Mercedes better than Corvette?

Converted Corvette driver here!  I just purchased my first Benz.  I got a 2003 SLK 230 Kompressor from Carmax.  I was just reading about some of the problems that SLK drivers have had. I hope I didnt make a mistake.  I had a few problems when I first got it but the Carmax garage fixed them immediately.  I would like to add a CD player.  Any suggestions? 

I have owned 3 Vettes.   1984, 2001, 1966 (427 BB).   They have all been very good cars.   In fact, I restored the 66 Vette and sold it for $15k more than I bought it for.

It was just time to try something new.  I just purchased a new SL500.  Like it so far.   The real test will be how MB service department behaves compared to how the Chev. service department behaved.

Good luck with your SLK

How would you say the quality and craftsmanship of the engine compare between the Corvette and Mercedes.

350 V8 Chevy engines will run forever.  I am not sure of the reliabililty of the Merc yet.  I hope it will be uneventful.   I only owned VWs (Germany remnants) in the past but I know they will run forever too.  Its more of the accessaries that go bad not so much the engine itself.  It was expensive to repair the Vette.  I am not looking forward to large Merc service bills.

They're different cars with different design philosophies. They're not meant to be compared. Both are wonderful cars that can be enjoyed in their own separate spaces.

That being said, my C5 will whoop my SL on the twisties. The SL starts to understeer surprisingly soon and could use new tires, I guess. It also has an auto trans where the C5 has a 6-speed stick.

The SL weighs half-a-ton more than the C5. I haven't proved it yet but the SL may out-accelerate the C5 regardless. It's so smooth and can press me into the seatback and zoom past other traffic on the highway without even downshifting. Engine power is obivious.

The SL has an interesting suspension with anti-squat and anti-lift attributes. It's stiff yet extremely smooth. It's weird. It can't be described. It has to be experienced. The C5 is rough and in-your-face in comparison, but fun to drive because of all the feedback.

There's a big sticker price difference, too. Big difference. 

I could go on...

Ok, vettdvr here with new E500.  Love my Nassau Blue and won't sell it.   Bought the E500 for the wife and finally got M2 seat position close to the Vet.  Love the Vet, Like the E500, but if I could only have 1,,, it would be Bow Tie.   Wife would answer  MB,, ,  But both are nice,, after all I did pay   for both.   vettdvr

PS.. Will be keeping the wife also.

Clear answer: MB.
I always like to stay at a traffic light together with a vette.....and then show the different league

Every horse has an opinion.

I hate bench racing, but here we go anyway ...

Performance stats

'03 SL55 0-62 4.7 sec

'03 SL55 AMG 0-60 4.5 sec

'01 Corvette Z06 0-60 4.2 sec

Most of the tuners' Z06s, equivalent to an MB AMG, are in the mid to low 3 sec range. The factory Z06 also has significantly more power since '01, but I can't find any bench stats for it.

Apparently you are lining up at red lights with bad Corvette drivers, not bad Corvettes.

You would like to add a Cd player to a 2003 SLK.

WHAT THE HELL? A 2003 car without a cd player is bad enough but a Mercedes-Benz sports model? %99 of the cars on the market here come with a cd player The %1 are a few cheap commercial utes and vans.

Dunno much about Corvettes except they have a extremely ugly rear end so I'd prefer a Merc.

What does a sport model Mercedes has to do anything with a cd-changer?
And what is wrong with not having cd-changers as standard equipment?
Cd-changers / players are useless for some people and they save a couple hundrd of dollars if they don't need it.
Even in Europe, only cassette players come standard. It cost 350 pound in the U.K. and 458.20 EURO in Germany.
This makes some people think they are getting ripped off, because it isn't "free".
But if it comes standard, then the people who don't want cd-changes/players would think they are also being ripped off, and it is true; because they are forced to pay for something they don't use.
This is the kind of benefit customers in large car markets enjoy.
Customers only wants to pay for things that they want, and manufacturers knows that.
But the cost would be too high if every customers wants their cars built differently.
So the larger the market, more individual options are offered.
Customers in smaller markets, like Australia, don't get this sort of benefit.

And..if you don't know much about the Corvette, then you should find more information about it before making any comments.

Frigginphool,

Try thinking out of your sandbox once in a while. Like every 5-year-old in the world you can't understand that a world beyond your eyesight functions separately to your own.

If you want "real" audio and/or video equipment in your car, you don't want what MB offers. Only you would pay for an MB CD player then upgrade it with something better.

Dunno much about you except that you have an extremely ugly front. Must have been the city bus incident?

the answer is they are the same.

The obvious car to compare the Maybach to is the 2004 Rolls-Royce Phantom. The Maybach and the Rolls are priced about the same, weigh about the same, have similar features and level of quality, the same buyers, etc.

It is far more interesting, however, to compare the Maybach 57 to a Chevrolet Corvette. These cars are radically different. The Corvette is an unabashed two-seater sports car with a high-performance engine, sports-car frame and suspension and a lightweight fiberglass body. The Maybach is a huge luxury auto-yacht. The Maybach 57 weighs almost 3,000 pounds (1,360 kg) more than the Corvette (nearly twice as much). The Maybach 57 is almost 4 feet (1.2 meters) longer than the Corvette.

And yet, look at the important performance figures*. In 0 to 60-mph (0-97 kph) acceleration, the Maybach 57 and the Corvette are equal -- 4.9 seconds. In 0 to 80-mph (0-129 kph) acceleration, the Maybach is actually one-tenth of a second quicker -- 7.8 seconds for the Maybach versus 7.9 seconds for the Corvette. (Note that a Porsche Boxster takes just a bit over 6 seconds to reach 60 mph -- the Corvette is a very quick car.)

In terms of braking, the Maybach 57 is actually better than the Corvette. Braking from 60 mph (97 kph), the Maybach takes 121 feet (37 meters). The Corvette takes 134 feet (41 meters). From 80 mph, the Maybach takes 212 feet (65 meters) versus 214 feet (65 meters) for the Corvette.

In the slalom, you would expect the Corvette to obliterate the Maybach, given that the Corvette is 3,000 pounds lighter and 4 feet shorter. But the speed through the 700-foot slalom is incredibly close -- 62.4 mph (100.4 kph) for the Corvette and 60.4 mph (97.2 kph) for the Maybach.

How is this possible? How can a huge car like a Maybach match a sports car like the Corvette in terms of performance?

You gotta lay off the Johnny Walker, bud. It's beginning to cloud your judgement. Corvette vs Maybach is a silly comparison, not an interesting one.

I think you're using stats from an aftermarket tuned Maybach 57, like from Brabus, and comparing them to a base Corvette with an auto trans. The Maybach with a twin-turbo stroked V-12 perhaps? The twin-turbo stroked V-8? Run your Maybach numbers against a Lingenfelter or Callaway twin-turbo stroked Corvette. Or even an unaltered factory Z06 (0-60mph in 4.2 sec). Try getting the road boat to keep up with any of those, especially through the corners. The factory Z06 has 1.0g lateral acceleration (base is 0.93g). The Maybach will roll or slide before it reaches 1.0g.

To put this in perspective, the Maybach needs somewhere around 650-700 hp to move that quickly. It will probably drink a gallon of gas about every 8 miles or so on the highway going to church. The Corvette Z06 has 405 hp and gets 28 mpg highway. I can get 32 mpg in mine. That's about the same mpg as the '01 Honda Civic I had.

People are still in the '70s-'80s mindset when they think of Corvettes. These were bad years for all cars but especially for American performance cars. The ZR1s of the early '90s and the C5 and C5 Z06 of today arose from that fog and are completely different cars from the ground up. The C6 is even better and faster. You cannot buy a better sports car for under $50K and you have to spend several times more to get the same from another manufacturer.

The Boxter is a slow car. A nice handling, but slow car. It's in a much lesser performance class. Boxter vs Corvette is just as silly as Maybach vs Corvette.

But we are comparing Mercedes to Corvette, and Maybach is the closest thing to it.
It starts with the engine. While the Corvette's engine is slightly larger -- 5,665 cubic centimeters (cc) versus 5,513 cc for the Maybach -- the Maybach's is a high-tech V-12. The Maybach engine has features such as:

Three valves per cylinder and overhead cams (compared to two valves per cylinder in the Corvette)
Variable valve timing
Variable-length intake manifolds
Dual turbochargers with intercooler that can produce 18.9 psi of boost
This all adds up to an engine that produces 543 horsepower compared to 350 horsepower for the Corvette. The extra horsepower means that the power-to-weight ratios of the two cars are nearly identical.
On the braking side, the Maybach is very well endowed. The Maybach has huge disc brake rotors at 14.8 inches up front and 14 inches in the back. The Maybach actually has six brake calipers instead of the normal four -- two calipers on each front wheel. The entire braking system is redundant and computer controlled so that the CPU can decide which calipers to activate and how much pressure to apply to each. Computer control also allows special software features to be added. For example, if your foot comes off the accelerator rapidly, the braking system notices. The braking system assumes that, a few milliseconds later, you will be hitting the brakes for a panic stop. So, during those few milliseconds, the computer can move the brake pads into position against the rotors to allow quicker brake activation.

To handle the slalom, the Maybach has another computer-controlled system -- the car has air shocks that can auto-level the vehicle during acceleration, cornering and braking. The shocks also have adjustable internal dampers to control the stiffness of the suspension.

The performance equation for the Maybach is simple: The engineers have brought every possible piece of technology into this car to make it behave like a sports car.

Still not convinced luggy?

Um, no, we weren't comparing the Corvette to a $500K car. Not me, at least.

You're using an older base Corvette's stats and comparing them to a warmed over new Maybach, which is what I already said. A new Z06 or base Corvette will outperform the Maybach. A Z06 or base Corvette plus another $50K to a tuner and you'll have an Enzo-killer and about $400K change to spend on your babe.

The Corvette has computer-controlled shock damping and yaw sensors for handling corrections and all that foot and hand movement sensing crap. It has 13" front rotors which is fine for the car's size unless you're going to race it. True for the Maybach as well.

SR-71s are fast and F-16s corner well. Do you think either car can keep up with one? It would be silly to compare, no?

A Maybach seems expensive, but if you look at the price per pound for various vehicles, it seems less outrageous. Here's a quick comparison:

Space Shuttle: Costs $2.1 billion, weighs 170,000 pounds = $12,000 per pound

Gold: Approximate 2003 spot price of about $400 per ounce = $6,400 per pound

Lear jet 45: Costs approximately $10 million, weighs 15,000 pounds = $650 per pound

High-end carbon fiber bicycle: Costs $3,000, weighs 20 pounds = $150 per pound

Segway: costs $5,000, weighs 80 pounds = $62.50 per pound

Maybach: Costs $300,000, weighs 6,100 pounds = $49.10 per pound

Harley Davidson VSRC motorcycle: costs $18,000, weighs 600 pounds = $30 per pound

USS Ronald Reagan (nuclear-powered aircraft carrier): costs $4.3 billion, weighs 90,000 tons = $24 per pound (plus, it comes with a 20-year supply of fuel already in the reactor)

Hummer 2: costs $52,000, weighs 6,400 pounds = $8.13 per pound

Ford Focus: costs $14,000, weighs 2,600 pounds = $3.57 per pound

sorry to saying somthing different......
just before all you guys & gals thinking.i just woundering is just the different between what times and where you are.....for using vette or benz. car not just a mechine is a art & perfomance. depand from which you looking for the different.....
any how is the $$$$$$$$$$$ tooooo...or want to earning more $$$$$$$

Oh, shut up!

... and speaking of pounds, have you been eating chesseburgers like I told you to?

fish and chips...yucky.

this means that i can afford to buy a pound of uss ronald reagan (rip) than a bicycle? i'll take the anchor first.

Cow. You need to eat cow. Fish & chips are Friday food.

so where is the moosehead in that picture lugnut?
do you use also power inverter for that camper? how many watts? i want to buy one, but all they got is a modified sine wave. i see you got two generators, was it airconditioned?

Congrats. I just wanted to see who would ask instead of straining their eyes looking for a real moose head or deciding a pile of trash was a moose. The moose head is on top of the camper's radio antenna. It looks like a blob in the pic, maybe a fox head if you blow it up. It's like one those smiley face balls or, if you were a little older, an orange Union 76 ball ... which, BTW, started the antenna ball craze. It's not a ball but an injection-molded sculpted moose head, BTW.

The camper is Lance's 8'6" Lite model, one of their lighter, less-extravagant ones. They make some gorgeous campers, all self-contained, some with leather couchs and slideouts and stuff. Mine has a toilet and indoor shower, outdoor shower, a rooftop refridgerated air conditioner, 3-way fridge with freezer (gas/120v/12v), microwave oven, gas heater with thermostat, double kitchen sink and bathroom sink with electric water pump, 3-burner stove with an oven, fresh, gray, and black water tanks, and awnings on the passenger side and back. It doesn't have too much storage room, though.

I don't use a power inverter in the camper. I'll use one inside the truck while I'm driving, if I need one. Although the camper has just about everything you'd want in a camper (maybe more), one thing it doesn't have is a built-in generator. It's not an option in this model or I would have gotten one.

The dealer where I bought it said to get a Honda portable 3,000 watt. I looked at one and decided I couldn't lift it easy enough by myself and it wouldn't fit into the camper door. Not always, but sometimes I want to be able to put it inside the camper for transport. So I bought two 2,000 watt generators that I can easily carry around (separately) and set up and put away by myself. These can be run in parallel with an optional set of cables to generate 4,000 watts. With both running, I can use the AC, microwave and several other things including plug-ins all at the same time. I've found that I really only need one if I don't run both the AC and microwave at the same time.

The generators are the Honda EU 2000i model. I believe they produce power by using a combination gas generator and power inverter. Let me know if you want me to check the specs for anything in particular. They have an "eco-throttle" setting so they idle down when demand is light and throttle up when you ask for extra power. They're very quite (for a generator) and can be run all night, stopping only for gas refilling and occasional drops of oil. These are good to have even if you car camp by tent or need power occasionally where there's no 120v outlet, no matter what you're doing. They're too heavy to carry on the trail unless you hire a porter or use an ATV or something, but easy to carry to a jobsite from your vehicle. They're not meant to be commercial, though.

yes, those generators are the best that i have searched before too. they have built in inverter already and true sine wave too.
i'll get one of that.