Mercedes SLK

Eglinton

Hi all,

I posted a while back regarding a potential Porsche Boxster purchase. After a bit of research I've decided that the outlay and running costs couldn't be justified.

Undeterred, my current thinking is a Mercedes SLK. Probably a 2 litre. I was thinking somewhere in the region of 2006 or 2007.

Could anyone give me an idea of the running costs / servicing etc?

Also, I do a bit of cycling. I use a Hollywood rack similar to this. Could the boot of the SLK take this? (considering the folding roof - wouldn't want to damage it.). If not, is there a rack that the SLK could take?

Thanks in advance.

Eglinton.

si_guru

Weren't SLKs all 1.8?? (I might be wrong) and all Autos?

CaraFawn

si_guru wrote: »

Weren't SLKs all 1.8?? (I might be wrong) and all Autos?

No 2004+ SLK have the following engines

1.8 L I4
3.0 L V6
3.5 L V6
5.4 L V8

The 5.4 L must be a little bomb...

Sorry OP I can not comment on the service costs. But a 1.8L should not be too dear to maintain. Small engine, small parts. But as always since it has a turbo, it probably is the weak point of the engine. So pay particular attention to it and do regular oil/filter changes (5k miles top)

HTH

si_guru

CaraFawn wrote: »

No 2004+ SLK have the following engines

1.8 L I4
3.0 L V6
3.5 L V6
5.4 L V8

The 5.4 L must be a little bomb...

Sorry OP I can not comment on the service costs. But a 1.8L should not be too dear to maintain. Small engine, small parts. But as always since it has a turbo, it probably is the weak point of the engine. So pay particular attention to it and do regular oil/filter changes (5k miles top)

HTH

I mean weren't 180/200 and 230 all 1.8 - should have been clearer.

My brother had a CLS55... and yes they are "nippy".

TCP/IP

I had an SLK55AMG nice machine but a little hairy at times.

CharlieCroker

CaraFawn wrote: »

But as always since it has a turbo, it probably is the weak point of the engine. So pay particular attention to it

The SLK has a supercharger, not a turbo. Supercharger (kompressor) is much more reliable.
SLK is also available as a manual, and the only merc manual thats any good to drive.

E39MSport

Drove one.

Horrible, tinny, tiny girls car.

Eglinton

Thanks for the replies folks.

The 1.8L would be enough for me. 3.0L would be a bit heavy on fuel and road tax to justify.

I've noticed alright that most of those advertised are automatic. I've never owned or really driven an automatic properly. Will it detract from the driving experience or can you shift gears anyway in some sort of tiptronic type system?

Are there any additional problems an automatic would pose?

Also, any ideas on the bike rack?

A bit of boot space would be good. Could you fit golf clubs in it for instance?

*Kol*

The 1.8 SLK is not much of a performance car anyway so adding the auto box is no huge difference. You can shift manually too.

Boot space is good for a convertible as long as you don't want to put the roof down (there is a retractable cover in the boot that needs to be in place to open the roof and this halves the boot space). I don't know if you would fit a set of clubs in there tho (unlikely would be my guess) although I did fit in two 15" wheels with tyres fitted on them with no problems but thee wasn't room for much else.

I would say the bike rack would be no problem. Check the fitting instructions, they normally specify if a particular car is suitable or not.

si_guru

I would have thought for this kind of car a set clubs was a must and would designed to take just that! Pretty sure they are all autos.

My bro also had a few years ago a CLK230K (1.8)... Auto of course. NEVER buy a manual Merc! or Jaguar for that matter. Any 1.8 supercharghed is okay - 30mpg-ish and bowls along nicely. can be rev'd but is not a Civic Type-R!... sounds more like a 1.6 Cortina!

To hols it's value it must have service history.. if you look in the UK people will still pay top dollar for a 10 year old merc with FSH! even a low model.

galwaytt

I had an 01 E200 Avantgarde a few years ago, and I too thought it was supposed to be 1.8. Not so, according to MB-man, It's 1.8 in Classic and Elegance spec's, and a 2.0 supercharged in Avantgarde. Maybe something similar going on in the SLK ?

The autobox is indeed a 'tiptronic' type and, imho, is lovely. Imho, it adds to the car, not subtracts.......

Anan1

galwaytt wrote: »

I had an 01 E200 Avantgarde a few years ago, and I too thought it was supposed to be 1.8. Not so, according to MB-man, It's 1.8 in Classic and Elegance spec's, and a 2.0 supercharged in Avantgarde. Maybe something similar going on in the SLK ?

The autobox is indeed a 'tiptronic' type and, imho, is lovely. Imho, it adds to the car, not subtracts.......

I'm fairly sure the 2.0K was replaced by the 1.8K engine at some point. I've never liked the 4 cylinder MB supercharged engines - rough, gravelly little things IMO.

*Kol*

Anan1 wrote: »

I'm fairly sure the 2.0K was replaced by the 1.8K engine at some point. I've never liked the 4 cylinder MB supercharged engines - rough, gravelly little things IMO.

I agree with that comment, under acceleration the engine is a bit rough and gravelly but they are a nice car to drive in general and very quiet with the roof down (no problem listening to the radio at normal volume or have a phone conversation (hands free of course)).

izzyflusky

E39MSport wrote: »

Drove one.

Horrible, tinny, tiny girls car.

360 Hp 5500cc...definitely not a girls car, may be in pink....:D

E39MSport

Nice but I'd rather the SL any day.

There's always the top end version but the average one on the roads is very much a low end matchbox imo.

I've seen/heard SL55 AMG's running around F1 circuits in advance of the races on a few occasions and they sound awesome.

Mr Benevolent

1.8l SLKs make Baby Jesus cry. If you have the money for an SLK then you have the money for a proper engine in the damn thing. It's like buying an F16 with a hairdryer poking out the back!