![SLK_Closed[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Closed1.jpg)
(first posted 11/1/2014) Twenty-six years ago, in 1994, Mercedes unveiled a study of a small roadster at the Turin autoshow. It immediately caught interest because it looked light, competent and good. It was a compact two-seater (3,995 cm = 13.11 feet) with small overhangs and no roof. Although decidedly new—and in no way retro, nor what you would expect from the brand– it was unmistakably a Mercedes, thanks to subtle design quotations from the glorious 300SL (look at the bonnet) and the 300SLR (the grille, the fairings behind the seats). So far, so good.
But some questions remained, however: Would they ever build it? And if so, what will it cost? These were good questions, given the fact that Mercedes already offered a roadster (the R129 SL type) and the usual pricing of their offerings. Two years later, again in Turin, these questions were answered.
1994 SLK Concept
The SLK series was unveiled. Surprisingly to many, the production car looked very similar to the prototype (above). The 300SLR-like fairings behind the seats had been dropped, presumably because they were of no use with a civilian roadster. Instead, Mercedes added an important feature that for the first four years should become a unique selling point for the SLK: the metal folding roof.
1994 SLK concept
There were two 4-cylinder models to choose from: a 1,998 ccm 200 SLK with 136 hp; and a 2,225 ccm 230 SLK with 193 hp, motivated by a Rootes blower. (There also was a pretty hot 200 SLK manual-only version sold in Italy, Portugal and Greece (due to local taxation schemes) with a 1,998 ccm Roots compressor engine delivering 192 hp: the “fiscal” 200 SLK. This relatively rare version had a top speed of 236 km/h / 147 mph and accelerated in 6.8 secs from 0 to 100 km/h /62 mph. And the price was right.
The 230 SLK, for example, with a base price of 62,250 DM, was more than 100,000 Deutschmark (about 70,00 USD) cheaper than a top-notch 500 SL (R129) with a 320 hp V8 engine. Thanks to the SLK’s relatively low weight (1,385 kg), the 500 SL (automatic) with its 1,910 kg was only somewhat faster (top speed 250 km/h, vs. the 230’s automatic 238 km/h). Acceleration was slightly better, too (0 to 100 km/h / 62 mph 6.6 sec vs. 7.3 sec with the 230 SLK), but obviously the price difference was too high and R129 sales dropped while R170 sales boomed in the following years.
All in all, it was a good start for the SLK. Everyone, both the press and the customers, was enthusiastic. Comparison tests demonstrated that this car was well up to or even ahead of the competition. With its tin folding roof the car looked good, too, whether open or closed (not everyone got that right). The demand was overwhelming, and subsequently the wait for delivery reached more than a year. For slightly used SLKs, you had to pay a premium of up to 15,000 DM if you wanted such a car immediately.
This was good news for Mercedes. In the mid-nineties they had to re-invent themselves with the trusty W124 and W201 models having been dropped. Still a tech company, they came up with radical solutions; (e.g., the much-hated (but not by their owners, of course) Smart, or the 1997 W198 A-Class–a roomy small car, not meant for conservative minds and hence never sold in the US). The SLK fitted well into this framework of reinvention because it, too, was radical. Suddenly, the competition in the small-roadster sector (e.g., Fiat Barchetta, BMW Z3, Audi TT, Alfa Spider, even the contemporary Mazda Miata/MX5) looked somewhat outdated, not only because of their rag-tops, but also in terms of performance and usability.
There were complaints, however, regarding the seats (too uncomfortable for long-distance travel) and the 53-liter fuel tank (too small for long distances). The 136 hp 200 SLK engine did not generate much enthusiasm (but no complaints either), as the car, with 136 hp, had a top speed of 202 km/h and accelerated decently from 0 – 100 km/h in about 10 seconds). Urgent calls for a six-cylinder engine also were heard.
After four years in production, these issues were fixed by a facelift in 2000. Combined with minor design modifications, the newer models offered better seats, a larger fuel tank (now 60 liter) and ESP (Electronic Stability Program) as standard. In addition, the base 200 SLK now had a 163 hp compressor engine, the 230 SLK went from 193 to 197 hp, and two six-cylinder cars – the 320 SLK with 218 hp and the SLK 32 AMG with 354 hp – filled the needs of power-hungry customers. The “fiscal” 200 SLK with 192 hp was dropped.
All in all, the facelift was well received, especially the naturally aspirated V6 320 SLK, which was able to win comparison tests again other six-cylinder powered roadsters like the Porsche Boxster and BMW Z3. The new 200 SLK, now promoted from 136 to 163 hp, found many followers too, which slightly reduced the sales of the 230 SLK. The SLK 32 AMG was considered a bit overdone at the time because of its excessive reliance on electronics to bring its horses to the road (the price tag might have played a role, too).
After 311,222 cars (119,921 manuals and 191,301 automatics) were sold worldwide, the R170 series was replaced by the R171 in 2004, not a bad sales performance for a newcomer in the small-roadster segment.
So, how did they do it? Basically, Mercedes followed the classic method first laid out by British roadster manufacturers: look on your shelves, take the useful parts, add a snazzy body, implement some moderate speed- and road holding enhancements, then sell it. Improving on that, Mercedes also put some thought into daily usability, maintainability, and reliability. That’s why the SLK never received the laurels of a “true sports car”, a benefit for customers tough enough to drive a “chick car”.
image: wikipedia
Looking back now, the SLK’s electric metal folding roof (Vario roof in Mercedes speak) proved to be a smart idea. Mercedes resurrected a construction that was invented by Peugeot in the Thirties (the Peugeot 401/402 Eclipse). Ford followed the same formula with the Fairlane 500 Skyliner in the Fifties. Both cars were not successful, presumably as Peugeot and Ford tried to implement the idea with rather big four-seaters with their added weight and costs.
Given the then state-of-the-art in coach building and automotive parts design, the cars in question were rather expensive but not really very pretty. Mercedes had better cards when doing this based on a strictly two-seater, with the additional bonus of manufacturing methods and standards that had significantly improved in the meantime.
Initially, the SLK’s steel folding roof raised questions, as:
A: Will it work reliably?
B: Would it add too much weight?
C: Would it completely eat up usable luggage space?
D: Who really needs a folding metal roof with a roadster?
Over time, reliability proved to be no problem, except for the rare cases that involved a rear-ender that someone tried to have fixed on the cheap.
Of course, the steel roof adds some weight, but the SLK weighs about the same as a comparable BMW Z3 ragtop. At 1,385 kg, the SLK is heavy, however, when compared to the Mazda MX5/Miata (1,059 kg) or the Fiat Barchetta (1,103 kg) but the difference cannot be attributed solely to the roof construction.
The SLK’s luggage space offers 348 liters with the roof closed and 145 when open, compared to the BMW Z3’s 165 liters (roof open or closed), or the Mazda MX5/Miata’s 150 liters (open/closed) or the Fiat Barchetta’s 165 liters (open/closed). So, even with the top down, the SLK offers about the same luggage space as a BMW Z3, Mazda MX5 or Fiat Barchetta, with the advantage of having more than double the available space with the roof closed (which would be a wise decision when traveling longer distances with your spouse, anyway). BTW, a contemporary VW Golf IV had a luggage space volume of 330 liters (rear seats up). Specialized luggage to maximize the trunk space is also available (see photo above).
![SLK_Open[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Open1.jpg)
The final question of who needs a metal folding roof with a sporty two-seater comes down to personal preference and usage habits. If you intend to use a cloth top car occasionally for short trips in sunny weather, you will be happy, especially if your inner self inseparably links sportiness with soft tops. Different driving habits (e.g., frequent highway or Autobahn usage, daily driving) and environments (e.g., living in bad-weather areas with only occasional sunshine) might make it a wise decision to opt for the metal roof. You will be rewarded by reduced wind noise when driving top-closed, no leakages when driving in heavy rain, and simple car washes. In addition, you don’t necessarily need a garage, and you can forget about the issue of roof wear (and bird poop).
This does not mean, of course, that you can’t use a Mazda MX5/Miata, for example, as a daily driver (my neighbour has been doing that, day in and day out). It just depends on your accustomed convenience level.
Peugeot 206 CC
After the SLK’s immediate success with this design other car makers started to offer automatic metal folding roofs, too, although sometimes reluctantly. But now even Mazda does it. In 1998 the original inventor, Peugeot, came up with the 206 CC (“convertible coupe”), too, an alleged 2+2 seater–alleged, as I have never seen someone sitting on the back seats of this car, as often is the case with 2+2s.
Although there are many open two-seaters, really successful ones are quite rare. Design almost always makes the difference, and successful designs almost always have one thing in common: the beauty of simple lines without any dullness. This is were the R170 shines, inside and out (although, for readability purposes, I would have opted for classic white-on-black dials instead of the rather chintzy grey-on-white ones). Design project leader for the R170 was Michael Mauer (then in his 30s, and now head of design at Porsche).
Why buy one today? And how does it drive?
If you like a sporty two-seater that rides well and can be used like any fixed-roof daily driver but, by simply pressing a button, can be driven open whenever you are in the mood to do so, then buy one now. As usual with cars 10 – 15 years old, they are currently available at rock-bottom prices. They are merely old used cars. There are no collectors on the horizon (yet), and whether there ever will be is not your concern. Reliability and parts availability is still great, as most parts (except body and interior) are not SLK-specific. No need to worry – you are on the safe side. If you also appreciate a classic, no-frills design combined with amenities like good all-round visibility, a clear dashboard and no electronic gadgets, you might shortlist this car type.
If you are taller than I am (185 cm), or a little bit on the voluminous side you may want to check first how this car really suits you. Otherwise, you might run out of leg room or generally feel cramped.
Aside from that, it should be easy to get a well-kept car for a reasonable price. As the SLK never had any appeal to boy-racers, the majority of cars offered are unmolested and in good shape.
When looking at these as used cars, you might get the impression that only two colors were available (silver metallic or black). Obviously, this is not true. An astonishing combination of body colors and interiors were on the offer but did not gain much interest on the customer side. So, it is fair to assume that the often-complained pervasiveness of dull car colors (both exterior and interior) is almost exclusively due to a certain dullness on the customer side.
As usual with Y2K Mercedes cars rust is a weak spot with the R170, too. Some owners say that the pre-facelift models (1996 to 2000) are less rust-prone although I would hesitate to confirm this. Usually, rust issues are cosmetic ones, however, restricted to body parts that can be fixed easily. It might get more expensive, however, if the folding roof structure is affected. The rear window, for example, is glued to the roof structure and almost certainly will have to be replaced by a new one if work needs to be done on a rusty roof construction (rare cases).
![SLK_Interior[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Interior1.jpg)
Another weak spot is the quality of the interior. Don’t expect anything near W124 or W201 Mercedes quality. Cars with higher mileage (> 100k) sometimes show fading colors at the armrests and the center console and worn-out leather seats.
But aside from that, the car is reliable, easy to operate and fun to drive.
A year ago, I bought one: the 4 cylinder 230 SLK version with a 197 hp compressor engine, i.e., a version after the first model upgrade in 2000. One-owner (my age), regular maintenance by the booklet at Mercedes shops. One reason why I bought the 4 cylinder SLK and not the more powerful 320 V6 version was costs: The 320 engine will cost you about 1-2k more on the used-car market, with marginally better power (218 hp vs. 197 hp, 0-100 km/h 6,9 sec. vs. 7,2 sec., top-speed 242 km/h vs. 237 km/h (for the automatic versions), although the engine sound of the V6 is certainly more impressive. The other reason: I had never ever driven a compressor car before and simply was interested how it would drive.
Definitely no showroom car, it was comparably cheap because of some 75,000 miles on the odo, some rust and no summer tires; maintenance was due as well. But everything else, including the interior, was clean. The missing summer tires/wheels shows that the latter had been sold separately and that the car had been driven regularly, both in summer and winter.
![SLK_Dials[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Dials1.jpg)
So I spent about $1,500 for the maintenance, including new brakes (fluid, pads and disks), fresh automatic transmission oil, and another $900 for a set of new high-speed, all-season tires. A leaking headlight was repaired for about $200, and another $2,000 has been spent for rust removal by professionals. All in all, not so cheap but well within my self-set price range and quality levels. There are still some other minor issues that need fixing, including a burned out lamp in the speedometer assembly and a vertical seat adjustment that needs some work, although (for my size) I could do without.
![SLK_Front[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Front1.jpg)
Initially intended as a joy car for little outings on nice summer days, I’ve come to use it daily. Why not drive a car that makes it fun to buy groceries, meat and wine/beer? You are always free to extend such a shopping trip into a fun trip without changing the car, provided you have the time to do so.
And there is fun. Although a pretty old car, it doesn’t drive like one. Acceleration and top speed are still almost on par with current GTI emulations. Ride comfort is high for a two-seater, and road manners are excellent and predictable. Weight distribution is more (4 cylinders) or less (6 cylinders) almost 50:50%. Brake performance is still up-to-date (100 km/h to 0 in 37 /38 meters (cold/warm). An average fuel consumption of slightly above 9 l/100 km (26 US miles/gallon) for a 197 hp engine seems quite acceptable to me (slightly more for the 6-cylinder). The “officially stated” value is still what I can confirm, and what you can expect in mixed daily driving. (There must have been some massive fiddling with the methods used to obtain fuel consumption numbers in the meantime, as I’ve noticed a massive gap between stated and realistically obtainable current numbers.)
![SLK_Rear[1]](https://i0.wp.com/www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/SLK_Rear1.jpg)
OK, these are the base numbers, Basically, the fun is in driving a well-composed car, of timeless design, without annoying habits, all at low prices. Choose your engine according to your intended usage (from 136 hp to 354), feel free to tune it to your taste (there is an interesting aftermarket), and repaint it if you don’t like black or silver. But it won’t be a race car, whatever you do.
I see a Peugeot CC with mother taking kids around town kids riding in the back its possible others get used in similar fashion they are quite common here we have a dealer, less common are the origami roof Mercs though at least three circulate locally, do they only come in black or silver?
Well, a 2+2 seater with 2 small children on the backseats certainly is perfect. But they do have to be small.
I really do wonder about the whole genre of snub-tailed European small convertibles based on hatchbacks. Seems like when there’s a sedan version as with the 206, it’d be a no-brainer to use the longer rear overhang of the sedan, which would’ve allowed for a decent size back seat probably even with the tin top.
There were no sedan versions of the 206, although a station wagen (206 SW) which was a bit longer and heavier than the standard hatchback.
But considering the fact that being on the backseat of a true 4-seater convertible never has been much of joy perhaps it was a wise decision to keep it short and 2+2.
Great article, Herbert. While subsequent generations of SLK have descended into Dungeons & Dragons territory, the R170 styling is refined, uncluttered and extremely well-proportioned. Its face is an improvement on the original concept car and the car was a welcome change from the brutalist aesthetic of the 107 series (even though I love my W116). I believe this to be the last attractive road car made by Mercedes Benz. There have been others since that are not unattractive but the R170 falls directly in line with MB’s postwar history of relatively unobtrusive, yet aesthetically satisfying, coupes.
It is the genuine and deserving successor to the Pagoda. It is already a classic.
Too bad Mercedes became so lost in their aesthetics. D&D sums it up perfectly. And I just saw the new S-Class, it looked like what the next Equus would be.
This article is right on. These SLK’s are striking handsome when compared to modern traffic.
Interesting reading Herbert. The SLK was never as sporty as some competitors but that is no liability for a lot of buyers especially with the hard roof. The extra size, particularly width, of newer models is moving away from the nice compact size of these even if they do look a bit stumpy.
You have mentioned an interesting phenomena too: if you can get hold of in-demand debut models like this or the A45/CLA45 currently on trade them judiciously you can have nearly depreciation-free motoring.
The C-class sans roof drive dynamics auto box and cheap, for a Benz, build quality makes these a good buy in the UK market.
Thanks for the article, I LOVE Benzes of this era, I feel they are underpriced and overlooked. Wish I could have one of each! At one point the 190sl was dirt cheap. This is the modern equivalent.
A car I really like, and I’ve started looking for one to trade my Solstice in on. Preferably a 230. I’ve found a few, but the big sticking point is that they’re all automatics, and that is an absolute no-way for me (Jaguar XK-8 is the only exception). In the US, there were complaints that the 230SLK first came out automatic-only, and a manual was later offered, but – like all Mercedes – automatics are 99% of the sales over here. Usually not by choice.
And yes, while having the top down is a wonderful feeling, a good top is an absolute necessity on a roadster that’s going to be used often. There’s a lot of days (like this morning) when putting the top down is not going to be a comfortable possibility.
Yes, the reason these didn’t compare so favorably in the US was that it was extremely difficult to get one with a manual transmission, back when that still mattered for a sports car.
The SLK automatic is of the Tiptronic type, i.e., you can intervene manually whenever you want. You can also choose to go into manual mode, completely. You just don’t have a clutch.
This is quite nice, especially, if you are on the road in difficult terrains (curvy narrow roads with steep uphill/downhill stretches) where standard automatic gearboxes sometimes feel overwhelmed..
Syke, are you still looking for an SLK? I have a red 320 manual transmission.
Congrats on your purchase Herbert!
I was only 4 when these SLKs came out, but I remember them vividly. I actually came across a few old pictures of me with a yellow one at the ’97 auto show, my Mercedes-Benz hat an all! These cars were popular with car model and toy companies, so I owned numerous models, including a Maisto 1/18scale complete with folding hardtop.
The styling of the R170 heavily influenced most other Mercedes’ through the mid-2000s, so these cars are unmistakably Benzes, even though their interiors aren’t quite as luxurious. They’d make a great second car today, as you have demonstrated. Even the current R172 SLK is still relatively cheap before you add options. It doesn’t match the classic looks of the R170 though.
It doesn’t help when I have to mentally convert from metrics, just like in middle school.
Beautiful car, and the nuance of the radical design never occurred to me. I’ve always been a fan of the E-class design – my MBs should be conservative in nature.
I was surprised how much you’ve been spending to ‘restore’ it, but yet my car is nearly as old and yes it does need age-related replacements despite it’s low mileage. I’m saving for a new roof these days, as no matter what treatment used I still get leaks on the corners.
Great write up!
I could have had it cheaper. My first approach was to do just the necessary things and run the car down within the next years.
But the break system is necessary, as are good tires. The offers I got from “free” shops were not that cheap, BTW, with the inherent uncertainty how they will actually perform. That’s why I went to a Mercedes shop, especially because the 75,000 miles service interval is a crucial one.
Of course, I could have bought some cheaper tires (with a rated top speed of 200 km/h instead of the 240 km/h I have now). Could have saved me about 200$.
The necessary body work could have been done cheaper, as well. But better? Rust needs to be tackled by professionals, not by cosmeticians. So, I decided for a nearby small company that is in business for four generations, starting as coach builders. This is a shop where you can discuss problems and how to solve it, where you can watch work in progress and discuss how to proceed. This is the location where you can bring in your wrecked or rusted car, whether it is a Maserati or a Lamborghini or simply another tractor. As they do not use cheap labor their prices might be higher but I think it’s worth to pay it.
All in all I now have a car that will last for the next 5 to 10 years without any major problems. That’s why I think the money was well-spent.
These are truly a great design well executed. I having been trying to convince Mrs Lokki that “she” (not me! Nudge, nudge, wink, wink!) wants one of these for her daily driver. We’re recently retired and she doesn’t drive very far these days, so a good example of one of these would be a thing of beauty that would last forever. She could show up for lunch with her friends, top down, with her little dog sitting cutely in the front seat beside her. Of course, it is important for cars to be driven regularly, so I would accept that duty …because I love her.
You can tell I’m not a Mercedes guy, I hate when people use the factory designations (or whatever they are) instead of what is on the car itself. S, E, C, SLK, CLK, etc. I get, but not W123, R170 etc.
I’m with you Dominic, I was into Mercedes coupes for 30 years, having had four different generations of them (’74 280C, ’83 300CD, ’91 300C, and ’99 320CLK). I have always known them by their model designation. I notice this a lot here at CC, everyone always refers to them by their body/factory designation, which I constantly have to go look up, having never committed those W— numbers to memory.
When there are so many generations of some of these cars, it gets a bit difficult to identify which generation one is talking about. One can use the model years, but frankly, I sometimes forget exactly which year each model started and ended. I find it easier to remember the factory code than the exact model years.
It’s not like “SLK” wasn’t in the headline, eh?
I have always thought Mercedes nomenclature was confusing, whether it was the model or factory code. You are right about all the different generations. When Mercedes switched from the engine number (280, 300, 450, etc.) first to the class callout first (C, E, S, etc.), it further clouded the picture for me. But call me an old traditionalist, I still love all the old instantly recognizable American car model names, not the alphabet soup of contemporary cars.
There is an exception though, the W140 S-class. The informal names I’ve heard of: Der Dicke (The Fat Guy), Der Kathedral (The Cathedral) and Kohl-S-Klasse (Kohl-S-Class).
Helmut Kohl, picture below, was the chancellor of Germany back then. He is, well, a big man….
I suspect Mercedes designed and engineered the W140 especially for him.
Also, the model years for the changeover aren’t necessarily the same depending on what market you’re in and in some cases isn’t the same for all versions. (I think that’s maybe more true generically of BMW, where some body styles of the old version would continue for a year or so while production of the new platform was ramping up.)
Mercedes-Benz 200D is not enough, you’ll need the W-number.
The first generation SLK as a soon to be classic never occurred to me, mostly because I remember a friend owning an SLK 230 in 1999 when I was almost 30. Now that you have reminded me that the earliest ones are 17 years old, now I feel old!
The R170 being branded a “chick car” and not a “real sports car” repeats the experience of most Mercedes roadsters (190SL, W113, R107), but like them, it has the right qualities to establish itself eventually as a classy, livable open air car that fits the way that people actually drive, and become a coveted classic that many people will drive every day.
Not having been aware of the European models until now, I now have the thought that an Italy/Portugal/Greece-market manual shift 200 SLK will be a hot classic import starting in 2022, much like a manual shift R107 300SL today.
A nice Wheelers Dealers episode with one of these. Small, comfortable and a hard top convertible. Hard to beat. I just thought this was such a nice car and I still prefer the first generation to it’s brasher siblings. The car looked great with the top up and down. Most do not. The newer Z cars look clumsy with their tops. I still don’t car for bimmer convertibles. Mercedes, in my opinion, did such a nice job with this little car and it looks great in every color choice offered (minus the red interior because it just hurts my eyes).
See, how different tastes are. I like the red/black interior because it somehow revives the gaudy American interior design of the Fifties. Red/black interior combined with yellow exterior also works for me, although I’ve only seen one single car in this combination.
I find the red to be too bright. I like it in the Chevy 454 SS but not in this car. Silver on black is my favorite color combo for this benz.
We were discussing these “late 90’s Euro-roadsters” the other day, the Z3, SLK and Boxster. We were talking about the how the styling has aged, the Z3 has, to me, aged the worst, but its funny how “non-aggressively” styled these are, very 90’s “organic”, though, the Z3 does have the classic RWD and front engine combo, and its more likely to be found with a manual over the Mercedes, to me, the keeper of the 3 would be a clean Boxster.
Crap, crap, crapppp.
I had sort of bought into the stories that these were some of M-B’s less than stellar efforts….until I noticed 2 on the front of a lot at a local used car dealership. As a (possible) alternative to a lightly used Miata, these LOOK attractive but the nagging feeling I have is that the Japanese car is more reliable…and more fun to drive.
The top just by itself is enough to make me not want one, I can imagine that its all sorts of expensive to fix, even if you do the work yourself, the parts are a nosebleed.
I briefly considered these SLK’s when I bought my ’03 Thunderbird, that retrac top really spoke to me. But in the end, having coveted the Thunderbird mystique for years, I had to have that, removable top notwithstanding. And, having had four Mercedes coupes through the years, I was adamant about not falling yet again into the trap of murderous maintenance costs that go hand in hand with Mercedes ownership. Cute car, though, for the right person. I do see it as a bit of a “chick” car, though, as much as I dislike that moniker. My cousin’s next door neighbor here in Palm Desert has a 2000 SLK, she and her husband are from Toronto, live there six months and here in the desert six months. She keeps the car here in the garage all summer. She is very petite, perky, and personable, mid-60’s, always fashionably dressed, loves to go shopping and for smart lunches with her girlfriends (and, yes, she has a little white fluff dog that goes with her, too!). The car just has her name written all over it, hence my somewhat clouded view of these little buggies. BTW, I know she has begun to have trouble with it, don’t know to what extent, but it has stranded her a couple of times.
“Usually, rust issues are cosmetic ones, however, restricted to body parts that can be fixed easily.”
NO! Especially not the case with W202, W210 and W220
I have a R171 named Buster. Buster has a 3.2 V6 and an Automatic. Black on Black, cherry, no rust.
An even better value maybe a car using this platform, built with the same parts by the same Karmann workers…the Chrysler Crossfire. They all have the 3.2 v6 and the SRT6 version is supercharged. Because the Chrysler brand is lower on the prestige scale you end up getting a nice discount on what some may say is arguably an even more distinctive coupe body with the functionality of a hatchback. I have a 2004 in alabaster white with a 6 speed manual. I average 24 mpg city and on the highway I can easily top 32 mpg. It is fun to drive even with the rather agricultural and balky Mercedes manual transmission. I routinely receive compliments on the looks of the car 10 years after their release. Many think it is a new design just hitting the market, so the Stoddard-penned bodywork seems to be aging well. Interestingly, people are now beginning to hold on to them, and I’ve seen a bottoming out on prices for mint low mileage examples….far fewer were produced than the SLK.
Interesting perspective. I find the SLK very pleasant, though the only two-seat roadster I’ve ever owned was an Alfa Spider 30 years ago, so this isn’t really my kind of car. And when they were new, I thought the Crossfire was an ugly answer to a question nobody asked (unless that question was how to follow-up the TC by Maserati). But after 10+ years, the SLK is merely pleasant, while the Crossfire is really eye-catching. And it’s not just the rarity, as my neighbor has a black Crossfire that I can see every day. Definitely a future CC, in the best sense.
I have had the pleasure of owning a 2004 Manual SLK230 for about four years. I can’t say enough how much I love it! I hate the term “chick car” because my little Kompressor can destroy a lot of “man cars” on the road today. But that’s not the point of the SLK. My wife and I enjoy it the most cruising around nice, curvy, back country roads on a sunny weekend. I put it away for the nasty Canadian winters, but as soon as May 1st rolls around, I pull my little Benz out of storage and immediately see why I miss it for 6 months. The manual transmission adds to the driving experience. It’s black, with black interior, and only has 60,000 km’s…so I expect to be with my baby for many more joyous years. Also, I’ve been lucky enough to have no issues whatsoever with it. Knock on wood. If you own one, you’ll love it. If you drive one, you’ll want it. If you see someone driving one with the top down…you’ll want to be that person.
This was one of the most informative and objective reviews I’ve read in a long time, thanks for writing it.
I’ve enjoyed my 2001 SLK230 for a bit over two years now, it’s my ideal daily driver commuter car that often talks me into taking the long way home with the top down. I’m always walking up to it thinking, “what a good looking car!” and admiring its clean lines and just-right proportions. Mine’s black on black, with black Spyder headlights that look more Mercedes than the stock units.
Maybe it will become a collector car someday, maybe not; that isn’t why I bought one. Life’s too short to commute in a boring car!
Great article and I know plenty of wealthy people who cannot bare to part with their old R170 SLK’s and quite a few more monied and successful people who love them for London traffic, commuting and trips to the continent. They retain a classy coolness which makes them a timeless and usable car that you can still be seen and arrive in. My partner and his pals espose the virtues of the very rare SLK32 AMG as a true wolf in sheep’s clothing and emerging classic car to invest in. You can guess what he wants for his big birthday.
I used to think the same “chick car about the slk r170 until I drove my 200 kompressor manual , I was hooked instantly and now after nearly 2 years have had no problems with it at all roof still working perfect still drives spot on and here in the UK the sunshine is in and out constantly so the one touch button for roof is just perfect my m8 has a Porsche boxter and he has to pull a clunky leaver then put the roof half way down then get out make sure the plastic window is folded properly then get back in and press the button again to fully lower it that to me just makes me laugh every time I watch it ,i keep up with him no probs on windy country roads and oh yes his is the 3.2s even he was surprised lol every time I jump in my slk it always puts a big smile on my face so that’s all I care about !
I have an SLK32AMG – follows the classic principle of large (powerful) engine in a small body. What’s not to like?
Yes I’ve had the occasional ‘hairdressers car’ comment, but it doesn’t bother me. The fact that it goes so well, sounds great, is rare (only 263 RHD built for UK), and is not that visually discernible from more numerous R170 SLK models is a fine combination. I’m sure this model is ‘the one to have’.
Forever associated with Dannii Minogue to me. She had a black one when new. Made the worst decision to “give” it to her sister, Kylie (not the Jenner), and talked about it publicly when she did.
Kylie wasn’t having it. That car almost immediately went to auction. It sold cheap too if I remember correctly.
(They say they get on…)
Good fun, we have two R170; yellow/black manual, silver/red automatic, both SLK230s. Between the two there are 400,000 miles on the odometers. The top on the silver one needs a helping hand to raise, and the yellow one has a CEL which awaits a canister purge valve to be installed, but all in all I can’t complain…
We used to own a 2002 320SLK with the “AMG Sport” package: same v6 engine as the normal 320 SLK, but with the AMG wheels, seats, 6speed tranny, suspension, spoilers and air dam. Looked a lot sportier than it really was. Dead steering and drove like a truck. Very poor quality parts- all the plastic bits were breaking and the rubberized paint coating on the center console & dash was coming off. Headlights were hazing over and yellowing so bad we had to replace them. This was a 2 owner car with only 65,000 miles. Our replacement Audi TT Quatro was a lot sportier and fun to drive, as well as being just as fast.
I have had a very good experience with five 2002-2004 SLK’s, still have three – two 230’s and a pristine blue SLK32 with 32k miles. All are excellent cars and very reliable, we frequently get complements on the cars and people are surprised when they find out the age of the cars, a timeless and classy look.
The performance of the ’32 is amazing and was in supercar realm of its day, a definite classic with increasing values for nice examples.
These cars will be unforgiving to the folks that mistreat them, or don’t properly maintain them. Like any car, they will deteriorate quickly if not garaged and driving in salty areas is a no-no.