Ask the Audience: SLK Conundrum

[st13phil]

A couple of weeks ago we were loaned an SLK200 Komp by our local dealership. My wife, Angie, was quite smitten by it and is now considering replacing her R56 MINI Cooper S with one. Personally I though the 200K was a bit feeble for a sports car - apologies to anyone who is a happy owner of a 200K: it was nice enough to drive, but I'd prefer a bit more go - so if we have one it'll be a 280 or 350 (more likely a 280). I will retain the W204 220 CDI whatever happens as my high-mileage transport, and the SLK will repace the MINI as a second and less used car. The SLK would be spec'd as an auto, with leather, airscarf, parktronic and memory package so that it's easier for both of us to drive it. Any other options are nice to have rather than a need.

So, the conundrum is either:

a) Buy new as we can get a better deal on a new, rather than nearly new car, or...
b) Go for something a little older with relatively high mileage

The rationale for choice (a) is simple: nice new car, get exactly the spec we want + 36-month warranty and a low-rate finance deal. Downside is depreciation. A cash purchase is feasible on a new SLK, but we'd rather do something else with the money.

The rationale for choice (b) is to to go for a late, higher mileage, example as Angie tends to do only 5-6k mile per year. After 3 years ownership the average mileage per year would be lower hence it would become a more "average" car mileage-wise and suffer lower depreciation. Obvious downside is the difficulty of finding the spec Angie wants, and it probably being a pre-facelift car. Finance would be cash purchase.

However, having looked around the market a bit, the major flaw in option (b) seems to be that most SLK's seem to be kept as second cars and therefore 5k miles pa seems more like the average than exception. Also, I have no knowledge of what mileage the average SLK turns into a money pit.

So, what does the team think? All advice and suggestions gratefully received.

 

[Dryce]

Personally I though the 200K was a bit feeble for a sports car -

So, the conundrum is either:

a) Buy new as we can get a better deal on a new, rather than nearly new car, or...
b) Go for something a little older with relatively high mileage

Extend the (b) concept say and go for a 280.

 

[BlackC55]

The 350 is so much better.

most come fully loaded too

 

[st13phil]

Dryce: we are (were?) happy to go with either a 280 or a 350 (more likely a 280 new) until... Olly said

The 350 is so much better.

most come fully loaded too

Hmm... The only facelift 350's I've seen recently have either been demonstrators with pretty basic spec at very close to new price, a pretty cheap intergallactic manual driven by an insomniac through MB-Direct , or pre-facelift models with relatively mundane spec's.

Any comment on longevity / expensive replacement points, Olly?

 

[Colin_b]

If you can afford it, a 350 is the way to go, particularly the auto. A 200 is a bit pedestrian, unless you are doing mainly city driving, and the 280 is quicker, but is too thirsty for city, and lacks the edge for effortless overtaking.

To me, it was either a 200 or a 350 (a 55 was out of budget). A 280 was neither fish nor fowl.

The 350 is a truly effortless performer, well built, and reasonable to run and own.

If you are going for a fast convertible, the 350 is a good choice, balancing everything well.

The must haves are airscarf and heated seats (std on the 350) for top down use.