Which SLK? R170 or R171

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Ceramicolive

Member
Joined
May 3, 2020
Messages
47
Location
Manchester
Car
W212 E250 CDI
Hi, I was hoping for some insight from owners of the R170/1 cars on which is the better purchase.

I was looking for anSLK230 or 320 as these are very cheap now and it will be a fourth car so used sparingly but I have been drawn down the rabbit hole whilst looking and quite fancy an SLK350 now. I'm assuming the later car is the better car and should also be better on the rust front. Is there anything drastically wrong with the R171?

They do seem a lovely car and some are only a marginally more expensive than it's predecessor. Is it a no brainer then and just go for the younger model?
 
Check the leading corner of both wings thoroughly. Crud gets trapped in there and they WILL rust if not looked after. Also look at the subframe as they can rust too - we had to have ours replaced. Other than that, no issues.

We think the R171 is the best looking SLK of them all. And the grin on Sue's face with the top down at the motorway legal limit of course (;):rolleyes::oops:) takes a long time to remove!
 
The early R171 350s potentially had balance shaft issues.
 
As above, the r170 has rust problems, far less on the R171 and the V6 petrol engine is a peach, only had mine since laast November so not done much mileage yet (and currently SORN'd:(:(). Airscarf is a must, also heated seats, memory seats if you can find them, Parktronic is nice to have, lovely car for not a lot of money! Check the service history carefully against recommended changes, mine was missing a few items despite having been MB maintained for the first 6 years then specialist. Mine is one of the first facelift ones (08 reg) which I think are slightly nicer than pre facelift. As Ianw says, check the engine number for balance shaft issues and get one where is engine number is after the problems were fixed! Search on here and MBOA for R171 balance shaft issues, it's not just the 350 it's all the V6 petrols up to a certain engine number.
 
My other half has a 2009 171. Great car but the rear subframe failed the test because of rust. The rest of the car was rustfree. Mercedes replaced the subframe for free!
 
We had a 2004 model R170 SLK230 and at 7 years it wasn't showing any rust. There have been statements that by 2004 all MBs were galvanised. So if looking at R170s the last ones may be better propositions.

issues we had

- MAF sensor needed cleaning every couple of years - some people were replacing and not cleaning
- speed sensors may need replacing every few years
- water ingress into rear boot - issue with drains and / or boot seals. This can cause electrical glitches.

When we replaced the R170 we took a look at the R171 and our view at the time was the R171 was a different beast to drive. The R170 was quite an old mid 90s design design - felt heavier and more ponderous - it has old fashioned recirculating ball steering. The four cylinder 2.3 is quite agricultural IMO.

Of the two my preference would be a late R170. I think it's more of a classic. But the R171 is probably the better practical proposition.
 
My old 171 had some areas of rust on the rear subframe although the rest of it was good. Make sure you use a wind deflector as they are worth it.

I've been looking about for a 170 and rust free ones are hard to find and the prices seem to be creeping up as well, or at least they seem to be for the 320. I'm also looking at the 32's as well.
 
Thanks to all who have replied so far, it's great to hear the opinions and experiences of people who have actually owned and lived with the cars. I'll have a look for the engine numbers ref the balance shaft, I had heard that that could be an issue with the CLK500, perhaps it's the same design with two extra cylinders tacked on the end!
 
Some CLK's had the engines with the same problems, but IIRC it's the V6 petrols not the V8's, I found a superb pdf giving all the car types, enginenumbers relevant to the 2 problem areas, think I posted the link on a similar thread here or MBOA but can't find it ATM!

This is a good starter :

Use search on here for R171 engine problems.
 
To be honest my search started off looking for an 170, I then thought what about a 350? now maybe a 55!

I think ultimately what I want is a hardtop convertible with a relaxing, comfortable ride and a nice soundtrack that has been well looked after by a caring owner and serviced on time correctly.

money is of course the limiting factor, I'm realistically looking at £10k max. Of course less is always preferable! 😁
 
Relaxing comfortable ride? R230 SL500 is my recommendation.......

I second that. The R171 55 is a mad, stripped-out (by Mercedes standards..) little yob of a car; if cars got ASBOs, it would have one. It certainly has a nice soundtrack (mine has a modified exhaust, and at full bore it's stupidly, antisocially nice...). It's great fun if that's what you want, and I really love mine, but I would not describe the ride as comfortable and relaxing.
 
what I want is a hardtop convertible with a relaxing, comfortable ride and a nice soundtrack
An R171 SLK350 or SLK55 can both do the "hardtop convertible" and "nice soundtrack" bits, but you'll need to look elsewhere for "a relaxing, comfortable ride". Oh, and you won't get a good 55 within the stated budget.
 
What makes a real difference to the ride on an R171 is wheel size. On my 280, originals are 16" with optionals 17" (which mine has) or possibly larger. I find the ride on 17's firm, partly due to the rear tyres - I swopped the same make fronts for GY Efficientgrip Performance and it improved, but the rears have loads of life left. However, and acquaintance on MBOA (Blobcat) has a similar car (SLK280) on 16's and says the ride is fine. I'm actually tempted to swop to 16's and sell the 17's, once this lockdown is over there's someone in our village with a 200 on 16's who has offered me a ride/drive for comparison. I think the SLK55 came on 18's as standard, so it's probably just as well that SWMBO veto'd ideas of one of those so I had to content myself with a 3L V6 - which is quick enough for me anyway.
 
I'd avoid any SLK with AMG or sport suspension, it wrecks the ride.
 
I agree Dr FG, its the sports suspension that makes the ride firm. 18's without it are bearable but I swapped my daughter's car for one with 18's and Sports Suspension and there was a major difference. Moving from fairly acceptable to...
 
My old 171 had some areas of rust on the rear subframe although the rest of it was good. Make sure you use a wind deflector as they are worth it.

I've been looking about for a 170 and rust free ones are hard to find and the prices seem to be creeping up as well, or at least they seem to be for the 320. I'm also looking at the 32's as well.
I've actually found a 32 at an online auction house, it looks good and is reasonable money at the moment but has 2 days to run, I'm thinking of having a bid on it.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom