SLK v SL both 350's

[ruwokeenuff]

My next quandry.......

My next sports rag top might be one of these 2. Both the newer nose end, both around the £12-£14k mark......but size about a ft n half diff, internally and externally. I'm only going for fair weather blats....2000 miles pa max. No motorways etc. This will be alternated with my big triumph bike, so is just for fun.

Which would you pick and why....(forget history, FSH etc, just pretend)............

[MrOrange]

I don't think either are sports cars, more GT. And SL is premier league GT cruising, prob costs a lot more to run.

But, if hairdresser? yada yada

[leef44]

If all else equal, I would pick the SL. More space, more luxury.

I would have if it had fit in my garage.

[Dog Star]

SL every time. In 350 guise I don’t think there’s all that much in it in terms of running costs.

As mentioned on the other thread we have a 350 SL and SLK - there’s no comparison

[ruwokeenuff]

BUT I am not going to be using it as a GT...ie no touring, no long distance miles....etc. Just local A roads on sunny days with the top down...............

[Ian-27xza]

In my opinion, both are fine cars but they will drive very differently.

An SL 350 is quite a big car and really a luxury tourer at which I'm sure it does an exemplary job at. The SLK, especially an R172 (which you're considering) will be a more engaging drive - smaller, lighter-ish, faster. If you're used to bikes then the SLK may well bring out the natural petrolhead in you, whereas the SL, not so much.

I was considering an R231 SL500 vs R172 SLK 55 a few months ago but for various reasons I decided to take a different route and make my existing SLK 320 trackable (full underbody restoration / suspension upgrades / brake upgrades / fast-road geo).

The upside of this is that the car is now a real hoot to drive on fast A-roads too, really well balanced and confidence inspiring to chuck it into bends like never before!

Stylish wafting = SL 350
Spirited drive = SLK 350

[trevalvole]

Ian-27xza said:

In my opinion, both are fine cars but they will drive very differently.

Stylish wafting = SL 350
Spirited drive = SLK 350

Generally agree, but there's a jayemm Youtube comparison of the earlier R171 SLK350 and SLK55, where he said the SLK350 didn't hold up well structurally with the roof down on bumpy roads. Also an Auto Express test of again an R171 SLK280 with 16" wheels that says the same thing https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-reviews/38415/me... . So I'd test drive them to check that they do what you want, as you may need something harder-core like a Boxster or an MX-5.

[ruwokeenuff]

trevalvole said:

Ian-27xza said:

In my opinion, both are fine cars but they will drive very differently.

Stylish wafting = SL 350
Spirited drive = SLK 350

Generally agree, but there's a jayemm Youtube comparison of the earlier R171 SLK350 and SLK55, where he said the SLK350 didn't hold up well structurally with the roof down on bumpy roads. Also an Auto Express test of again an R171 SLK280 with 16" wheels that says the same thing https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-reviews/38415/me... . So I'd test drive them to check that they do what you want, as you may need something harder-core like a Boxster or an MX-5.

Hardcore...mx5........!

[ruwokeenuff]

Ian-27xza said:

In my opinion, both are fine cars but they will drive very differently.

An SL 350 is quite a big car and really a luxury tourer at which I'm sure it does an exemplary job at. The SLK, especially an R172 (which you're considering) will be a more engaging drive - smaller, lighter-ish, faster. If you're used to bikes then the SLK may well bring out the natural petrolhead in you, whereas the SL, not so much.

I was considering an R231 SL500 vs R172 SLK 55 a few months ago but for various reasons I decided to take a different route and make my existing SLK 320 trackable (full underbody restoration / suspension upgrades / brake upgrades / fast-road geo).

The upside of this is that the car is now a real hoot to drive on fast A-roads too, really well balanced and confidence inspiring to chuck it into bends like never before!

Stylish wafting = SL 350
Spirited drive = SLK 350

I like that.....Today I saw an SL, a 3.7 one. it looked big and long. It sort of said Supra to me. Dont know why...The next is to decide between the pointy nose jobby...which screams SLK and the flatter fronted 172......

Edited by ruwokeenuff on Thursday 13th April 12:40

[Dog Star]

I drive both on a daily basis and the stylish wafting/sporty thing really isn’t it at all. There is a big difference - it’s just smoothness and refinement mostly. The interior space and lovely SL cockpit for example. The SLKs are a lot rattlier.

That post above mentioning structural stuff on the SLK - absolute nonsense. I’ve never noticed any of that (and this is coming from an ex Alfa Spider owner - I know about this).

Honestly - have a test drive in both OP and base your decision on that.

[trevalvole]

ruwokeenuff said:

I like that.....Today I saw an SL, a 3.7 one. it looked big and long. It sort of said Supra to me. Dont know why...The next is to decide between the pointy nose jobby...which screams SLK and the flatter fronted 172......

Edited by ruwokeenuff on Thursday 13th April 12:40

IIRC the R171 SLK has HPAS, R172 SLK has EPAS if that is important to you.

[leef44]

Dog Star said:

I drive both on a daily basis and the stylish wafting/sporty thing really isn’t it at all. There is a big difference - it’s just smoothness and refinement mostly. The interior space and lovely SL cockpit for example. The SLKs are a lot rattlier.

That post above mentioning structural stuff on the SLK - absolute nonsense. I’ve never noticed any of that (and this is coming from an ex Alfa Spider owner - I know about this).

Honestly - have a test drive in both OP and base your decision on that.

Could it be that the R172 is structurally stiffer than the R171 - enough to notice the improvement ?

[Dog Star]

leef44 said:

Could it be that the R172 is structurally stiffer than the R171 - enough to notice the improvement ?

Not in my own seat of the pants experience - had two of each. They were, after all, designed as convertibles from the outset.

Both ours are “weekend fun” / holiday cars, we both wfh and have an estate car for normal duties, but if we could only have one of them then it’d be the SL by a country mile.

[trevalvole]

Dog Star said:

That post above mentioning structural stuff on the SLK - absolute nonsense. I’ve never noticed any of that (and this is coming from an ex Alfa Spider owner - I know about this).

I think you need to take that up with the reviewers concerned - it's at about 9:10 in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGR952IMjyg

[ruwokeenuff]

trevalvole said:

ruwokeenuff said:

I like that.....Today I saw an SL, a 3.7 one. it looked big and long. It sort of said Supra to me. Dont know why...The next is to decide between the pointy nose jobby...which screams SLK and the flatter fronted 172......

Edited by ruwokeenuff on Thursday 13th April 12:40

IIRC the R171 SLK has HPAS, R172 SLK has EPAS if that is important to you.

Not really. The extra power might be tho BUT in the end its probably down to looks....and thats where i am stuck!

[fozzymandeus]

Push your budget a little and you’ll get an R231 SL350; which is a far superior car to the one it replaced. Little beats them value wise and they are less complex than the R230 (no vacuum system, no hydraulics, no SBC)

[ruwokeenuff]

getting a bit pricey now Fozzy......This looks tasty tho...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/145019230309?_trkparms=...

[fozzymandeus]

ruwokeenuff said:

getting a bit pricey now Fozzy......This looks tasty tho...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/145019230309?_trkparms=...

Tbf that looks like a good purchase.

[ruwokeenuff]

fozzymandeus said:

ruwokeenuff said:

getting a bit pricey now Fozzy......This looks tasty tho...

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/145019230309?_trkparms=...

Tbf that looks like a good purchase.

Theres a pre 2009 SL nearby as well so , my job is to persuade someone, to go for a day out

[sixor8]

The SLs in my price range searches have always been (IMHO) a bit lardy, or shabby (i.e. Under £9k) I looked for a while in 2021 at SL and SLKs and bought an '09 reg SLK350. Quite rapid and actually faster than the R172 model (although the blunt front one is much better on fuel). Actually only 0.1 seconds slower to 60 than the equivalent SL500 according to stats. The SL is definitely for wafting though they admittedly have AMG and even bigger engine varieties that are seriously fast but also serious money!

I went for the facelifted R171 (available from mid 2008 - 2011) which has the engine counterbalance shaft issue eradicated, has galvanized body and is below the 225g VED cliff. Still need to check the rear subframe, although I believe Mercedes are replacing them without any quibbles if rotten.