|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
Last Saturday, I drove my SL500 and the SLK 350 over the same roads, with the tops down. In a purely non-scientific observation, I noticed that the rearview mirror of the SL vibrated quite a bit more than that of the SLK. I don't know what the specific body rigidity figures of the two cars are, but I think that this says good things about the body integrity of the SLK. Could it be that MB learned a thing or two in the development of the SLK, which was introduced about two years after the R 230 SL Class?  Dinoman |
|
| |
|
benz--man
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
I think the vibration of the rear view mirror is not too much related to the body rigidity, but MB claim that the new SLK R171 is about 40% better than the old SLK R170 in this area. I do not know too much about the SL but it looks like it should be as rigid as the new SLK.
My 2c |
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
The SL is longer...? |
|
| |
|
Easty
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
The rigidity of both cars is far worst than a closed box structured cabin as you can expect, this can be felt on the track. Although I'm guessing the SLK has a much smaller cabin which will help in rigidity the larger wheel base on the SL makes it a lot less tail happy to drive. which for some is more boring? I think metally the SLK feels much more stern and aggressive than then SL purely because of its small figure. |
|
| |
|
benz--man
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| RE: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
The SL is also 700lb-800lb heavier than the SLK. I was just assuming that MB used some towards rigidity. |
|
| |
|
Dinoman
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
The SL is about 17" longer than the SLK, I believe. Dinoman |
|
| |
|
taroliw
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
Dinoman - 6/29/2006 5:52 AM The SL is about 17" longer than the SLK, I believe. Dinoman Yes, and almost 12" wider.
|
|
| |
|
fgwinn
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. The body width of the SLK is 70.4 inches and the SL is 72 inches. However, MBUSA now reports the SL width as 80 inches which includes the mirrors.
taroliw - 7/7/2006 12:40 PM
Dinoman - 6/29/2006 5:52 AM The SL is about 17" longer than the SLK, I believe. Dinoman Yes, and almost 12" wider. |
|
| |
|
taroliw
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
fgwinn - 7/9/2006 5:18 PM I think you may be comparing apples and oranges here. The body width of the SLK is 70.4 inches and the SL is 72 inches. However, MBUSA now reports the SL width as 80 inches which includes the mirrors. I've never seen them say whether the numbers include the mirrors or not. But the newly quoted difference seems to make my point anyway (that the SL is almost a foot wider than the SLK). But in double-checking my numbers, I found the MBUSA site totally offline (getting doc not found errors on main homepage!). So, I fell back to Canada's site and found the following from their comparison data. SLK (R171) to SL500 (length): 453mm / 17.8in (SL larger)
SLK (R171) to SL500 (width): 27mm / 1.1in (SL
SLK (R171) to SL500 (boot, roof up): .4 cu ft (SL larger)
SLK (R171) to SL500 (boot, roof down): .7 cu ft (SL larger) My random observance was that despite the difference in overall dimension, the boot sizes didn't seem all that different. But perhaps the difference is made up in the "passenger storage" figure, since that pretty much accounts for the rear parcel area in the SL. One curious thing about the numbers below is that they seem to suggest that the SL's front track is wider than it's rear? That can't be correct, can it?
Edited by taroliw 7/10/2006 5:26 AM
 (SNAG-0000.gif)
Attachments
----------------
 SNAG-0000.gif (7KB - 1 downloads)
|
|
| |
|
Ripple
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
What the hell has all this got to do with rigidity , are you all a bunch of a...holes ? You just post for the sake of posting stuff. |
|
| |
|
taroliw
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
Ripple - 7/10/2006 3:05 PM What the hell has all this got to do with rigidity , are you all a bunch of a...holes ? You just post for the sake of posting stuff. The careful reader would recognize that splinter of discussion occurred when someone mused that the overall size of the car might explain differences in rigidity... that it might well be easier to make the SLK more rigid because of it's smaller body.
|
|
| |
|
Ripple
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
taroliw - 7/10/2006 11:42 PM
Ripple - 7/10/2006 3:05 PM What the hell has all this got to do with rigidity , are you all a bunch of a...holes ? You just post for the sake of posting stuff. The careful reader would recognize that splinter of discussion occurred when someone mused that the overall size of the car might explain differences in rigidity... that it might well be easier to make the SLK more rigid because of it's smaller body.
The careful reader ? The splinter of discussion ? You are getting lost up your own asshole.
The size has nothing to do with rigidity, you could make something small and flexible or something larger and more rigid (cue the penis jokes), the size is totally irrelevant. Its the engineering and construction that determine the outcome.
|
|
| |
|
AsianML
Date registered: Dec 1899
Location:
Vehicle(s):
| Re: Body Rigidity--SL vs.SLK
And have you heard about Mercedes engineering lately? |
|
| |
