SLK 55 AMG - R171 or R172

[maz8062]

Good morning folks.

I’ve only had my R171 55 for a couple of months or so and love it. But it’s a second car so I’m up for trying other cars. I’ve been offered a deal on a MY13 55 but I’m not sure what it’d add over the R171:

360 bhp vs 415 bhp
F1 nose vs SLS nose
Seats etc.

Having had a R172 350 and 200, I’m leaning towards keeping the R171.

Any views?

[GTRene]

lol, I have also such problem which is 'best' for me...

yes the R172 has more power and can be upgraded to 450hp but I can't get behind the looks somehow, although some R172 with the right options and color and so on, look a bit better?

but the best look stays for the R171 with the right options, the looks alround I think are better, a bit retro/classic ala SLR and that R171 was F1 frontrunner for years! you can also tune them to say 400hp or more with supercharger and other parst to almost 600hp

My choice would be a R171 Black series (if they were not that expensive :-) )

after that I would choose the most rare variant, the R171 facelift version, from 2008-2011 with the sport options (big brake and so on)
they are rare! only about 1300 WW better mirrors, better electronics, a bit faster gearbox, better lights.

compared to the before facelift, the 2004-2008 those later 2008-2011 are 6 times more rare! a lot of people don't know that... so yes, those will rise more in the future then the before facelift versions.

the R171 slk 55 are also rarer then the pre FL R171, but not as rare as those FL R171 slk 55

[clarki]

I'd go 172, but then i'm biased;

https://youtu.be/PbRB1-gceUw

[trevalvole]

If steering feel is important to you, then I think the cooking R172s had EPAS, whereas the R171 has HPAS. With the mention of the facelift R171, I think the cooking versions got the variable ratio dynamic steering, which may be a good or bad thing.

[maz8062]

clarki said:

I'd go 172, but then i'm biased;

https://youtu.be/PbRB1-gceUw

I watch your YT videos but never understand why you hang on to the 55. You don’t appear to rate it’s handling, especially compared to your RF, and you’ve only done about 8k miles in it in several years of ownership.

I know you like the car, love it even, but it’s not clear why.

[clarki]

maz8062 said:

I watch your YT videos but never understand why you hang on to the 55. You don’t appear to rate it’s handling, especially compared to your RF, and you’ve only done about 8k miles in it in several years of ownership.

I know you like the car, love it even, but it’s not clear why.

I know, im mad to keep it, everyone says exactly the same thing, what am I doing??!!

But then I take it for a drive, once in a blue moon i'll admit, and there's just something about that car. Can't really describe it but it excites in a way very few (technically much better) cars ever could.

Some days after work I just go and look at it, start it up (never tire of listening to a cold start), sit in it, add another coat of wax, man I need to get out more!!

Add the fact mrs clarki loves it too, it's still frikkin rapid and has a fair bit of sentimental value and maybe that explains things a bit better?

The mileage will come (9k now!!), i'm in no rush, it's not going anywhere. Thanks for watching btw, much appreciated.

[GTRene]

anyone who drove both? the R171 55 and the R172 55?

wonder how the differences feel.

[maz8062]

GTRene said:

anyone who drove both? the R171 55 and the R172 55?

wonder how the differences feel.

I’ve driven both now. The 172 is better. It’s faster, the damping is better, the gearbox is better, the seats are better, the sat nav, the interior, the rear, yada yada. But it’s too clinical in my view. The 171’s gearbox for example, is constantly looking to shift down, straining at the leash, it just wants to go and gives different driving sensations compared to the 172.

The R171 is more analogue. The exhaust sounds better. The steering feels better. The gearbox although not as quick as the MCT’esqe 172, is still ok and suits the car. It’s also very rapid and you get the sensation of speed driving it.

If I owned a 172 I wouldn’t necessarily drive it fast, because it’s comfortable cruising around listening to that V8 burble.You can drive along listening to the radio, roof down and enjoy. The 171 is more an event in my view.

I think Clarkson’s review of the 172 is very apt. The car lulls you into a more sedate approach to driving but it’s a great car. Would I swap mine for a 172 - I was offered a very good swap deal for a MY13 but I can’t bring myself to do it so no.

[GTRene]

Thanks Maz, hm, so still difficult, but I understand what you say.
is/was that R171 the facelift (2008 and on) version or pre facelift, MB says for facelift SLK the gearbox is a bit faster.

personally I like the R171 SLK 55 for the looks a bit more, also a F1 frontcar, but that newer R172 in the right combo (color and specs) can also be good for looks, you can also tune those a bit up, 450hp ecu tune I thought, or 490hp with a bit more parts could be nice.

Maybe to make such R171 a bit more 'sporty' or direct you could change some other parts before going to crazy? have not read much about that, say if you want it more like a black series R172, ok they were never made, but making it a bit lighter and 'hardcore' well, at least a bit.

There are also some nice SLK R171 55 and R172 from tuners out there, some come on sale, but lately not much, such could also be lovely, like Brabus or Kleemann or Vath