Mercedes SLK?

Soldato
Joined
9 Dec 2009
Posts
5,399
Location
Bristol
Hi all

I've had the same car from nearly new for 13 years and have been looking at replacing it for about 5 years but not been able to find anything - until I found out that since the mk3 slk came out a facelift mk2 can be had for 10k.

I really like this car because it ticks a lot of boxes:

Hard top - I'll nearly always have the roof up but gf will most likely have roof down weather permitting.

Nice looking - this of course is down to individual taste but I really like the look of the facelift mk2.

Not mega expensive to run (I hope) - I'm looking at getting a 1.8. I'm aware most Mercedes parts are way more expensive than Ford but will be doing my own servicing so will keep the cost down that way and can tackle most engine-in car-operations unless they are particularly tricky. I make clutches, tyres, and brakes last ages. I'm looking at buying an Approved Mercedes one so it will have been checked out and there will be a 12mth warranty.

Fairly practical - You can get a few bags of shopping or a weekend bag in the back. I do a lot of fishing and will be able to get some gear and a 4 piece rod in there and use the gf's Astra for longer sessions, can also use her car for my bike, going to b&q etc.

So it looks like after 13 years and 150k in the focus I'll be getting one of these, but there are a couple of questions I hope the good people of Motors can answer..


  1. Gearbox: Of the 50 Mercedes Approved cars on the site only a handful are manual. Why is this? I'm aware the mk1 had problems with the manual gearbox and the auto was the more reliable option, however from what I have read on the web the mk2 addressed this problem and the manual gearbox is more robust. I need a manual, autos are fine and in traffic I'll benefit during the daily commute but the gf will also be using it when I need her car and she doesn't get on with autos. Do you think Mercedes don't like approving the manual models because they are likely to have warranty issues?
  2. Running costs: Can anyone share their knowledge about the running cost of one of these? I'll be swapping a 1.8 for another 1.8, but obviously the slk is thirstier. I get about 350-390 miles out of a full tank in the Focus and do about 14k per year. My commute is 21 miles each way, 30% negotiating the suburbs, 30% crawling through the city centre and 40% on the motorway. I'm a really laid back driver and just tend to cruise around, far too lazy to lane hop just to get a few cars ahead.

    Looking online servicing costs are a fair bit dearer. As an example NGK spark plugs for the Focus are about £1.25 each and £10 each for the slk :)

    I intend to give the slk the same tlc as the Focus: Oil change every 6 months, brake bleed every year and everything else gets done as per the schedule or as soon as something needs doing. The Focus just sails through year after year with no advisories and she is garaged every night.

I'll be looking at keeping the new car for 10 years at least :)

Any comments much appreciated, thanks for reading.
 
They are ok, but there are better convertibles for the money. I'd probably put the money in to an S2000 instead (going up in value atm).

The 1.8 won't be hugely expensive to run. But they are quite expensive for their performance, which isn't exactly amazing. They aren't as "sporty" as they look. You'll be smoked off the line by hot fiestas these days :P
 
Last edited:
The s2000 is an actual sports car AFAIK so I imagine will be costlier to insure, plus it's a hard top I'm after.

Thanks for suggesting it though.
 
The manual box on the slk is really good, just the auto was advertised much more as a need to have. I wish I'd have gone for a manual box when I had mine. Although the autos are good.
 
They are mostly autos because that's what Mercedes are good at, i would recommend trying one and trying to change your GF's mind.

The v6's on these had some issues with timing errors so the 1.8 is probably the safer choice anyway.
 
What about a MK3 Mazda MX-5 Roadster Coupe? Has a folding hard top, manual gearbox and is a lot cheaper to fix and run than an SLK. Very reliable too.
 
What about a MK3 Mazda MX-5 Roadster Coupe? Has a folding hard top, manual gearbox and is a lot cheaper to fix and run than an SLK. Very reliable too.

Hmm been looking at these, didn't know that they did a folding hard top and they're considerably cheaper. I would still prefer a sporty car to an actual sports car though. My bad back won't tolerate a hard ride and I really do like the front end of the mk2 slk.
 
Hmm been looking at these, didn't know that they did a folding hard top and they're considerably cheaper. I would still prefer a sporty car to an actual sports car though. My bad back won't tolerate a hard ride and I really do like the front end of the mk2 slk.

Yea they do a good hard top. The ride isn't all that hard on the MX-5, not for a sports car anyway. Plus they never go wrong.

If your used to non-sporty cars even the SLK will feel hard at first though.
 
The mx5 feels way different to an slk. An slk is more of a sporty tourer, everything's comfy, road noise is minimal and it's a relaxing drive. The mx5 in comparison feels like a go kart.
 
Having driven both manual and auto SLK's I would always take the Auto, they are great.

I delivered a brand new SLK250 diesel auto and not only did it well exceed 50mpg it went like stink when I needed it to :D

I don't understand anyone who wants a manual over an auto for everyday driving these days. Traffic takes all the fun out of a manual.
 
Having driven both manual and auto SLK's I would always take the Auto, they are great.

I delivered a brand new SLK250 diesel auto and not only did it well exceed 50mpg it went like stink when I needed it to :D

I don't understand anyone who wants a manual over an auto for everyday driving these days. Traffic takes all the fun out of a manual.
Completely agree, don't think I'd ever go back to the manual box.
 
Back
Top Bottom