Slk320

Gurpreet

New Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2002
Messages
4
Hello

I'm thinking of purchasing a second hand slk320. Prices of these have slipped in the last couple of months and you can now pick up a nice signature approved model for about £23k - £24k - which just fits into my budget!!

I woud apprecaite it if anybody can give me their views on the SLK, as I've never really been in one, apart from a 15 minute test drive a couple of months ago. Is the 320 worth the premium over the 230, and dare I say it should I also consider an Audi TT (I can pick up a newer one for the same money)!

Finally, should I scrap the SLK320 idea altogether and go for a might C43.

Advice very much appreciated.

Cheers
 

GrahamC230K

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 14, 2002
Messages
9,755
Car
Audi A3 & S4 quattro
A few SLK owners on this board, so hopefully you will get a owners perspective.

£24K is a nice healthy budget to have to spend, so No.1 I am jealous!

For that amount of money I would make sure I considered all my options, and yes those away from the Mercedes marque.

Audi offer something which none of the other German makes really competes against - Power with all wheel drive. Yes I know BMW have the 300iX etc.


That reason alone would tear me to Audi and it has been a consideration before.


If you want a SLK, 2 seat only practicality, is obviously not your concern. The C43 for me would be a dream car.

If I had £24K to spend, me thinks a C LK320 would suite. Possibly even a CLK430. Roof or no roof your choice.
 

Mark300SL

1962-2010. Gone, but not forgotten.
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
1,641
24k would by almost a dream SL !

No trick hardtop, but still a slick soft top, with a full hardtop for the winter months.

I looked a a really slick supercharged SL500 when I was looking for mine- at £26k it was well out of my reach - but I would have been up for that one had funds allowed.

SL's are just soooo nice - and the build quality is second to none! Yet people tend not to consider them when looking for a quality soft top as they are normally considered to be either too expensive or too old!

A well looked after SL will not have a huge mileage, nor will it mecessarily have a huge price tag - my choice was new MG ZS - or 9 year old SL !
Coming on for a year down the line - the SL is now 10 years old and worth about £4-5000 more than the ZS I could have bought for the same money!

So I saved money too !


just my £0.02 worth :)

Mark
 

mbzslk230k

Active Member
Joined
Jan 16, 2003
Messages
126
Location
London
Car
R170 SLK 230K, W140 S500, W203 C220CDI
C43 vs SLK

Two very different propositions ... so you need to make up your mind whether it is 2 seater or four seater. Also C43 is hardtop only ...

SLK vs TT

Presume it is TT roadster - if not, then different kettle of fish... BUT Mercs still beat AUDIs on image overall (hence reflected in resale values)


SLK320 vs SLK230

v6 3.2 litres vs straight 4 supercharged engine ... many people complain about the roughness of the kompressor engine ... Personally, if it was available at launch, I would have gone for a v6... but the 230k has more than adequate performance although not in BOXSTER league
 

MainMan

Active Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
316
Car
SLK 320
The SLK is unique in its class as being a convertible and, to all intents and purposes, a saloon at the same time. That's the main reason for buying it rather than any other car (such as a TT or a CLK). Rag tops are noisy and have poor visibility - particularly the TT. That aside the SLK is not a particularly special car. It's a cut and shut old C-class with a 2 seater body. The 320 engine is a nice smooth engine - and it's a lot quicker than the 230 despite the misleadingly similar performance figures - because it has loads of torque from very low revs. The 320 engine is actually cheaper to make than the 230 K, so it's a bit of a cheek that Merc charge more for it. It's also a bit lighter because it's alloy not cast-iron - but Merc blow the weight advantage by sticking on electric seats etc. The 320 uses about 10% more fuel than the 230.

You really need to drive all the cars because they are completely different from one another. If you want auto, then the TTs out. The TT has a better gear shift than the manual SLK (just). The TTs got the best seats but the worst ride, and also the worst visibility and probably the worst reliability judging by the number of recalls.
 

Shude

Hardcore MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
13,882
Location
Cheshire
Car
CLK55 AMG
I'm afraid I would probably take an SL over an SLK, I know the SL weighs twice as much and probably isn't as much fun on a twisty country road but the SL has one thing the SLK will never have: presence!
 

Tan

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
2,895
Location
Woodford Green
Car
W140 S-Class, Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Boxster
Sl's are the way forward. When i bought mine i could have had a brand new SLK or a used SL500. I chose the SL and absolutely love it!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Koolvin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
9,732
Location
Staines
Car
W168, W169 & S202
Originally posted by Tan
Sl's are the way forward. When i bought mine i could have had a brand new SLK or a used SL500. I chose the SL and absolutely love it!!!!!!!!!!!!
yeah I love it too! I love they way you guys park outside your office ;)
 

Tan

MB Enthusiast
SUPPORTER
Joined
Oct 2, 2002
Messages
2,895
Location
Woodford Green
Car
W140 S-Class, Porsche Cayenne and Porsche Boxster
Originally posted by Koolvin
yeah I love it too! I love they way you guys park outside your office ;)
I guess you've seen our Boxster and SLK aswell then!!
 

Koolvin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
9,732
Location
Staines
Car
W168, W169 & S202
I've not noticed the boxter (I never do :p ) How can I see the SLK when there is that big bad ALPINA (shudder) and SL500 (drool) towering over them?

I will keep a look out for the SLK today!
 

MainMan

Active Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
316
Car
SLK 320
The SLK320 and the TT225R are sports cars. The SL is a big old barge. The SLK makes a pretty good job of being a saloon, convertible, fun car and everyday runabout - and all with the low running costs that you get with a modern car (last service I had was £100). The SL is a cruiser with potentially very high running costs. The two cars appeal to entirely different people.

The introduction of the SLK made all soft tops out of date. Once you've experienced the folding hard top you won't ever consider a soft top again. They're noisy, draughty, insecure and have poor visibility. So you stick a hard top on. Then it's such a pain to take it off, you just leave it on most of the year except on special occasions. Then you find it's scratched the paintwork.

The sad fact is that the last SL that had any valid claims to the "Sport" or "Lucht" in the SL name was the old 300SL. And that was also the last truly good looking SL.
 

Mark300SL

1962-2010. Gone, but not forgotten.
Joined
Jul 21, 2002
Messages
1,641
The 300SL wont win any sprint competions - though it will be keeping up with most things on the road. However with 245 tyres it does go around corners much better than I had hoped for. It is flat, stable and much quicker than it has any right to be !

The softop is a very slick operation, with more than adequate visibility, weather protection and sound deadening for my needs - all IMHO of course

Yes the Hard top is a 2 man affair twice a year - the main reason for us using it is to protect the softop from the winter - and to give a real HRW for the icy weather.

But the softop stows into a very shallow area - giving me a full size usable boot space, - again something the SL doesnt have

Lets not forget that the SL is in a totally different league when it comes to build quality - this is the difference between a £30k car and a £60k+ car ! Everyone I have spoken to is in agreement that the current crop of "cheaper" MB's ie C Class, E class SLk's etc are not built and finished to the same standards as the SL. This doesnt knock the current cars at all - it just puts the superlative build quality of the SL into perspective!

In addition to that all the little toys that the lads here are adding to their cars ( ie illuminated vanity mirrors/ puddle lights, electric seats, interior central locking ) - Came with mine as std equipment !

At the end of the day its all down to personal preferance - and mine is SL - but I can understand why the slick roof of the SLK is a major selling point

Mark

Not wanting to start a war - honest :)
 

Maff

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
2,485
Location
Henley-on-Thames
Originally posted by Mark300SL

Lets not forget that the SL is in a totally different league when it comes to build quality - this is the difference between a £30k car and a £60k+ car ! Everyone I have spoken to is in agreement that the current crop of "cheaper" MB's ie C Class, E class SLk's etc are not built and finished to the same standards as the SL. This doesnt knock the current cars at all - it just puts the superlative build quality of the SL into perspective!
I wouldn't totaly agree with that point Mark :)

My CL has many squeeks rattles and this weekend the passengers seat fell apart.

However, out of all the MB's I've had the pleasure of owning, the one with the least faults and trips back to the dealer is the A-CLASS !

The A-class I had was very tight, and very well made, more so that the ML320.

However it seems no matter what 'new' MB you buy today, they all have their up's and down's whether it's a C-Class, S-Class or SL.
I've never found a particular line of MB that has always had good quality throughout. (Talking from owning 2 ML's, 2 CLK's, 2 A-class and a CL they all seem roughly the same quality on average)

Just my 2p :)
 
Last edited:

Koolvin

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
9,732
Location
Staines
Car
W168, W169 & S202
and so there you have it, the choice is yours....

oh Maff, i'll have your CL or ML for my C any day (even with the broken seats) :rolleyes:
 

Malc

Active Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
88
Originally posted by MainMan
The sad fact is that the last SL that had any valid claims to the "Sport" or "Lucht" in the SL name was the old 300SL. And that was also the last truly good looking SL.
Just out of interest, am I right to assume you mean the 300SL from the 1950s (gullwing & roadster) rather than the W107 or the W129?
 

MainMan

Active Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2002
Messages
316
Car
SLK 320
Quality

Quality is a very tricky subject. As it says in "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", everyone knows it when they see it, but it's very difficult to define. I would agree that the "perceived" quality of an SL (pre-the current model) is higher. The panel gaps are better, the switches feel better - and will probably still be working long after the body has rusted away - and the leather feels nicer.

But what about other factors, such as safety features, how long the body will actually last, mechanical integrity, chassis design, the longer service intervals etc. Aren't these also aspects of quality? I think the perception that quality is declining is more to do with people's expectations becoming greater - and the fact that some other manufacturers, particularly the Japanese, have moved the game to a higher level. Also, because Mercedes have dropped their prices, they're being bought by people who normally would be buying Volkswagens. They expect the Mercedes to be in a different league, and it isn't. It's an unrealistic expectation.

If I wanted a work of art I'd buy a classic car, with the full awareness that the beauty was only skin deep. For everyday driving give me a modern car every time. The only reservation I have is the large number of electronic gizmos that manufacturers seem to be adding. I suspect that some of these SatNav installations and the like are going to look very dated in a few years time.
 
Last edited:

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top Bottom