Discussion
I have been thinking lately about a mid life crisis fun car. I have looked into an early slk350 which are selling for £6k ish, I have just noticed however that for around the same money I could get an SL - is it madness considering the bigger brother? Can anyone guide my thoughts by sharing experiences? Thanks
There's A LOT of horror stories about SL's and in fairness, rightly so - they are known to have some expensive weak points. Few can be countered however... And if you buy wisely you could potentially have A LOT of car for relatively little money. Let someone else pay the bills in previous ownership so you can pick up a steal. The car's are getting to the age now that most of these horror stories would have been rectified and components replaced and OK again for another 10 odd years.
Not all SL's have ABC - Active body control - The hydraulic suspension system, thus voids most arguments against steel spring SL's of having ludicrously expensive suspension struts, leaking valve blocks, strut ball joints with excess play and ABC pumps to fail. Probably half the internet terror frights in those components alone. If you buy one that's had the majority replaced already, it would be a much safer bet.
SBC - Buy one that's had a replacement. A superb braking system, and light years ahead of it's time. Easy enough to spot if it's not that old as it'll be gleaming and shiny. You can also check with Merc/indie if seller has mentioned it's been replaced.
Roof leaks - Easy to spot, open the boot and have a feel around all the carpets, take all wheel and tool kit out until you see metal and if it's full of water, walk away or use it as a BIG bargaining chip. You can also tell visually if the seals have been looked after because they'll be nice clean and dark black. You don't want to see any dirt, moss, them squashed or misaligned or anything else on them - signs it's been stood / seals not maintained. Again, most previous owners will have had the seals changed at one stage. Have a good listen to the roof operation also, make sure it's not clunking and all moving freely and drain holes are clear.
Vacuum / PSE pump controls central locking and usually goes wrong due to the leaking roof as it sits in the bottom of the boot. See locking etc works and roof module that sits above it doesn't look corroded or like it's been damp at any point.
They're the MAIN issues.
Other normal things like servicing/tyres/brakes/running costs will be similar to that of the SLK with a similar sized engine. I would say they are completely different cars in terms of how they drive, so drive both and see what you think.
Not all SL's have ABC - Active body control - The hydraulic suspension system, thus voids most arguments against steel spring SL's of having ludicrously expensive suspension struts, leaking valve blocks, strut ball joints with excess play and ABC pumps to fail. Probably half the internet terror frights in those components alone. If you buy one that's had the majority replaced already, it would be a much safer bet.
SBC - Buy one that's had a replacement. A superb braking system, and light years ahead of it's time. Easy enough to spot if it's not that old as it'll be gleaming and shiny. You can also check with Merc/indie if seller has mentioned it's been replaced.
Roof leaks - Easy to spot, open the boot and have a feel around all the carpets, take all wheel and tool kit out until you see metal and if it's full of water, walk away or use it as a BIG bargaining chip. You can also tell visually if the seals have been looked after because they'll be nice clean and dark black. You don't want to see any dirt, moss, them squashed or misaligned or anything else on them - signs it's been stood / seals not maintained. Again, most previous owners will have had the seals changed at one stage. Have a good listen to the roof operation also, make sure it's not clunking and all moving freely and drain holes are clear.
Vacuum / PSE pump controls central locking and usually goes wrong due to the leaking roof as it sits in the bottom of the boot. See locking etc works and roof module that sits above it doesn't look corroded or like it's been damp at any point.
They're the MAIN issues.
Other normal things like servicing/tyres/brakes/running costs will be similar to that of the SLK with a similar sized engine. I would say they are completely different cars in terms of how they drive, so drive both and see what you think.
Classy6 said:
Not all SL's have ABC - Active body control - The hydraulic suspension system, thus voids most arguments against steel spring SL's of having ludicrously expensive suspension struts, leaking valve blocks, strut ball joints with excess play and ABC pumps to fail. Probably half the internet terror frights in those components alone. If you buy one that's had the majority replaced already, it would be a much safer bet.
Only the SL350 had the option of no ABC!Ali_D said:
I have been thinking lately about a mid life crisis fun car. I have looked into an early slk350 which are selling for £6k ish, I have just noticed however that for around the same money I could get an SL - is it madness considering the bigger brother? Can anyone guide my thoughts by sharing experiences? Thanks
An early R171 SLK 350 is best avoided. There was an issue with the engine. The camshaft sprocket is made of sintered metal and will, not might, disintegrate with time. It might run for 120,000 or might go at 60,000. There's a very informative facebook page on it.The engine has to be removed to replace the sprocket so total cost in in the £000s, a minimum of £3,500 was quoted for mine. However, the sprocket is on the wrong 'side' of the oil filter. The metal bits run through the pump initially, can play havoc with gubbins at the bottom of the engine and bore wear is not unusual.
Overall, though, the SLK is a great car to own. The 280, which doesn't suffer the same problem, is agood buy. It is an entirely different type of car to the SL. It is much more sporty. The boot is not bad, especially compared to,say, an MX5, when the hood it down. When up it it ample for two.
Internal space is all but non-existance unless you are short.
I've had two SLKs and have one now, a 320 R170. It is faster than most SLs.
The hood is brilliant and very reliable.
I'm of a similar mind to the last poster. A £6k SLK would be a better buy than a £6k SL.
Derek Smith said:
Ali_D said:
I have been thinking lately about a mid life crisis fun car. I have looked into an early slk350 which are selling for £6k ish, I have just noticed however that for around the same money I could get an SL - is it madness considering the bigger brother? Can anyone guide my thoughts by sharing experiences? Thanks
An early R171 SLK 350 is best avoided. There was an issue with the engine. The camshaft sprocket is made of sintered metal and will, not might, disintegrate with time. It might run for 120,000 or might go at 60,000. There's a very informative facebook page on it.The engine has to be removed to replace the sprocket so total cost in in the £000s, a minimum of £3,500 was quoted for mine. However, the sprocket is on the wrong 'side' of the oil filter. The metal bits run through the pump initially, can play havoc with gubbins at the bottom of the engine and bore wear is not unusual.
Overall, though, the SLK is a great car to own. The 280, which doesn't suffer the same problem, is agood buy. It is an entirely different type of car to the SL. It is much more sporty. The boot is not bad, especially compared to,say, an MX5, when the hood it down. When up it it ample for two.
Internal space is all but non-existance unless you are short.
I've had two SLKs and have one now, a 320 R170. It is faster than most SLs.
The hood is brilliant and very reliable.
I'm of a similar mind to the last poster. A £6k SLK would be a better buy than a £6k SL.
Ali_D said:
mikal83 said:
whats your thoughts on a comparison between a boxster s and the slk both for around 6-8k?
My original comparison list was Z4, Boxster S and SLK. The SL was a late contender. I am no nearer any sort of decision! mikal83 said:
whats your thoughts on a comparison between a boxster s and the slk both for around 6-8k?
You get a better SLK for the price.For driving the cars:
I was going to buy a Boxster. I am unable to extend my left leg so need an auto. The Boxster's seemed alright but there was a delay. It wasn't much but if I noticed in on the test drives, it would irritate me as an owner. Drove a 7-speed SLK and it was chalk and cheese. The g/box is the best auto I've ever driven with. In fact my next saloon car will probably be a Merc with the 7-sp auto.
As for ultimate roadholding, there's a limit to what you can do on a test drive, but the SLK could be hung out on corners - this is the 171 I'm talking about. I was really impressed by my 350 right up until the engine went bang. On the facebook page it will identify the engine numbers affected by the dreadful price cutting that allowed a sintered metal gear to be in such an important place. You should be able to get a decent post bean-counter 350 for 8K. Just check the engine number. There's a fair bit on it on SLK World and they are only too pleased to help with advice.
My problem was that the bores were worn. Not much, but enough to increase the oil consumption to a level that made the mechanic tut, in the way only mechanics can. He virtually refused to do the work as, in his opinion, it wasn't worth it as the oil pump would probably need replacement. Chats to the M-B club tech bloke supported his opinion. I was eventually contacted by a chap with a spare 350 engine who bought my car for what I thought was a remarkably good price. It was all but worthless. I'd got the fault codes to disappear but they'd be back.
With all other engines, the SLK is remarkably reliable. I've written a book on SLKs which meant talking to lots of owners and that's the consensus, right up until you get to those who've had an early 350. The 280, no mean performer, is not affected.
I like the Boxster but when I bought a car to replace the duff SLK I bought a 170 SLK.
I used to own a Chimaera. Point to point off main roads the SLK was much faster. (I wish I still had the Chim. but the clutch was so heavy). How shall I put this: I bet there are lots of owners out there who glance at the speedo only to discover they are doing 30mph more than what they thought they were. In the Chim it was more the other way round. But more fun.
I take the point about noise. The R171 350 sounds quite nice, but you have to floor the throttle to get it sounding like you want it to. Not that you don't want to floor the throttle. On the other hand I did a near 400 mile trip with my wife in the SLK. She found it so much more comfortable not to be deafened as she was in the Chim.
If I were you I'd drive both Boxters and SLKs and see what lights your fire.
Derek Smith said:
mikal83 said:
whats your thoughts on a comparison between a boxster s and the slk both for around 6-8k?
You get a better SLK for the price.For driving the cars:
I was going to buy a Boxster. I am unable to extend my left leg so need an auto. The Boxster's seemed alright but there was a delay. It wasn't much but if I noticed in on the test drives, it would irritate me as an owner. Drove a 7-speed SLK and it was chalk and cheese. The g/box is the best auto I've ever driven with. In fact my next saloon car will probably be a Merc with the 7-sp auto.
As for ultimate roadholding, there's a limit to what you can do on a test drive, but the SLK could be hung out on corners - this is the 171 I'm talking about. I was really impressed by my 350 right up until the engine went bang. On the facebook page it will identify the engine numbers affected by the dreadful price cutting that allowed a sintered metal gear to be in such an important place. You should be able to get a decent post bean-counter 350 for 8K. Just check the engine number. There's a fair bit on it on SLK World and they are only too pleased to help with advice.
My problem was that the bores were worn. Not much, but enough to increase the oil consumption to a level that made the mechanic tut, in the way only mechanics can. He virtually refused to do the work as, in his opinion, it wasn't worth it as the oil pump would probably need replacement. Chats to the M-B club tech bloke supported his opinion. I was eventually contacted by a chap with a spare 350 engine who bought my car for what I thought was a remarkably good price. It was all but worthless. I'd got the fault codes to disappear but they'd be back.
With all other engines, the SLK is remarkably reliable. I've written a book on SLKs which meant talking to lots of owners and that's the consensus, right up until you get to those who've had an early 350. The 280, no mean performer, is not affected.
I like the Boxster but when I bought a car to replace the duff SLK I bought a 170 SLK.
I used to own a Chimaera. Point to point off main roads the SLK was much faster. (I wish I still had the Chim. but the clutch was so heavy). How shall I put this: I bet there are lots of owners out there who glance at the speedo only to discover they are doing 30mph more than what they thought they were. In the Chim it was more the other way round. But more fun.
I take the point about noise. The R171 350 sounds quite nice, but you have to floor the throttle to get it sounding like you want it to. Not that you don't want to floor the throttle. On the other hand I did a near 400 mile trip with my wife in the SLK. She found it so much more comfortable not to be deafened as she was in the Chim.
If I were you I'd drive both Boxters and SLKs and see what lights your fire.
Luke. said:
Interesting. Are post 2008 SLK350's OK?
You should go by engine number rather than year. But 2008s are generally OK. I'm told that some later cars had earlier engines.There's an excellent book on Kindle or you could go to SLK World and ask. There's this website: http://www.mercedesmedic.com/check-my-mercedes-ben.... The picture is scary though. Only for the brave.
It is outrageous that Merc refused to compensate all owners. There was a court case in the USA over it, a class action. It would appear that they knew of the problem but continued to sell the cars so fitted. It doesn't only go for SLKs. I bought mine secondhand and it had, when the engine went, about 68k on the clock. A Merc dealer told me I was well out of the frame for compensation.
Derek Smith said:
Internal space is all but non-existance unless you are short.
I'm 6ft 2in and my ex was (still is) 6ft and very curvy, and there's plenty of room in the SLK.My previous car was an MX5 - now that was cramped! Especially on the passenger side where the footwell was rather sneakily made a lot shorter than the drivers side, so anyone tall (as we were) felt like they were sat with their knees around their ears! On the driver side I had the seat rammed against the rear bulkhead and the backrest was too upright in order to give enough leg room.
But the SLK, absolutely fine, it's one of the reasons I bought it.
Incidentally, I'm on my second SLK. The first was a manual 2005 200K, the current one an auto 2009 280 Sport.
The later car is a facelift (facelift happened in 2008, so some 08 are pre, some post. Lots of small differences inside and out, the most obvious way to tell is round front fogs and 'tuning fork' style indicator repeaters). It feels a real step up in quality from the previous car. It might just be that I got a 'bad' one first time and a 'good' one the second time, but I know Merc were suffering big quality issues late nineties early two thousands, so I do wonder if my later second car was from the era that they were trying hard to lift quality levels.
Received wisdom seemed to be, avoid anything 2004 or earlier. My 2005 car was actually manufactured in 2004.
This is seperate to the 350 engine issue which I knew nothing about until this thread. I wanted a 350 but found the perfect spec 280 so went for that - sounds like I had a lucky escape!
One other thought - gearboxes. Urban myth is that Merc manuals are rubbish 'that's why almost all Mercs are auto'. It's complete nonsense, most Mercs are auto because most new Merc buyers are auto types. The manual in my first SLK was superb, and that was following an MX5 which is rated amongst the best. That said, I think the auto I have now suits the rather laid back style of the car. It's not really a sports car like a Boxster or MX5 is, it's more a 'mini GT'. Great on long trips.
I've had mine five years now - I've never kept a car that long. I'm dreading the thought of having to change it one day, hopefully it will carry on the next five years as well as the last five and I won't have to.
I also think it's one of those rare cars that doesn't seem to date. In a dark metallic with Sport spec they still look fantastic! But I am a little biased of course...
The later car is a facelift (facelift happened in 2008, so some 08 are pre, some post. Lots of small differences inside and out, the most obvious way to tell is round front fogs and 'tuning fork' style indicator repeaters). It feels a real step up in quality from the previous car. It might just be that I got a 'bad' one first time and a 'good' one the second time, but I know Merc were suffering big quality issues late nineties early two thousands, so I do wonder if my later second car was from the era that they were trying hard to lift quality levels.
Received wisdom seemed to be, avoid anything 2004 or earlier. My 2005 car was actually manufactured in 2004.
This is seperate to the 350 engine issue which I knew nothing about until this thread. I wanted a 350 but found the perfect spec 280 so went for that - sounds like I had a lucky escape!
One other thought - gearboxes. Urban myth is that Merc manuals are rubbish 'that's why almost all Mercs are auto'. It's complete nonsense, most Mercs are auto because most new Merc buyers are auto types. The manual in my first SLK was superb, and that was following an MX5 which is rated amongst the best. That said, I think the auto I have now suits the rather laid back style of the car. It's not really a sports car like a Boxster or MX5 is, it's more a 'mini GT'. Great on long trips.
I've had mine five years now - I've never kept a car that long. I'm dreading the thought of having to change it one day, hopefully it will carry on the next five years as well as the last five and I won't have to.
I also think it's one of those rare cars that doesn't seem to date. In a dark metallic with Sport spec they still look fantastic! But I am a little biased of course...
The M272 did have an issue with the cam sprocket but they did sort it, I have a CLS with the M273, which is the same engine but with 2 more cylinders, mine was post the issue, the web info will tell you years and engine numbers, I suspect a lot may have been done but just run a mile if the check engine light us on.
Also these may smell of burning oil, some plastic blanking plates on the back of the engine get brittle with age and seep engine oil onto the exhaust, perhaps use it as a bargaining point and don't worry if you see one that smells a bit oily, I did one side on mine last year, just did the other side which also has an oil separator, less than £40 to diy, bit fiddly but not too bad.
Otherwise, they seem pretty solid units.
Also these may smell of burning oil, some plastic blanking plates on the back of the engine get brittle with age and seep engine oil onto the exhaust, perhaps use it as a bargaining point and don't worry if you see one that smells a bit oily, I did one side on mine last year, just did the other side which also has an oil separator, less than £40 to diy, bit fiddly but not too bad.
Otherwise, they seem pretty solid units.
Ari said:
I'm 6ft 2in and my ex was (still is) 6ft and very curvy, and there's plenty of room in the SLK.
My previous car was an MX5 - now that was cramped! Especially on the passenger side where the footwell was rather sneakily made a lot shorter than the drivers side, so anyone tall (as we were) felt like they were sat with their knees around their ears! On the driver side I had the seat rammed against the rear bulkhead and the backrest was too upright in order to give enough leg room.
But the SLK, absolutely fine, it's one of the reasons I bought it.
Just to clarify, I didn't mean space for the passengers, but stowage. I'm 6'2.5" and my wife is 5'10" and we fit the seats nicely. However, there's no place to stick a couple of jackets if there's two of you. My wife carries a large handbag and it is too big to go behind the seats. I'm used to a TVR, with space for a Bouvier behind. And the rest of it.My previous car was an MX5 - now that was cramped! Especially on the passenger side where the footwell was rather sneakily made a lot shorter than the drivers side, so anyone tall (as we were) felt like they were sat with their knees around their ears! On the driver side I had the seat rammed against the rear bulkhead and the backrest was too upright in order to give enough leg room.
But the SLK, absolutely fine, it's one of the reasons I bought it.
It's no reason to reject the car though. You just have to have ways of coping.
I should have said that I like the overall size of the SLK. It is quite short and seems to get a lot smaller when you get used to it. It is eminently chuckable. Mine's off road at the moment, coming back on 1 April. Can't wait.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff