Interesting you've just driven a R172, especially since you own a R171. Any noteworthy comparisons?
As mentioned, in almost all respects I'd say the R172 is better built and feels more upmarket. In particular, the doors close in a more pleasing manner (in terms of feel and sound), and the interior is better laid out, with the seat controls mounted on the door rather than being tucked away out of sight (except for the lumbar control switch, but then the R171 didn't even have that).
The only bits of the interior that seemed a little flimsy were the instrument casings for the speedometer and tachometer, which seem to be construncted of to two cylinders connected by a bright rim facing the driver. This rim felt to me as though it had been unevenly positioned (it sat proud more at the top than the bottom), and if you pushed it, it moved noticeably - which to my mind marks it as a source of future rattles.
This also applies to the optional analogue clock, which thankfully was not fitted to the car I drove.
The COMAND unit is miles ahead of that in my R171, but that's be expected given that my car is now in its 9th year. The Harman Kardon Logic 7 system performed better than any car stereo I've heard before, including the entry-level Meridian system in the Evoque. When it comes to stereo I'm no audiophile, but I tried my "reference" piece (
Opening from Philip Glass's
Mishima) on the H/K system and was very impressed with how it coped.
The Funeral (September 25, 1987) also put it through its paces, and it sounded superb. The control wheel is a bit fiddly to use at first, but you get used to it.
iPod support is much better integrated, to the extent that I left the screen on that setting for most of the day. It shows details of the current track (name, time, progress bar, etc) and album artwork. In the R171, the only vaguely interesting screen is the sat nav map, so that's what I normally leave it on.
I was pleasantly surprised to see that you can now digitally display the speed in mph in the instrument display, but just as you come to rely on it, you find it replaced by the speed limit warning telling you the current limit for the road - just when you want to check what speed you're actually doing!
The ride was also noticeably more supple than my R171's, despite the 172's wheels being larger in diameter (18" as opposed to 17"), with lower-profile tyres. (Both cars have sports suspension.)
Also tried out the Magic Sky Control, which switches the panoramic roof from clearish to a dark-blue tint (which you can still see through). Not sure it's worth the £1500-odd premium over the ordinary panoramic roof, but I suppose it would be a talking point (if you had nothing better to talk about...).
Overall, I'd say the 172 is as much of a step up from the 171 as the 171 was from the 170 (which I also used to have).
If the roof is wet, when you open it does in spill all the water out of the car or does some drip inside?
The design seems to handle this potential problem pretty well. I've had the occasion splash of water (nothing to worry about) onto the inner door panel, but it's never made it onto the seat/carpets.
Also curious to know, when the weather is fowl do you automatically go to drive the other car as the SLK would be too much 'hassle' or is it a pleasure to drive regardless?
Bear in mind the Fabia sat unused for three years (including three winters, with snow). Never had any compunctions about using the SLK in inclement weather, but of course, it's about as useful as any other powerful rwd car on summer tyres in the snow...
but yes, it's a very civilised place to be with the roof up. I've just spent the day in an R172, and there are signs that build quality has improved over the R171. Never had any particular problem with windscreen misting - nothing that the windscreen setting on the heater can't cope with.
