Honda vs Mercedes - which is best?

We used to have two sensible but boring cars until 2000 when we decided it made much more sense to have one really fun car and one super practical car. So I bought a brand new Mercedes-Benz SLK and four months later Sheila bought an ex demonstrator Honda HRV with only 1000 miles on the clock. The SLK cost £30K and the HRV cost £14K.

Almost 10 years on it seemed like it would be interesting to try and decide which one has been, and is now the best, even though they are very different cars.

The SLK is of course a 150mph two seater sports car with a fully retractable metal roof while the HRV is a part-time 4X4 that can carry four passengers and quite a lot of stuff. Both are automatics as we hate all that gear shifting lark. Both cars now have approximately 70K miles on their clocks.

Looking back through all the servicing receipts the Honda has cost more for the straight services, so a point to the Mercedes. However the SLK has been through three sets of tyres while the HRV is still on it's second set, so a point to the Honda.

Both cars have had warranty claims although the value of the Mercedes claims were massive by comparison - a new steering wheel and airbag at £650, a new set of wheels at £1200, new trim parts at £250, and some repainting at approx £350. There were also a few other very minor odds and ends. The Honda on the other hand needed a new stereo at about £150, new transmission (when it was 8 years old!) at £600 and that's about it. A point to Honda.

The Mercedes has really fallen down on parts that have worn out. It's had a new central locking control unit, new rear suspension, new front brakes and disks, new brake sensors, new gas struts, a new rear light unit, new number plates, and new a/c compressor. The Honda needed a new sensor in the fuel injection and that's it. Another point to Honda.

The Mercedes still looks great and I get a lot of complements about it's condition, but in reality it's beginning to need some attention here and there to keep it in A1 condition although it still drives like new. The Honda gets a rougher life and has quite a few dings from supermarket car parks, and heavily used interior, but it's holding up well and is still a nice car to drive. Both cars have been 100% reliable to date.

Finally there are the intangibles. The feeling you get from diving each car on a daily basis, the feeling you get when you see it in the drive, and the fun you get from each on a sunny day or a long trip. The Mercedes scores big here because it's really two cars in one, a two seater coupe one minute and a two seater convertible the next, it has amazing performance and handling, and attracts a lot of admiring looks especially on a sunny day with the roof down. The Honda is a practical car and one of the pack so definitely doesn't attract the same sort of attention. It's performance is lively and fun but not exactly exciting and it's handling is probably typical for a car of it's type.

I like both cars a lot but if I had to choose then the SLK would win hands down but not because it's the better product. I get a buzz from driving it, a buzz from looking at it, and a buzz from knowing that I own it. However if I look at this from a completely practical view then of course the Honda wins hands down on both cost of ownership and because it's probably better made and hasn't needed a lot of replacement parts like the Mercedes.

But of course, a good product and practicality isn't what owning a car is necessarily all about.