RE: Mercedes SLK230 Kompressor | Shed of the Week

[Mr Tidy]

Nice - that's a proper shed of the week. :thumbsup:

I'm not sure why Mercedes manual gearboxes get so much stick. I had one in my 190e and it was OK - nothing like as good as the MT75 box in the Sierra it replaced, but far from terrible.

Anyway this car is an auto which probably suits an SLK better as I think they are more cruiser than sports car but it could be a cheap fun car for the summer, and the colour is great.

[anonymous-user]

Mine last September on the NC500...

[nikkormat]

Bought one of these in ‘97 ,brand new with full AMG body kit, a lovely car in its day but they do self compost, rust on all wings and boot, seemingly appearing overnight and because it rots from the inside sanding back the paint just reveals air! Add in dodgy electrics, leaking roof and sticky interior plastics even at 995 it could be a world of pain!(miss it though!)

[A1VDY]

Re problems with the supercharger, many don't realise it's a serviceable item.
Once removed it has a small in built oil container on the front and a very slightly larger one at the rear. Both have drain plugs and the oil measured before replacing with new oil. Doing this at approx every 50k miles will lengthen its life..

[pSyCoSiS]

Great SOTW. I really like these. I remember how sought after they were when launched in 96. I'm sure people were paying £10k over the list, to get their hands on one, rather than waiting on the 18 month list.

I would like an early model, 230 Kompressor, Auto and in Brilliant Silver with Red leather.

The interior plastics do start to wear off, but a well-kept early model does have an air of class about it.

They are so cheap, seen loads going for £600 - £800 a few months back. And you can buy better ones for this money to be fair

Saw a really rare green one on Retro Rides the other day - 320 V6 manual with two tone interior. Now that should be pretty fun to drive?

[B'stard Child]

pSyCoSiS said:

Saw a really rare green one on Retro Rides the other day - 320 V6 manual with two tone interior. Now that should be pretty fun to drive?

If you take the restrictor/silencer out of a 230K you are knocking on the door of 320 bhp

Also makes the charger scream very nicely

IMO the Mercedes can't make manual boxes was because they made very good autos - there is nothing wrong with a merc manual box

[s m]

I like the colour

Seeing how cheap the 5-sp Getrag manuals are and not being averse to a tuneable supercharged 4-pot these look like good fun for under a grand for a 2-seater

Reading the handling notes they remind me of my friend’s 190E 2.5-16 - back end pretty glued and planted on the road.

Even the slushers are GT86 fast, as someone noted earlier a manual must be in the 6s - now the 2.8 Z3s have started going up I can see these increasing in price too

[Flying Phil]

I bought an SLK 350 almost on a whim.....and once I accepted it as a cruiser, I really enjoyed wafting around in it.....I still miss it and may well buy another. It was interesting how quickly people got out of the way....

[pSyCoSiS]

B'stard Child said:

If you take the restrictor/silencer out of a 230K you are knocking on the door of 320 bhp

Also makes the charger scream very nicely

IMO the Mercedes can't make manual boxes was because they made very good autos - there is nothing wrong with a merc manual box

Wow, I had no idea you could take them up to 320 bhp! Is that just with the work you mentioned, and no pulley upgrades or remapping?

[B'stard Child]

pSyCoSiS said:

B'stard Child said:

If you take the restrictor/silencer out of a 230K you are knocking on the door of 320 bhp

Also makes the charger scream very nicely

IMO the Mercedes can't make manual boxes was because they made very good autos - there is nothing wrong with a merc manual box

Wow, I had no idea you could take them up to 320 bhp! Is that just with the work you mentioned, and no pulley upgrades or remapping?

Written badly "take them up to the same bhp as a 320 V6 version" would be better

[mikal83]

wife had a 320.....gutless, too quiet and souless. Sold it for a Hyundai! lol

[pSyCoSiS]

B'stard Child said:

Written badly "take them up to the same bhp as a 320 V6 version" would be better

Ah ok, that takes more sense!

[ES335]

Great Shed.

I have its successor and it's really surprised me. Light, responsive, relatively refined. A bit down on power, but very quick cross country point to point as it's so small and has really accurate steering. And it's really economical. Ok, my main drive prior to acquiring it was a 4.2 litre W126 so some things are relative, I suppose.

[900T-R]

oceanview said:

Kawasicki said:

Funnily enough I was employed as a tyre Test driver when I drove one. I drove it at the limit for 6 hours a day for about a month on various test tracks, on snow, wet and dry. So clearly I have driven one.

Poor chassis? You haven’t got a clue.

Poor build? There are still lots of them driving around.

To be fair to Frimley, is wasnt exactly highly rated for its driving dynamics back when it was new- its certainly no Boxster!

That's the thing - back then it got lobbed in with the Boxster and Chimaera because it's a small two-seat roadster that is similarly priced to those two, but it's quite obviously something very different - in fact, a non-rusty example would complement either of them perfectly as a daily snotter for those who a) don't need more than two seats for any of their cars and b) like to drive al fresco. I know I've been tempted once or twice...

[s m]

900T-R said:

oceanview said:

Kawasicki said:

Funnily enough I was employed as a tyre Test driver when I drove one. I drove it at the limit for 6 hours a day for about a month on various test tracks, on snow, wet and dry. So clearly I have driven one.

Poor chassis? You haven’t got a clue.

Poor build? There are still lots of them driving around.

To be fair to Frimley, is wasnt exactly highly rated for its driving dynamics back when it was new- its certainly no Boxster!

That's the thing - back then it got lobbed in with the Boxster and Chimaera because it's a small two-seat roadster that is similarly priced to those two, but it's quite obviously something very different - in fact, a non-rusty example would complement either of them perfectly as a daily snotter for those who a) don't need more than two seats for any of their cars and b) like to drive al fresco. I know I've been tempted once or twice...

I saw it as very much a Z3 competitor

[anonymous-user]

s m said:

I saw it as very much a Z3 competitor

At least the multilink rear suspension on the SLK could actually keep the rear wheels flat and level with the ground!

I love Z3s for just how bad they are. Most of them were pretty gutless 1.9 4 cylinder jobs (maybe even with a 4 speed auto!) so they couldn't expose the shortcomings of the chassis so much, but the 2.8 and 3.0 were brilliant fun in that way that overpowered cars with inadequate suspension are. They gave them nice soft springs so you could get maximum camber changes at the rear when the car shifted around during anything other than sedate driving, perhaps just as you came out of a corner and wanted to get back on the power for real "oh st" fun times.

I had one of each and they were at times very exciting. In that regard they captured the feel of a rubbish British roadster that might fling you off into a hedge if you're not paying attention in the way that the MX5 never did.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th July 16:30

[Kawasicki]

stickleback123 said:

s m said:

I saw it as very much a Z3 competitor

At least the multilink rear suspension on the SLK could actually keep the rear wheels flat and level with the ground!

I love Z3s for just how bad they are. Most of them were pretty gutless 1.9 4 cylinder jobs (maybe even with a 4 speed auto!) so they couldn't expose the shortcomings of the chassis so much, but the 2.8 and 3.0 were brilliant fun in that way that overpowered cars with inadequate suspension are. They gave them nice soft springs so you could get maximum camber changes at the rear when the car shifted around during anything other than sedate driving, perhaps just as you came out of a corner and wanted to get back on the power for real "oh st" fun times.

I had one of each and they were at times very exciting. In that regard they captured the feel of a rubbish British roadster that might fling you off into a hedge if you're not paying attention in the way that the MX5 never did.

Edited by stickleback123 on Tuesday 7th July 16:30

Doesn’t the Z3 have the same basic rear suspension as every E30 3 series, M3 included?

No, they are not as good as a well developed multi-link, but they are better than a lot of supposedly superior stuff out there, probably because they were developed for so long and the tuning was well understood.

Both the Z3 and the SLK get a lot of criticism for their chassis performance, but I personally don’t think it’s warranted.

[anonymous-user]

Kawasicki said:

Doesn’t the Z3 have the same basic rear suspension as every E30 3 series, M3 included?

No, they are not as good as a well developed multi-link, but they are better than a lot of supposedly superior stuff out there, probably because they were developed for so long and the tuning was well understood.

Both the Z3 and the SLK get a lot of criticism for their chassis performance, but I personally don’t think it’s warranted.

Very similar setup to the E30 I believe, a car which can also be quite a handful on poor surfaces and with fast cornering. The Z3 was fine up to maybe 7/10ths, so all the time for the vast majority of drivers, but had to be treated with real respect and understanding of it's chassis behaviour past that point. All the tuning in the world can't change the laws of physics, and by giving the car enough suspension travel and softness to ride well and cope with bad roads with semi trailing arms you're inevitably opening the door to wayward behaviour as the suspension gets closer to ends of it's travel.

I certainly can't think of any sports cars with double wishbones or a multilink setup at the back that has anything like the poor behaviour of the semi trailing arms of the Z3 and E30 as you approach the limit, although I only know the S2000 by reputation.

The Z3 forums were full of people banging on about how it could be "cured" with much stiffer springs, dampers, and anti roll bars. Well yes, if you stop the suspension moving up and down then the wheel geometry won't alter so much, but now it feels like it has wooden wheels mounted directly to the car and it jumps all over the road on bad surfaces.

In the context of the time it wasn't the foulest handling car by a long way, but given how expensive the car was it was disappointing that the E36, out at the same time as the Z3 but the less "sporting" car, had a rear suspension system that could combine good ride with consistently good and benign handling (and better NVH). As did the Mazda MX5 for 2/3rds of the price.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 7th July 18:15

[s m]

Kawasicki said:

Doesn’t the Z3 have the same basic rear suspension as every E30 3 series, M3 included?

No, they are not as good as a well developed multi-link, but they are better than a lot of supposedly superior stuff out there, probably because they were developed for so long and the tuning was well understood.

Both the Z3 and the SLK get a lot of criticism for their chassis performance, but I personally don’t think it’s warranted.

Yes, a 15 degree semi trailing arm on the Z3 - same as the E30 and M3 - your old 318i would have had this set- up
Also used on the E36 Compact

[Kawasicki]

stickleback123 said:

Kawasicki said:

Doesn’t the Z3 have the same basic rear suspension as every E30 3 series, M3 included?

No, they are not as good as a well developed multi-link, but they are better than a lot of supposedly superior stuff out there, probably because they were developed for so long and the tuning was well understood.

Both the Z3 and the SLK get a lot of criticism for their chassis performance, but I personally don’t think it’s warranted.

Very similar setup to the E30 I believe, a car which can also be quite a handful on poor surfaces and with fast cornering. The Z3 was fine up to maybe 7/10ths, so all the time for the vast majority of drivers, but had to be treated with real respect and understanding of it's chassis behaviour past that point. All the tuning in the world can't change the laws of physics, and by giving the car enough suspension travel and softness to ride well and cope with bad roads with semi trailing arms you're inevitably opening the door to wayward behaviour as the suspension gets closer to ends of it's travel.

I certainly can't think of any sports cars with double wishbones or a multilink setup at the back that has anything like the poor behaviour of the semi trailing arms of the Z3 and E30 as you approach the limit, although I only know the S2000 by reputation.

The Z3 forums were full of people banging on about how it could be "cured" with much stiffer springs, dampers, and anti roll bars. Well yes, if you stop the suspension moving up and down then the wheel geometry won't alter so much, but now it feels like it has wooden wheels mounted directly to the car and it jumps all over the road on bad surfaces.

In the context of the time it wasn't the foulest handling car by a long way, but given how expensive the car was it was disappointing that the E36, out at the same time as the Z3 but the less "sporting" car, had a rear suspension system that could combine good ride with consistently good and benign handling (and better NVH). As did the Mazda MX5 for 2/3rds of the price.

Edited by stickleback123 on Tuesday 7th July 18:15

I actually like the E30/Z3 rear suspension. It has lift off oversteer, and (obviously) power on understeer, and it always does this consistently, so you just drive using these characteristics. It has a sort of throttle-position controlled rear steer... which is fun, but only if you are aware that it’s happening.