Kozmo

SLK is a nice car....for secretaries 8-)

sweeta4

slk350 and tt 3.2 are much more comparable cars in terms of both price and performance specs

M power this!

obviously it's taste, but to me it's trying too hard to be an 'almost' SL. the handling sucked in my opinion and it won't keep up to a fwd TT in the twisties. the motor of the SLK is very cool, but it's their high end V6 to our base. even still, a chipped 2.0T doing 5.1 0-60 and getting 32mpg wins in my court

lbh2315

Good call kozmo. How quickly you forget how many have called the TT a chick car. I mean, come on with your stupid comment. Your secretary must make some major bank, not too many secretaries in my neck of the woods driving $50K cars. Heck, maybe I should quit my job and become a secretary....

Sometimes you folks are just a little over the top. Bottom line, you can't go wrong with either car. On thing can never be argued, the vast majority of folks out there think the SLK is a beautiful looking car and you certainly won't be disappointed by the performance of the 280 if comparing to a 2.0T TT. Neither car will be able to run with a Boxster S or an SLK55 - but then again, neither car claims to do so. If you want true performance, you gotta pay for it....

Kozmo

I believe some have called the Mk1 a chick car, not the Mk2. I never did. That being said, I see a lot of women driving SLKs where I live. Either way, I am no fan of MB, but it sounds like you got a good deal. I was just poking some fun at you, if you are happy with your lease rate, your car, then great.

chrisTTopher 08

so i was looking at the sl55 amg before i got my TT and the bmw 650...so why did i go with the TT... becasue i had more fun driving it and i have own one in the past. also the money to lease any of my other options the lease payment was about $1300 per month which i think is nuts. i ended up paying $800 per month for my 2008 3.2 roadster and i am happy with it...i do feel that it is a little underpowered as i have stated in the past considering the cars that i was test driving would rip the TT a new ******* on a track...but as i said love my TT

|everso!|

sure...run a mid 5s 0-60...and then undesteer right into a big fat tree...

NO THANKS!

the FWD 2.0 remains a joke in my book.....and chipping it won't really make any difference as far as i'm concerned...in fact it might make it an even worse car!

as for style....I FEEL the SLK really is far nicer in every way...

Shakal

Everso, why are you so against TT Mk2 ? Have you drive Mk2 yet ?

Mk2 even only with FWD has much better traction and stability than the best version Mk1 and is much better car in every view. So if you are saying that 2.0 FSI FWD has bad stability, then what Mk1 is ? Like driving on ice ?

Look every test for Mk2 2.0 TFSI FWD and you will se statements like "TT finally drives as it looks.." You can start with 5th gear

|everso!|

WOMEN so far.

not a good sign eh?

the MK1 sold primarily to MEN, until an Automatic arrived in 2004 or so....

so all hail the ultimate girl car! THE MK2!

|everso!|

no bloody way.

i've driven several MK2s..

the FWD ones are constantly fighting traction control, and i found them to be torque steering, understeering messes to be honest.

i'm not joking when i say that the 2.0T FWD TT is pretty poor.....and when i got into my lightly modded MK1 afterwards, it felt quicker, more planted, and better than the MK2 2.0TT.....

that's no joke. I have a full wallet ready to spend on a MK2, however it's utterly dissappointing product has deterred me....

....but it's ok. it's being discontinued in 2010 anyways