Can an R170 SLK be upgraded to drive like an MX5?

[manalishi]

OK - I know the real answer to this is "go and test drive one." But please bear with me. I'm interested in owner's thoughts on the R170 SLK for enthusiastic driving. Weekends, B-roads, etc - not the daily commute, motorway cruise or posing on the riviera.

I'm drawn to the old SLK, and I've been wondering if a manual version with suspension tweaks (are there any?) would get close to the MX5's nimble and fun factor?

(Think the SLK32 is probably more powerful and costly to run/insure than I want, so it'd be the lesser models.)

Thoughts?

 

[jaymanek]

No...

Apples and pears on so many levels.

SLK is built for luxury top down driving, its heavy and built for Mercedes drivers who expect comfort.

An MX-5 has been built and designed to go around corners nicely.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I think the real answer is that you could make it more fun to drive by choosing the right spec plus a few upgrades, but it will always be more cruiser than sports car.

SLK32 is much faster, but still not really a sports car and doesn't have the handling finesse you'd be looking for. It has plenty of grunt for point-and-squirt motoring and generally hooning around.

 

[manalishi]

Thanks chaps. I'd not realised quite how heavy the SLK was - 300+kg more than the MX5!

Even so, it's interesting that the 2.3K SLK is about the same weight and power as the 16V 190, which does handle well. Maybe Mercedes didn't want to play in the 'nimble' market?

Maybe I'll just have to wait until the mk3 MX5 coupe becomes more affordable...

 

[finisterre]

We tried one of the hard top MX5s. It feels a tiny bit tinny. Which is odd because the top is plastic.

 

[Meldrew2]

I loved my 2.3K SLK..... but I've just given it to my daughter.

I bought it to replace a BMW M3.... and preferred the SLK on handling and power.... the M3 was "feelingless".

Maybe the MX5 has more grip and better power to weight... but the SLK communicates the road beautifully.

The tip-effect auto gearbox is good to use, and if you are "making progress" selecting the right gear before the "hazard" by this method gives you much of the benefit a manual gearbox gives you.

Mine was the older model, with the traditional type auto selector, but it still became instinctive to drive with manual gear control.

Add the steel roof, and you've got a car that can be used in all weather, - just on the occasions that your daily drive is in the garage.

.

 

[wemorgan]

I've only seen 1 Mercedes on a track day and that was a SLK. It didn't look especially fast, but the driver did look to be having fun.

I think some adjustable coil-overs would go some way to improving the handling.

Maybe some lighter wheels and stickier tyres too.

Depending how far you want to go but the 230K engine is tunable as shown by a forum member here with his CLK230K which has ~260bhp.

 

[m2287]

Slk amg on coilovers could do the trick...

 

[Cabe]

What is this "exciting drive" you speak of, it sounds like trying to read the pock marked horror story in Braille that the UK road network is.

 

[Meldrew2]

............ pock marked horror story in Braille that the UK road network is.

That's a perfect way of describing it!

 

[WDB124066]

Aye, Mekong Delta 1969!

 

[manalishi]

Thanks all. I'll try better search terms for SLK suspension tweaks. Didn't find any consensus yet. Seems there were manual gearboxes on the 320 V6.

What is this "exciting drive" you speak of, it sounds like trying to read the pock marked horror story in Braille that the UK road network is.

I know what you mean. I don't remember the Mk1 MX5 I had being too crashy, though. Lots of owners fit stiffer suspension, bigger wheels, etc; I wouldn't do that.

 

[bolide]

Can an R170 SLK be upgraded to drive like an MX5?

Yes - isn't it called a Honda S2000?

Nick Froome

 

[manalishi]

Yes - isn't it called a Honda S2000?

Nick Froome

Yes, and if Honda had put a 37kg* folding hard top on it, I'd be all over it like a rash.

Meanwhile...



* think that partly explains the 'tinniness' of the MX5 coupe that someone mentioned above

 

[A210AMG]

^ I think a boxster would be closer? a 3.2 S

The S2000 has no torque and really could become annoying to drive.

I so nearly bought one years ago until I took one out and yes, handling and brakes were great but the 6 speed box really needed working to get it moving. If you thought you needed 3rd you need 2nd and so on...

Fun for a blast round the lanes watching the digital 'night-rider' rev counter but would become very annoying for a daily drive.

We have owned two MX5's I had the 1.8iS with pop up lights Mk1 and the wife had a Mk2.5, have to say the flick of the rist gear change and the way they handle is superb. I still miss mine. At the time my dad had a SLK230 auto and my little 1.8 in the lanes was all over it

I will say the SLK is far better made (than my MK1 anyway) and as a dual purpose car very very good, roof up the boot is huge and very easy to drive. My dad kept his 7 years (it was a weekend car) as he liked it that much

 

[wemorgan]

The latest Mk3 MX5 has a folding hard top as an option. I imagine prices are still quite a bit higher than R170 cars though.

 

[A210AMG]

^ Thats when the new MX5's look expensive...

A SLK350 auto with all sorts of kit can be had for around 16K a LOT of car for the money and a private plate looks brand new.

As nice as the MX5's are its not in 'that' league

 

[Dryce]

Thanks chaps. I'd not realised quite how heavy the SLK was - 300+kg more than the MX5!

It's hard to miss the fact the SLK is heavy.

The first thing that came into my mind about the R170 when I opened the doors and sat in it for the first time was "it's a tank".