SLK200 R171Facelift (for the girlfriend)

[TiminYorkshire]

As it doesn't seem to be getting a response in the car buying section I thought I'd post it up here:

So the other half quite fancies the SLKs, given the likely budget I'm thinking we'll be looking at facelifted (2007 on) SLK200s, she does 60 miles a day so I don't think the larger engines would be suitable.

So what are they like reliability wise?

Things to look out for?

Auto vs manual? I've read somewhere that the manual in this model wasn't bad.

And are they slightly fun to drive in a cruiser way in case I ever get to drive it?

[Derek Smith]

TiminYorkshire said:

As it doesn't seem to be getting a response in the car buying section I thought I'd post it up here:

So the other half quite fancies the SLKs, given the likely budget I'm thinking we'll be looking at facelifted (2007 on) SLK200s, she does 60 miles a day so I don't think the larger engines would be suitable.

So what are they like reliability wise?

Things to look out for?

Auto vs manual? I've read somewhere that the manual in this model wasn't bad.

And are they slightly fun to drive in a cruiser way in case I ever get to drive it?

I've written a bit more on the 'SLK vs SL' thread.

I've owned two SLKs, both V6s. I think they are great fun to drive. One aspect that would only appeal to those who are immature is that other sports car drivers don't expect you to hammer around a corner so if they are following they are often surprised. If you were really childish, you'd probably find that the tyres squeal as you approach the limit so it is a gentle warning.

The rust problem on the early SLK, up until about 2003, are spared the R171. The roof is reliable.

The 7sp auto is sublime, but that's only available with the V6. The 5-speed is fine though. If Merc do one thing well, it's make auto boxes. The 6-speed manual is easy enough to drive with - I had a CLK with one - but I found I was forever changing gear when on a run on B roads. My CLK had 22k on the clock and there was no trace of the clunkiness everyone told me to expect.

The four pot is reliable. Some suggest ignoring the servicing schedule and changing the supercharger oil every 40k or so. Others reckon this is more often than required.

I went from a Chim to the SLK 350 and it wasn't the big change I thought. Both are sports cars. There is, unfortunately, no temptation to drive like a lout in the Merc. No car is perfect.

The roof is magic. You have to oil the rubbers twice a year to get a good creakless seal, but it only takes a couple of hours. It's easy enough to put off.

One thing on my R171. A car pulled out in front of me. There was no way I could stop in time. There was a lorry coming from the opposite direction and the driver braked and locked his wheels. I just pressed as hard as I could on the brake, expecting an impact to the extent that I took my hands off the wheel. I stopped in time, probably 6" short. It was remarkable. The pedal seemed to move from side to side under my foot. The lorry driver leaned out and said that he thought I'd had it.

Or, to put it another way, really impressive brakes.

[TiminYorkshire]

Sounds like the V6s are good, what about the smaller kompressor engine?

[Derek Smith]

The main problem with the supercharged engines for me is that they don't feel like a supercharged engine. There's no wine, the delivery is smooth and it might was well be a bigger N/A engine.

They are very reliable. I'm told the oil should be changed at 50k - not particularly expensive. They can sound as if they are being really pushed when they are being really pushed.

I drove a 230 and a 320 back to back. The latter is smoother and more relaxed, but at mainly town speeds there's no advantage to the V6. The performance is similar at town speeds as well. However, when I was looking for my second SLK I went for either. If there had been a 230 and 320 in the same general condition, etc, but the 320 was 10% dearer I would have gone for it. There's no noticeable difference in ride despite the bigger engine.

On all SLKs I've driven there's a little initial understeer when you are pushing it. I like this as it lets me know I'm pushing it. More sensitive drivers might want a bit less. Once through the first bit it is neutral.

One problem I found on the 7-sp gearbox was that if I was going around a corner on gentle throttle the damn thing would change up mid-corner. It never gave a hint of instability or anything like that, but I found it disconcerting. It was easy enough to go to manual. It is not a problem with the 5-sp.

You should be careful of the earlier 280s and 350s due to CO2 levels as they fall within the current £500 tax. The later ones drop back to £290 or so. So if you are going for a facelift you should be OK, but I would check just in case.

I've just had a sit in my car. Off for MoT on Thursday and I was putting the battery on charge after 3 months off-road. There's no doubt it's a fun car to own without all the problems associated with an out and out sports car. As an added bonus, I pulled up outside my daughter's place when the grandkids were standing outside. I put the top up and my grandson screamed in appreciation: 'Grandad's got a Transformer.' He was jumping up and down with excitement. When picking him up from school he proudly said to his schoolmates: 'That's my grandad, the one with the Transformer.'

Cool and 70. Not bad, eh?

[TiminYorkshire]

Thanks for that.

I've read issues of cam chain stretch, were these sorted post 2007 or still an issue?

[Ari]

I've had a 200K manual and it's a really nice box.

That said, I have a 280 auto now and it's a far superior car - faster, smoother, just a far more effortless drive.

[Derek Smith]

TiminYorkshire said:

Thanks for that.

I've read issues of cam chain stretch, were these sorted post 2007 or still an issue?

Go onto SLK World. They are hardly uncritical of the car and will relish being able to give all the bad news. It's a bit American, if you know what I mean, but they are a very helpful bunch.