slk new or old model

gov

Senior member
on a whim test drove a new style slk200 - underwhelmed with performance but build quality appeared very good - made me think about these cars as a comparison to the Z4 - first thing I think is to go for a much higher performance ie a 350 - looking at the early 350's ie 2004 - 2011 these cars seem good value and would outperform a Z4 3 litre and even early models have the folding metal roof - reviews also show very high reliabilty - road tax for earlier cars is still only £325 - from my perspective I think the earlier models look a lot better than the new facelift cars - even with a bigger engine it looks like an old man's car - then again I'm an old man :rofl:
 
I've always fancied the SLK second gen R171 (and I agree they look better than the new SLK)
Has to be a 350 or one of the rare 55 AMGs.
It gets knocked on here regarding the 'girlie' looks and apparently the cabin and seats aren't as good as the Z4, however I'm sure the SLK forums would paint a different story :wink:
 
personal opinion mind so take it as you see fit :poke:

looks dated in certain trim while others still seem to look okish (AMG as mentioned) IMO newer ones look better as the shape appears to have evolved, oh and one other observation.

I pass loads of convertibles on my commute, a fair quantity are Z4`s (generally mainly BMW drivers and some audi seem to have the roof down the most is my observation) but with most other types they seem to not bother specially the SLK drivers, they hardly ever seem to utilise the car as intended.

Why is the question I ask myself... the only answer I can come up with is the looks. I am of the opinion (Biased probably) the roof down look of the Z is the best looking car so hence happy to drop the roof any weather.

Me... 80% of my commute the roof is down..Why bother with a convertible if you don't go out prepared to drop the roof. I actually hate being out roof up and coming up to or passing cars going the other way with their roof down... :driving:

Other reasons it might not be down... my passenger may not agree :rofl:

Think id better stop waffling no im going off topic :oops:
 
Steady on boys it was just a thought :rofl: I was making a comparison between comparable cars ie 3.0 Z4 and SLK 350 - an AMG version is in a different league and more comparable to a Z4M and even then a much bigger engine !
 
gov said:

Sorry I went off topic but your post got me and I just had to say what I have been thinking recently.

There its off my chest now and I feel better for it :P
 
Im sure I read that Mercedes have now ceased production of the SLC (SLK) after 23 years with no replacement... :(
 
GuidoK said:
gov said:
an AMG version is in a different league and more comparable to a Z4M and even then a much bigger engine !

Maybe a bigger engine but no LSD! :o
Yup in the driving department. It's basically a one trick pony. :( But quite a big pony. :wink:

After trying one, before my ///MR, I voted with my wallet. No regrets there :D :driving: :thumbsup:
 
buzyg said:
After trying one, before my ///MR, I voted with my wallet. No regrets there :D :driving: :thumbsup:

Maybe if they ever become affordable you can try an AMG GT.
That has a proper LSD, and a trasaxle gearbox.
But for that kind of money lots of other beautiful stuff can be had too of course.
All other amg's are crap. Sure AMG builds beautiful engines, but the engine alone isnt a car sadly :lol:
 
Zed Baron said:
Im sure I read that Mercedes have now ceased production of the SLC (SLK) after 23 years with no replacement... :(

Yup. Production finishes sometime next year.
 
I sold my SLK 350 after 6 months........first month 6th gear synchro replaced .........5 month new inlet manilfold needed , 6 month new timing chain and balance shaft needed ....even though the engine number was after the balance shaft update/fix.......67,000 miles with full service history :headbang:
 
slick said:
I sold my SLK 350 after 6 months........first month 6th gear synchro replaced .........5 month new inlet manilfold needed , 6 month new timing chain and balance shaft needed ....even though the engine number was after the balance shaft update/fix.......67,000 miles with full service history :headbang:

Come to think of it, I'm only on this forum because I bought a MK1 SLK 200 and returned it back to the dealer after driving it home and hearing a faint grinding noise at certain revs. Cost to sort it was thousands and so I swapped it for a 2ltr Z4 that had just come in :driving:
 
I'd compare any version of the SLK/SLC with the E89 only. Personally, I found the seating position of my SLK too upright for me, and when I sat in an E89 it felt disappointingly similar. So after 18 months I swapped the R172 SLK for a GLA and bought a weekend driver E85. I miss the toys my SLK had, and the visibility over the shoulder was better too, but the E85 with Msport seats is much more comfortable for me. One other advantage of the E85 - with the roof down, windows up and OEM wind deflectors in place on both cars, the SLK was much more draughty.
 
Sidewaze Samm said:
with the roof down, windows up and OEM wind deflectors in place on both cars, the SLK was much more draughty.
Couldn't the air scarf compensate for that?
That would be an option I'd like to have.
 
GuidoK said:
Sidewaze Samm said:
with the roof down, windows up and OEM wind deflectors in place on both cars, the SLK was much more draughty.
Couldn't the air scarf compensate for that?
That would be an option I'd like to have.
I had airscarf and it is brilliant, especially with heated seats on too. Even in winter with the roof up, it's great - as on a cold morning it provides near instant heat and much quicker than either the seats or the heater.
But... it doesn't overpower the cold draught at a decent speed.
EDIT - Thinking about it, I wonder whether it's the fact that the rear side windows stay down when the roof is down, even with windows up, that causes so much draught? There is a Gaptech-type device (SmartTop?) that can raise those windows, but not cheap and a pig to install I believe. I think the door windows on the E85 might extend a little further back than on the SLK maybe.
I guess it's due to a host of aerodynamic factors - height/angle of windscreen, length of boot etc.

But back to the title of this thread!
Then it's got to be 'new' R172 SLK. Better spec and better looking IMO than the earlier two models (which had even worse seats I believe). Also, not the very latest current version, the SLC. Just my opinion...
 
Marlon said:
slick said:
I sold my SLK 350 after 6 months........first month 6th gear synchro replaced .........5 month new inlet manilfold needed , 6 month new timing chain and balance shaft needed ....even though the engine number was after the balance shaft update/fix.......67,000 miles with full service history :headbang:

Come to think of it, I'm only on this forum because I bought a MK1 SLK 200 and returned it back to the dealer after driving it home and hearing a faint grinding noise at certain revs. Cost to sort it was thousands and so I swapped it for a 2ltr Z4 that had just come in :driving:

Amazing how things work out. Would you consider another SLK?

Not a car I’ve ever looked at tbh.
 
Marlon said:
slick said:
I sold my SLK 350 after 6 months........first month 6th gear synchro replaced .........5 month new inlet manilfold needed , 6 month new timing chain and balance shaft needed ....even though the engine number was after the balance shaft update/fix.......67,000 miles with full service history :headbang:

Come to think of it, I'm only on this forum because I bought a MK1 SLK 200 and returned it back to the dealer after driving it home and hearing a faint grinding noise at certain revs. Cost to sort it was thousands and so I swapped it for a 2ltr Z4 that had just come in :driving:

Snap! I had a previous gen 320 SLK that was a 'nice' car but got me on first name terms with the local AA man so it went back to the dealer, then I bought the Z4 over 9 years ago :D
 
Back
Top Bottom