Slk

[mercedes lover]

I used to think that the SLK was a crappy small car, that was untill I went in one in france as was really impressed by the quality of ride, the one I went in was a SLK200 non kompressor which I dont think they did here. Did anyone that drover the 200k and 230 k find alot of difference in performance? And I noticed that the figures for 320 and 230k are very close so is the only big difference the smoothness of the engine? Also what are they like to drive took my Dads car to mercedes this morning so sat in the slk the driving possition feels like you want to just rip speed, Great little car

 

[MainMan]

Don't judge a car's performance by the 0-60 time. If you do, it looks like the 230K and 320 are about the same and the 200K is a lot slower. In fact the 320 is a lot quicker than the 230K and the 200K is just a bit slower than the 230K. It's down to torque - no one drives their cars up to max revs in each gear so low down torque makes a huge difference in real life. The V6 is much smoother but it's also a lot faster. The SLK is a much under-rated car. Car call it a baby GT, and it is reasonably comfortable and relaxed over long distance (the 27mph/1000 rpm helps), but it is also a sports car. The 320 can easily hold its own with a Boxster 2.7 on the track.

BTW, the SLK is only regarded as a small car because modern cars have become so bloated. For a 2-seater sports car it's not actually very small - it's bigger than the MGB and also bigger than the Healey 3000 and the TR6 which were always regarded as big sports cars. How big does a 2-seater have to be?

Don't forget there's a new model out very soon.

 

[pammy]

Don't judge a car's performance by the 0-60 time. If you do, it looks like the 230K and 320 are about the same and the 200K is a lot slower. In fact the 320 is a lot quicker than the 230K and the 200K is just a bit slower than the 230K. It's down to torque - no one drives their cars up to max revs in each gear so low down torque makes a huge difference in real life. The V6 is much smoother but it's also a lot faster. The SLK is a much under-rated car. Car call it a baby GT, and it is reasonably comfortable and relaxed over long distance (the 27mph/1000 rpm helps), but it is also a sports car. The 320 can easily hold its own with a Boxster 2.7 on the track.

BTW, the SLK is only regarded as a small car because modern cars have become so bloated. For a 2-seater sports car it's not actually very small - it's bigger than the MGB and also bigger than the Healey 3000 and the TR6 which were always regarded as big sports cars. How big does a 2-seater have to be?

Don't forget there's a new model out very soon.

Agree with every word. It's a deceptive little beast and I love it. I drove the 230 first, but felt the 320 was so much better. It is the ability to be able to put your foot down, when you're already moving, and still pull away as if from a standing start that makes a difference. But it largely depends on how you drive. If you drive fairly steadily and don't want to do quick overtaking or burns up the hill - then the 230 or even 200 would prob do. Not for me tho

It is also very comfy and smooth - doesn't feel like a true sports car in that sense - but if you lower the seat a bit more and have the height so you can still see out - then it might feel more sporty I think the down-side is that it is no good if you are tall. Hubby fitted into the MGF easily - heightwise, he only just gets in the SLK shame

 

[lotusmark2]

Your Hubbys lucky, (for soooo many reasons ) I cant fit in the SLK or the MGF, Celica or many cars for that matter
Was looking at the SLK when I was at the dealer the other day but No Chance of fitting in it

 

[mbzslk230k]

What bad things can I say about the SLK ? NONE !

Fantastic little machine, I have the 230Kompressor and agree that the 320 verison has the edge engine wise ... It has more room for me compared to the BOXSTER or HONDA S2000 ...

I think it is a very color-sensitive shape and lighter colors does not always show off its unique shape ... and that roof ! Pure street theatre ... !!

 

[vito113]

I'll be sorry to see them go

I'll be sorry to see the end of current model SLK, to my mind it is the last of the over engineered Mercedes'.

Never mind the engine size, the SLK's all about pose appeal, and it has it by the bucketful. The car was a true gem and will rapidly become one of 'the' classic Mercs, it really is the last link with the past. Give it 10 years and I reckon it will have the same 'mmmm' factor as the Pagoda SL's from the 60's.

The bullet proof 2.3l Kompressor engine which had been around for many years, recirculating ball & roller steering, (look mum! no kickback!), and proper Mercedes build quality. And it looked 'German', the new one (like so many Mercs these days) looks like it was styled by Gerry Anderson.

Andy

 

[mercedes lover]

I think myself that the SLK looks best in silver!

 

[MainMan]

I think the down-side is that it is no good if you are tall. Hubby fitted into the MGF easily - heightwise, he only just gets in the SLK shame

I don't understand this. I'm 6'4" and the legroom and headroom is one reason I bought the SLK (the roof was the other). Are you sure you've adjusted the seat properly because the manual mechanism is very stiff. The first time I got into an SLK I thought I couldn't fit because my head was jammed on the roof. The salesman gave the seat a good bash and lowered it about three inches. Try one with electric adjustment and you should find plenty of room. It was designed to fit people up to 2 meters (which is about 6'7"). Most German cars fit tall people in fact. On the other hand, I can't fit into the MGF because it has very restricted leg room like all mid-engined cars. I tried a 350Z yesterday and was very disappointed to find that it didn't have enough legroom - about 3" less than the SLK. Typical of a lot of Japanese cars.

 

[Brian WH]

I don't understand this. I'm 6'4" and the legroom and headroom is one reason I bought the SLK (the roof was the other). Are you sure you've adjusted the seat properly because the manual mechanism is very stiff. .

I don't think you have read Pammy's comments right?

She doesn't want him to fit the SLK, he might pinch it.

 

[mercedes lover]

I'm 6 foot 2 and found the leg room was very good but hight I dont know because the roof was down, so would need it up to see, but I just thought thet the driving possition was wicked just slot in the seat and ready to start playing weaving and bobing on the dual carriage ways :bannana:
Must admit it's the car thats given me the biggest surprise just being driven in one

 

[David.]

I am disturbed, nay shocked to hear what I am hearing. I have a 200K and I'm over the moon with it. Looks performance etc are first class. Yet nobody has mentioned it.

Where I live and drive, there are always chequered hats out with their guns and sometimes, just sometimes, too much power can be a slight "handicap". Before I saw the light and bought my "Three pointed star", I had a 325i sport beemer. The 200K is a far better all round performing machine.

I had the opertunity to get a 230 or 320 but chose the 200 from a "practical" viewpoint.

Does anyone at all back me up in my appraisal of the 200K being a great car?

 

[MainMan]

Does anyone at all back me up in my appraisal of the 200K being a great car?

Yes. Basically the SLK is the simplest and cheapest way of making a 2 seater sports car. Take your standard repmobile (the old C-class in this case), shorten the wheelbase and chop the roof off. BMC did it to good effect with the MGB - and the SLK is the modern day MGB. Only two companies can pull this trick - BMW and Mercedes - because they're the only two left who have rear wheel drive front engine saloons. The real breakthrough with the SLK was the retractable roof, which immediately made soft-tops OUT OF DATE. You might feel the 200K is unrecognised, but the whole SLK range is unrecognised because the R170 hasn't changed for 7 years and the car mags don't bother to review stuff they've done before. Of the whole SLK range, the 200K is the bargain. The 320 is the best, but it's also the cheapest to make. It's just marketing that inflates the price - supercharging a 4-pot is much more expensive than just building a V6.

 

[marcos]

My Dad sold his SLK 230K this time last year and is still regretting it. He now drives a W211 E320 CDI like me but misses the fun aspect the SLK gives.
I used to borrow it at weekends and it is still the only car that has made me smile every time I've driven it. Smashing cars.
BTW I'm 6'2" and never had problems with it.

 

[pammy]

I guess it depends where your height is - no smirks please - if you are long in the body then I think it's more difficult than maybe being long in the leg. He does cope OK - but only just

 

[lotusmark2]

I guess it depends where your height is - no smirks please - if you are long in the body then I think it's more difficult than maybe being long in the leg. He does cope OK - but only just

Yeah I am 6ft 8" tall with a 36 inch inside leg so for me there is no chance in the SLK.

 

[vito113]

I would dispute that!

Yes. Basically the SLK is the simplest and cheapest way of making a 2 seater sports car. Take your standard repmobile (the old C-class in this case), shorten the wheelbase and chop the roof off. BMC did it to good effect with the MGB - and the SLK is the modern day MGB..

'The simplest and cheapest way of making a 2 seater sports car'? - Mazda MX-5 anyone?

How can you say the SLK is the modern day MGB!!!!!!!

The MGB was obsolete when it was launched! When it went out of production it was a dinosaur. It was badly made, had rubbish performance, handled like a barge (it used ineffective lever arm dampers, which were already old fashioned technology in the 50's!) and had naff brakes. The Morris Marina 1800TC Saloon which had the same engine and most of the mechanicals was faster and handled better and it was rubbish too!. Sorry but no way SLK = MGB!!! I think a better analogy is SLK = 230SL pagoda. Drove MGB's in the 70's and p**sed myself laughing at Leylands take on a 'sports' car.
Andy

 

[mercedes lover]

What are the SLK's likw for motorway are they smooth? Also if in germany would they feel good cruising at say 120mph?

 

[Flip]

On a long trip through Europe, we found setting the cruise control at either 90mph or 125 mph was the most "comfortable" - at some speeds in between there was a "thrumming" engine vibration.

:bannana:

 

[simonl]

I'm still chuffed to bits with mine. My only major complaint would be the vagueness of the steering. It's very difficult to gague just how far you can push it.

 

[MainMan]

I think you've missed the point

'The simplest and cheapest way of making a 2 seater sports car'? - Mazda MX-5 anyone?

How can you say the SLK is the modern day MGB!!!!!!!

My point is that the SLK is a cut and shut C-class, just like the MGB was a cut and shut Austin Cambridge. It's a cheap way of making a sports car - and it has benefits for reliability and practicality. The Mazda MX-5 was NOT a cheap car to produce because it was designed from the ground up.

And if you think the MGB was a rubbish sports car, I'd suggest that you don't actually understand what a sports car is. The SLK is completely different from the SL230. The SL230 is barge - OK a good looking barge - but a barge nonetheless. It can in no way be considered to be a sports car.