallet every time it goes near a service bay.

Replacement next year should see the cabin quality improve though I think they may have gone backwards with the styling ...


----------



## DaFolks (Jan 4, 2010)

My neighbour only very recently swapped from an SLK, so I briefly had my TT parked right alongside his SLK on a regualr basis.

Have to say that I'd always liked the SLK design even prior to that, and seeing it next to the TT didn't change that. I like both for different reasons, and considered buying an SLK before I bought my first TT...so you know which one I prefer overall :lol:

Undoubtably a good looking car though, and nice to have a folding hard-top roof as well.


----------



## ausTT (Feb 19, 2010)

My father in law has the 55 AMG'd - its a great car - driving it is a very nice experience and power hike


----------



## sTTranger (Oct 21, 2008)

Hi

Just so you know, wiped the floor with a slk 55 amg not long ago. The TT with the oem body kit looks so much better imo


----------



## SLKpower (Apr 24, 2013)

SLK 1 million times better... SLK is the most beautiful two seater sports car in the world fact
The AMG Version is 1 million times better than the Quattro ..
SLK is classy ... TT are hairdressers cars.. And you can pick them up for a few thousand
It goes.... Skoda Volkswagen Audi BMW Mercedes at the top...
How you think that horrible interior is better than the SLK's is a joke as well
Good luck with your Audi TTs


----------



## SLKpower (Apr 24, 2013)

To the guy with a TT RS I will race my AMG SLK against you...
Please can we arrange this .. I'm pretty sure the guy in AMG SLK did not know that you were racing him


----------



## hugy (Dec 4, 2007)

Talk about a troll!
What a waste of a post.


----------



## relic222 (Aug 24, 2012)

Hi SLKPower, welcome to the forum, I think you'll like it here :lol:


----------



## benbuhagiar (Mar 16, 2013)

Sonatina said:


> Clarkson had the big brother of the SLK - the SL55 AMG - totally different beast - 490 bhp 517 lb/ft torque supercharged V8 in the stock model alone. Every engine is handbuilt so the bhp varies from one to the next. You can pick these up for 30K on Pistonheads for a 2003 model. I'm a huge fan of the SL55 AMG. It loses a few points for having a heavy kerbweight though. I wonder how it compares in performance to the TTRS? The other bonus of this Merc is it's a hardtop convertible. It also has lots of tuning capability as well. Respect. 8)
> For me, the SLK series still looks a bit girly, even in AMG guise ... UNLESS you get the Black series version with the SL65 bodykit.
> :wink:
> Sonatina


Clarkson has had a SL55 AMG, a SLK55 AMG and now a CLK Black Series.


----------



## .Griff. (Dec 17, 2011)

SLKpower said:


> SLK is classy ...


----------



## TTfreak330 (Feb 2, 2012)

The TT for sure! Slk you see the most rich mothers bringing there kid to school. TT is more exclusive and fun sports car.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Time to lynch mob the SLK fan, BUNDLE!!!!!

I've seen more women driving SLKs than I've had hot dinners! Lmao


----------



## Lyons (May 12, 2010)

SLK ownership must be a bundle of fun if you have to go out of your way to join a TT forum, just to slag off the Audi and defend your inferior car.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Lol


----------



## Pale Rider (Nov 15, 2011)

I sold my SLK to buy a TT. The SLK is a very disappointing car indeed.

It's badly made - the panel gaps are atrocious and the car started rusting after 3 years, which MB refused to repair. It's also unreliable - it was easily the most unreliable car I've ever had and that includes a Lotus Esprit - and spare parts cost a fortune. Mercedes' gearboxes are crap - and that includes their manuals, their slush pumps and their recent DCT gearbox, which is way inferior to the S-Tronic. They're also completely undriveable in snow except with winter tyres on.

The sad fact is that Mercedes quality went down the plug-hole when they moved into volume manufacture and stopped "over-engineering". In terms of technology they're also struggling to catch up with BMW/Audi.


----------



## Patrizio72 (Mar 22, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> I sold my SLK to buy a TT. The SLK is a very disappointing car indeed.
> 
> It's badly made - the panel gaps are atrocious and the car started rusting after 3 years, which MB refused to repair. It's also unreliable - it was easily the most unreliable car I've ever had and that includes a Lotus Esprit - and spare parts cost a fortune. Mercedes' gearboxes are crap - and that includes their manuals, their slush pumps and their recent DCT gearbox, which is way inferior to the S-Tronic. They're also completely undriveable in snow except with winter tyres on.
> 
> The sad fact is that Mercedes quality went down the plug-hole when they moved into volume manufacture and stopped "over-engineering". In terms of technology they're also struggling to catch up with BMW/Audi.


Amen to that


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

BM or Audi for me. I'm not a fan of Mercedes.


----------



## BarrieB (Aug 24, 2011)

I think he will find that residuals are down the toilet. It stands to reason, if only half the population (ie female) want to buy SLKs this halves the potential buyers.


----------

