Considering either SLK or TT, anybody care to comment?
#1
Considering either SLK or TT, anybody care to comment?
Hi everyone I am new to the forum and consider a 2008 SLK 280 or TT 2.0 coupe, white with red interior. Anybody driven both the TT and SLK?
Besides the obvious difference being that the TT coupe is not a convertible and is cheaper. What do you think?
Besides the obvious difference being that the TT coupe is not a convertible and is cheaper. What do you think?
#2
Depends on what are you looking for
You need to decide what you want, to have one great performance car in this class or do you want car to pose. If second, then SLK is better choice, because with roof down you are defenetly more noticed and you can have open top even in low temparatures, because SLK has possibility extra equipment that behind a seats are air vents and you get warmly air.
On other side, if you want great car to drive then TT is right choice. With one of the fastest gearboxes (Stronic), with magnetic dampers (same sistem on Ferrari 599 GTB , Audi R8...), with smaller weight (aluminiaum chassis)... this is defenetly the best car in its class; and defenetly much better car to drive than SLK. Even old TT is better than old SLK and with new TT, Audi made much much bigger step forward than Mercedes with SLK.
On other side, if you want great car to drive then TT is right choice. With one of the fastest gearboxes (Stronic), with magnetic dampers (same sistem on Ferrari 599 GTB , Audi R8...), with smaller weight (aluminiaum chassis)... this is defenetly the best car in its class; and defenetly much better car to drive than SLK. Even old TT is better than old SLK and with new TT, Audi made much much bigger step forward than Mercedes with SLK.
#3
AudiWorld Super User
don't agree with that...
having driven an SLK 350, it drives MUCH better than the torque-steering, understeering, FWD 2.0T TT......the SLK 350 is a great car, with a solid 272hp V6 and RWD which pulls hard
the downside is that the SLK costs more, but at least you don't get the bottom of the range and misfit TT with FWD....
if style is the discussion, the SLK wins hands down over the MK2 with its slick hardtop and interesting lines. in terms of which is the better car, this is a no-brainer in my opinion...
the downside is that the SLK costs more, but at least you don't get the bottom of the range and misfit TT with FWD....
if style is the discussion, the SLK wins hands down over the MK2 with its slick hardtop and interesting lines. in terms of which is the better car, this is a no-brainer in my opinion...
#5
evero: so you compare 48K (SLK) to 34k (TT) car...
you can even get 3.2 TT for less than 280SLK. Also he say that he want to get either 280SLK or 2.0TT so it is not like he will be getting a 350 SLK.
tyronel, another thing you need to weight in is do you need awd. Also merc build quality haven't been the best lately (probably thank to crysler)
tyronel, another thing you need to weight in is do you need awd. Also merc build quality haven't been the best lately (probably thank to crysler)
#6
AudiWorld Super User
Chrysler had nothing to do with Merc quality...
And the SLK is a great car to drive, I just don't know that I'd ever buy one given their recent track record.
#7
I bought the SLK over the TT, here is why....
I was down to three cars, the 2.0T roadster, the SLK280 and the base Cayman. Base Cayman was first to leave the competition as there were very few options on the car and the lease rates were horrific. It then came down to TT vs. SLK. The SLK280 actually drives better than the 2.0T. It is a 3.0L vs. a 2.0L and has more HP. I just thought the steering was tighter and the the car reacted better. I liked the interior of the TT better, but liked the exterior of the SLK better and the hardtop is just fantastic, almost two different cars. At the end of the day, the real kicker was the price, the TT was $46K pretty loaded and the best lease I could do on three years was $730/mo, the SLK was $52K pretty loaded and I left the Benz dealership at $550/mo for 3 years with a .00140 money factor and 58% residual. I LOVE the new TT, but it was not worth $180 more per month. My next car will probably be an S5 convertible, but for now the SLK is just pure fun. I am sure you will not regret either purchase, but you can get great deals on Boxsters, Caymans or SLK's right now. The SLK definitely gets attention and is just a hoot to drive top down. You can PM me with any questions as my MB dealer was great.
Trending Topics
#10
Re: don't agree with that...
Im taking some words back, I had stressful and buisy morning on company today so my post was a little too "offensive"
SLK is defenetly great car too, but I dont like handling. TT Mk2 gives much better feel in corners than SLK. On autobahn I belive SLK 350 is faster, because it has more powerfull engine, but also TT will get more powerfull engines..
Mercedes cars also had many problems with electronics and SLK is one of those cars.
So mine opinion is TT is the best choice in this class. But if you want RWD, then I would take BMW Z4 over SLK. But traction in corners with TT Mk2 (even FWD) is really awesome, Im sure it is faster than Z4 and for sure has better traction than SLK. In one road test I had it was even on Porsche 987 pace (in corners).
SLK is defenetly great car too, but I dont like handling. TT Mk2 gives much better feel in corners than SLK. On autobahn I belive SLK 350 is faster, because it has more powerfull engine, but also TT will get more powerfull engines..
Mercedes cars also had many problems with electronics and SLK is one of those cars.
So mine opinion is TT is the best choice in this class. But if you want RWD, then I would take BMW Z4 over SLK. But traction in corners with TT Mk2 (even FWD) is really awesome, Im sure it is faster than Z4 and for sure has better traction than SLK. In one road test I had it was even on Porsche 987 pace (in corners).