SLK advice required

[ocheye]

Hi
I'm new to all this but hope someone can help. I've been offered a 2001 slk 200 kompressor. It's the facelift model with a 6 spd manual gearbox. Got 90k on the clock but is one owner, fsh from new (not MB) and immaculate. What I find confusing is which engine does it use and is it a lemon?

From what I can gather the bhp dropped from 192 - 163 which seems a retrograde step unless it was deemed unnecessary with the new gearbox. Also it wasn't exported to the USA.

If the performance is satisfactory (we currently have a Saab 900s convertible- non turbo which is rather numb) and there is a noticeable improvement in fuel economy over the previous engine and gearbox then I can see the justification and that would be great. Otherwise I can't see why MB brought in the change

I haven't had a chance to drive it yet and don't want to waste anyone's time so thought I would do some homework first which is when I discovered that this particular model doesn't seem to feature very much on the web. Hope someone can help

 

[Alfie]

Hi
I'm new to all this but hope someone can help. I've been offered a 2001 slk 200 kompressor. It's the facelift model with a 6 spd manual gearbox. Got 90k on the clock but is one owner, fsh from new (not MB) and immaculate. What I find confusing is which engine does it use and is it a lemon?

From what I can gather the bhp dropped from 192 - 163 which seems a retrograde step unless it was deemed unnecessary with the new gearbox. Also it wasn't exported to the USA.

If the performance is satisfactory (we currently have a Saab 900s convertible- non turbo which is rather numb) and there is a noticeable improvement in fuel economy over the previous engine and gearbox then I can see the justification and that would be great. Otherwise I can't see why MB brought in the change

I haven't had a chance to drive it yet and don't want to waste anyone's time so thought I would do some homework first which is when I discovered that this particular model doesn't seem to feature very much on the web. Hope someone can help

Welcome to the forum.

Any manual Mercedes except perhaps the odd A class will be very difficult to sell so negotiate a hard bargain if you can. Think about this when you come to sell it yourself.....

If you post up the full chassis number I can tell you exactly what is fitted to the car.

 

[ocheye]

Thanks for that Alfie. I had heard that manual Mercs were a bit of a no-no though I had also heard that these new 6 speed boxes exploded the myth and were really good. Not that that would change public perception and resale values in a hurry. I've only once had an auto box (XJ6) so am a bit biased.

The asking price is £5700 which seems about right for the mileage from a dealer who will give me an ok trade-in. I'd be interested to know if the manuals are better on fuel than the autos.

 

[Matt32AMG]

The 200K with all due respect, is not going to set your world alight and I think you will end up ruing the day you bought it.
If it were me, I'd go find a FSH 230K facelift with Tip auto box rather than the 200K manual. I had one for about 18 months before getting my 32, and it was a really lovely car to drive and own. That said, if you can spring the extra cash, I buy a 320 as it has a smoother engine, oh and steer clear of manual cars would be my tip.

Good luck

 

[MOCAŠ]

FWIW, I had a 6-speed facelift SLK200 for two years before I got my current SLK, and it was fine. Performance isn't too far adrift of the contemporary SLK230 (top speed is 10mph down, at 138mph; 0-60 takes an extra second at 8.2), though you do lose some goodies, such as electric seats, that the facelift SLK230 had as standard. I found that the 6-speed gearchange could be a little bit notchy when cold, but other than that it wasn't a problem, and I think the idea that MB manual gearboxes are awful is something of a generalisation. I've certainly seen far, far worse. Also, I think the 6-speed manual is pretty much the norm for the R170 SLK200, as these models sold on price when new and the auto-box would have been a relatively expensive option.

It's no rocket ship, but I'd say you should notice a significant improvement in performance over the non-turbo Saab you mentioned, and if the car you've seen has been well looked after it surely can't have too much further to drop in value, manual or not. It really depends what you're looking for, how you're going to drive it and how long you're likely to keep it, but I would suggest you at least try to take one for a drive on a varied route, just to see how you get on with it.

By the way, the R170 SLK200 was only available in the UK from the facelift onwards and always had the 163bhp Kompressor engine. The previous 192bhp version must have been a substitute for the similarly-powerful SLK230 in markets where a sub-2 litre engine was required for tax reasons.

 

[ocheye]

I found that the 6-speed gearchange could be a little bit notchy when cold, but other than that it wasn't a problem, and I think the idea that MB manual gearboxes are awful is something of a generalisation.....

It's no rocket ship, but I'd say you should notice a significant improvement in performance over the non-turbo Saab you mentioned....

....The previous 192bhp version must have been a substitute for the similarly-powerful SLK230 in markets where a sub-2 litre engine was required for tax reasons.

Good to hear from someone who has owned this model and now has a 350 so it may provide a good entry platform. I will try an auto before jumping in with both feet!! I don't expect fantastic performance but it is all relative to your current car and I don't drive as fast as I used to in my student/Lotus 7 days (a long time ago). The final point about the more powerful 200 is interesting and highlights the dangers of Google searches that give you information from all over the world and can be very confusing.

I've also got to consider my other half in this as she will drive it as much as me and she will miss not having grandkids strapped in the back but this doesn't happen that often. They are big enough to sit in the passenger seat now so will have to take turns (without ice creams!)

These replies are really helpful and interesting

Many thanks

 

[ocheye]

This is really a question for MOCAŠ as I can't PM him yet. Did you stay with a manual gearbox when you upgraded from the 200? If not, with hindsight, did you prefer the manual to the auto?
Cheers
Ocheye

 

[oldrotary]

I have owned auto and manual SLK 230's, not the 200 so I can't comment on that, only the gearboxes. I started with a pre-facelift auto, then changed to a facelift manual. I found both cars are great to drive. The auto box being particularly relaxing to drive in town with heavy traffic, but for maximum enjoyment and performance I prefer the manual box. I find it very smooth and positive and altogether a more enjoyable drive.

I also find a big difference in economy, the best I ever achieved in the auto was 29mpg, but my average in the manual is 31mpg. I went on a 100mile country trip this afternoon and averaged significantly more than this.

When the facelift model was released, road testers praised and recommended the manual gearbox. There is definitely a bias against the manual gearbox amongst more traditional mercedes buyers, but this can work to your advantage, as the manuals are cheaper to buy. In the long term as the SLK becomes more affordable for the more traditional old sports car enthusiast it may be that the rarer manuals become the more expensive preferred option, but this is some years away, if ever.

Just my view from the manual minority.

 

[MOCAŠ]

This is really a question for MOCAŠ as I can't PM him yet. Did you stay with a manual gearbox when you upgraded from the 200? If not, with hindsight, did you prefer the manual to the auto?

My 350 is a 7-speed auto. I bought it when it was a year old, and spent a long time looking for one with the right spec. I had a long list of requirements, but I would have been happy to take a 6-speed manual if all the other boxes had been ticked. However, the few 6-speeders I saw also had other gaps in the options list, so I ended up with an auto, which is actually the first auto I've owned.

I was half-convinced when I bought it that I'd spend most of my time shifting manually with the steering wheel buttons, but in fact I soon grew used to the very capable sport mode and decided to just let the car do all the work most of the time. I use the buttons every now and then just for the sake of it, but to be honest I wouldn't really miss them.

So in summary – I'd be happy with either manual or auto, but I'd rather have a 6-speed manual than a normal 5-speed auto.

 

[ocheye]

Great to get this feedback. Unfortunately I have missed out on the 200 but the manual v auto question is fascinating. From what I gather now from this forum and elsewhere is that the 6 speed box is brilliant though perhaps a bit notchy when cold. There is however a bias in favour of autos from dealers down 'Sarf' which doesn't seem to apply up here (Though I'm sure they would give me the 'sharp intake of breath' if I tried to trade one in!). I am going to see a 230 with tiptronic at the weekend although the owner (rather like Mocas) finds he never uses the tiptronic lever though he had expected to.
I've decided to bide my time and try a few different ones to get a feel. There doesn't seem to be much difference in fuel consumption under normal driving between the 200 and the 230 so that opens up the field a bit (Haven't checked insurance yet though!)
I'll keep the forum posted and many thanks for your help

 

[Ted]

I have a manual SLK200, and echo everything that Mocas has said.
Baulky when cold - but you do get used to it, and make allowances.

Not bad at all on performance, and not massively down on the 230 - I would recommend a test drive if you find another, just to see if you're happy.

As I have said previously - there really isn't anything wrong with the manual box, it's just that Mercedes boxes are SO good.

 

[The Boss]

we have a 1998 R reg SLK 200, and it now is on around 125k on the clock, 1 owner and is honestly one of the best cars i have owned.. not fast, it just feels solid and holds the road very well, just with all slks, it felt well built, but the building materials were just plastic... but there are no rattles..

go for it!

or if not that one, consider ours... its a pre facelift with every option except the amg kit, in the unusual blue/green mix metallic paint. seen better days, but it is still an exceptional car either way!

cheers

 

[jdb]

To Ocheye

Glad to come across another Cumbrian !

I've recently been on the trail of a 2000-ish r170, but abandoned that now having only just taken a big (for me) plunge with one of the run-out 200k models - a 2004 year with an incredible (but I think proven) 7900 miles since new and about four main dealer sevices in the book.

Please get in touch if you might like details of the others I'd shortlisted - an interesting bunch they were, but unfortunately a long long way from Cumbria.

Nearer home, that garage next to the former Little Chef on the dual carriageway at Ings near Kendal has a 1999-ish 230slk that looks quite pristine for its age, but the screen price is utter banditry !

Anyhow, no PM privileges seem to apply, so I can be reached via this email

[email protected]

 

[zenman63]

Buy a Boxster, there will be No rust!

We had a 320 for a while, 2003 and it was rusting.
Nice little car, the hood is great.
Boxster is just the next level, build quality is fantastic.

 

[gary350]

Buy a Boxster, there will be No rust!

We had a 320 for a while, 2003 and it was rusting.
Nice little car, the hood is great.
Boxster is just the next level, build quality is fantastic.

Still a ragtop.

 

[ocheye]

I've been offered an slk 230 with just over 30k on the clock. Not the newest but the low mileage appeals. However, it has a Brabus bodykit (factory fit), exhaust and steering wheel. Looks very nice and they will do part-ex but I think I will need to be quick. The question is - Will this affect my insurance significantly? I don't want to be turned down left right and centre. Do I need to declare it as a modification as it was supplied that way initially?
Cheers
Andy

 

[Noodle-Pulp]

my tuppence.. (FWIW)
I had a SLK200 R171 which I suspect is no fair comparison.. even so it was a manual and I had no problem selling it for the price I wanted.

In hindsight the things that started to drive me a bit bonkers about it, and would be applicable to the R170:

1) manual.. I much prefer an auto (since most of my driving is urban)
2) the 1.8 engine failed to ignite my need for speed
3) the bootspace.. great for an overnight bag.. terrible if jetting off somewhere for a couple of weeks
4) non-heated seats.. in retrospect a must (with or without airscarf - which is only on the R171)

 

[Matt32AMG]

I've been offered an slk 230 with just over 30k on the clock. Not the newest but the low mileage appeals. However, it has a Brabus bodykit (factory fit), exhaust and steering wheel. Looks very nice and they will do part-ex but I think I will need to be quick. The question is - Will this affect my insurance significantly? I don't want to be turned down left right and centre. Do I need to declare it as a modification as it was supplied that way initially?
Cheers
Andy

If it was supplied from the factory that way, then that is how you describe it: SLK230 Barabus. I'm guessing the engine hasn't been modified? In which case I would say that it would not affect the insurance premium you will be charged

 

[ocheye]

I've just spoken with my friendly brokers, Chris Knott Insurance, who tell me I won't be penalised, quoting around £315 which is about £90 more than my Saab. They don't mind bodykits, non standard alloys, exhausts etc as long as I tell them. The excess BTW is £350 which is not so great but not that unusual by all accounts.

 

[ocheye]

Thought I'd better do a mileage check before I make the 600 mile trip and lo and behold - a very different figure. Reluctantly giving this one a miss though it does look a peach