RE: Mercedes SLK: Guilty Pleasures
Discussion
When the wife and I set out to find a second car about 4 years ago, the boxster, late Z3, early Z4, S2000 and MX5 were on the radar.
The S2000 would have been my first pick, but it's taxed here at about 3x what the others cost so that was that. The MX5's generally were pretty poorly equipped, and the lowest power version.
The Z3's and Z4's were some of the most rusty cars we've seen, and the wife didn't really like them at all.
Then there was the boxster. My 2nd choice after the S2000. The problem here was, within our budget it was pretty hard to find. Secondly, they were too impractical for us for even a second car.
We moved on to the R170 SLK, and we were both a bit smitten tbh. Very comfortable, very well equipped and very reasonably priced. All of them were in very good nick as well compared to the BMW's. On top of that, if the roof isn't in the boot, the boot is huge. Easily as big as my contemporary C-class sedan. And that roof might be easily dismissable, but the benefits are very clear if you leave it parked outside at night.
Not that long after we did a trip 'round Italy, about 5000km, and I've never been so comfortable in a car.
Yes, it probably won't be the last word in driving dynamics, but it's a fun car nonetheless. On top of that, it cruises with easy, is hugely comfortable and surprisingly practical.
The looks had to grow on me, but I'll echo the other statements, I think it has aged brilliantly. Especially compared to the Z3 from the same time.
Some pictures no-one asked about.
The S2000 would have been my first pick, but it's taxed here at about 3x what the others cost so that was that. The MX5's generally were pretty poorly equipped, and the lowest power version.
The Z3's and Z4's were some of the most rusty cars we've seen, and the wife didn't really like them at all.
Then there was the boxster. My 2nd choice after the S2000. The problem here was, within our budget it was pretty hard to find. Secondly, they were too impractical for us for even a second car.
We moved on to the R170 SLK, and we were both a bit smitten tbh. Very comfortable, very well equipped and very reasonably priced. All of them were in very good nick as well compared to the BMW's. On top of that, if the roof isn't in the boot, the boot is huge. Easily as big as my contemporary C-class sedan. And that roof might be easily dismissable, but the benefits are very clear if you leave it parked outside at night.
Not that long after we did a trip 'round Italy, about 5000km, and I've never been so comfortable in a car.
Yes, it probably won't be the last word in driving dynamics, but it's a fun car nonetheless. On top of that, it cruises with easy, is hugely comfortable and surprisingly practical.
The looks had to grow on me, but I'll echo the other statements, I think it has aged brilliantly. Especially compared to the Z3 from the same time.
Some pictures no-one asked about.
Sorry Dan, but as far as the 1st gen SLK is concerned the only redeeming features are that its a nice size and is quite pretty.
It's absolute garbage to drive.
The Manual gearbox is one of the worst I've stirred, the engines are boring, it doesn't like corners, gives no feedback at all and isn't even a pleasant place to sit- from memory the foot well is tiny and the seating position isn't nice.
So if you don't like driving, don't drive far but want something to potter about in that looks quite nice, then by all means, buy a first gen SLK!
(Haven't driven a newer SLK- first gen put me off!)
It's absolute garbage to drive.
The Manual gearbox is one of the worst I've stirred, the engines are boring, it doesn't like corners, gives no feedback at all and isn't even a pleasant place to sit- from memory the foot well is tiny and the seating position isn't nice.
So if you don't like driving, don't drive far but want something to potter about in that looks quite nice, then by all means, buy a first gen SLK!
(Haven't driven a newer SLK- first gen put me off!)
I think the real clincher for these is the 200.
It's a 1.8 so pretty decent tax, insurance and mpg. It is the most balanced chassis of the lot (according to those who know). It's pretty nippy, is driftable, has a big Merc badge on the front and is highly practical and reliable.
So, if you're going for the 'full fat' versions I see no reason to choose it over a boxster, but if you want something just for driving in real life (and not on a track) get a little slk 200. 90% of the time you'll be driving as quickly and having as much fun as you would in a bigger motor / s2000 / boxster / z3, and the practicality of them offsets the other 10%.
All of that said, I'd rather own a 944 / 928.
It's a 1.8 so pretty decent tax, insurance and mpg. It is the most balanced chassis of the lot (according to those who know). It's pretty nippy, is driftable, has a big Merc badge on the front and is highly practical and reliable.
So, if you're going for the 'full fat' versions I see no reason to choose it over a boxster, but if you want something just for driving in real life (and not on a track) get a little slk 200. 90% of the time you'll be driving as quickly and having as much fun as you would in a bigger motor / s2000 / boxster / z3, and the practicality of them offsets the other 10%.
All of that said, I'd rather own a 944 / 928.
My Dads missus has one of these and I really like it - whilst it might not be the last word in dynamic ability, compared to a Z4 or Boxster, it is a good, comfortable car with a decent turn of speed, thank God she bought the petrol model!
The air scarf thingy built into the seat head rests is awesome, too.
The air scarf thingy built into the seat head rests is awesome, too.
kambites said:
When I was test driving sports cars before buying the Elise, I felt the SLK350 was simply a better car than the 3.0 Z4. I never understood why the Z4 with its woeful steering and poorly damped, over-spring ride is rated as a drivers' car but the SLK is overlooked. It's also, to my eyes, far better looking than the Z4 or indeed the Boxster.
Hold on a minute, did I miss something?Edited by kambites on Wednesday 29th April 13:19
Who the f
k regards the 3.0 Z4 as a decent car???? Its an even stter interior than the mk2 SLK - which is saying something - for a start, a naff engine compared to the 350 SLK and truly truly appalling suspension & damping!if you want to argue an Alpina then I can understand, but a normal Z3.0 Z4? Only by people who haven't owned many roadsters.
I concur. I had a 350 for hire over a bank holiday weekend in the highlands and it was spot on. It was the missus choice but I really gelled with it, enough power to give you a thrill and decent handling at 9/10's..the traction control allows a bit of slip as well...
Its not as good as the boxster dynamically but it more than makes up for that as an all round car, more comfortable, less road noise with the metal roof and more discreet..
Its not as good as the boxster dynamically but it more than makes up for that as an all round car, more comfortable, less road noise with the metal roof and more discreet..
kambites said:
DJRC said:
Who the fk regards the 3.0 Z4 as a decent car????
Given the number of times it get recommended on here, I'd say quite a lot of people. k regards the 3.0 Z4 as a decent car???? I point you towards my last point of the post
As we are both roadster junkies kam old boy, when you get old and crippled and the masochistic gene recedes, I can fully recommend an SLK55 to you. Never be a Lotus, but they do the TVR thing very well.
kambites said:
When I was test driving sports cars before buying the Elise, I felt the SLK350 was simply a better car than the 3.0 Z4. I never understood why the Z4 with its woeful steering and poorly damped, over-spring ride is rated as a drivers' car but the SLK is overlooked. It's also, to my eyes, far better looking than the Z4 or indeed the Boxster.
Same story here, although I still prefer the look of the latest Boxster.I thought the SLK55AMG could have been the one to get, as the SLK350 didn't feel raw enough, but I couldn't see myself spending that much money for this car. In the end I chose the Elise.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Well Im never going to defend the mk2, st interior and the 55 was down on power. The Mk1 has a very classy and well put together interior and built quality though - certainly better than the Godawful 986 Boxster interior. As for stress testing the thing, I rather suspect Im the only person on here who has put one through 2 Swiss winters as a daily driver down to -20. And used it as cargo transport across Europe. And owned a cpl of Boxsters for comparison, funnily similar to yours except your Gayman S is a Boxster for us.The mk1 wasn't a dynamic genius, no argument. It was very very good at being a mini cruiser. It was quite frugal and it was much much better looking than the ice cream scoop 986. It was also more refined than the 986, esp on the cruise. Gone down to the house in the south of France many times in the Boxster and I ran the 230 daily in Switzerland then used it to come back home sometimes. The SLK was much more refined, roof up or down.
The Mk3 55 I run is in a different league to anything short of a current GT3. I no longer care about twisty turny B roads though, its purely A roads, dual carriageways and mid range absolute punch I care about.
(Ill admit to being biased against the 2.5 Boxster, waste of space car. The S however, is a great car. We still have ours, 1 owner, 10 yrs or so).
The R170 (gen 1) was so successful in Italy at the beginning that there was a consistent waiting list at the suppliers. Still in 1999 my dad imported from Germany some examples with delivery miles making some proft. The R171 was far less loved and while the Z4 got good decent success here. The third gen R172 got very poor reception but the whole Italian car market has been pretty poor since 2010.
Coming to the cars, personally:
- R170: I still love the looks, not sporty to drive, the supercharged engine felt strong at the time, today just decent thrust
- R171: Poor looks, better car than the R171 to drive but still dull on a twisty road. The 200 is a bit slow, the 350 fast enough but I'd still take the less poweful BMW in line 6 of the Z4.
- R172: I just test drove one for half a day 3 years ago but it certainly felt a lot more competent on a demanding road. I also appreciate the looks.
Coming to the cars, personally:
- R170: I still love the looks, not sporty to drive, the supercharged engine felt strong at the time, today just decent thrust
- R171: Poor looks, better car than the R171 to drive but still dull on a twisty road. The 200 is a bit slow, the 350 fast enough but I'd still take the less poweful BMW in line 6 of the Z4.
- R172: I just test drove one for half a day 3 years ago but it certainly felt a lot more competent on a demanding road. I also appreciate the looks.
I sold an SLK320 (R170) late last year after buying a XKR, I had the car for 12 years and found it superb and far from a woman's drive. In fact it was quicker than the newer SLK350 engine in the R171 and R172 and the R170 engine in the in the SLK32 AMG was much quicker than the SLK55 AMG ask any 55 owner.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff