Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Talk about your cars etc here. Keep it sort of sensible and on topic please.
AMCrebel
Officially Not Quite Totally Useless
Posts: 5306
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:58 am
Has thanked: 2263 times
Been thanked: 1860 times

Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by AMCrebel »

This appears rusty but operational - do they dissolve quickly?

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 1041371590
3a7291335dae48d19fdf7f1171ba4f2e.jpg
3a7291335dae48d19fdf7f1171ba4f2e.jpg (140.89 KiB) Viewed 673 times
2005 Land Rover Discovery SE Manual
2003 Mercedes E320 Estate
1968 AMC Rebel SST Convertible
1967 AMC Rebel SST Convertible (for parts)
1994 Fleetwood Colchester 1850 EB

Hoping for roffle win :)
User avatar
cros
The Elastrator
Posts: 5880
Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:58 am
Has thanked: 1907 times
Been thanked: 2135 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by cros »

I know absolutely nothing about anything Merc or BMW cars but these things look nice to me. Wheels look nice too. Everything afterwards just looked worser and worser.
User avatar
Hooli
Self Appointed Internet God
Posts: 33557
Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:25 pm
Has thanked: 14352 times
Been thanked: 11131 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by Hooli »

I think subframes are the issue? Didn't xtriple have to get a new rear subframe fitted to his?
Private signature, do not read
User avatar
xtriple
Paranoid Dog Parent
Posts: 1963
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 1573 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by xtriple »

Mine is a later one (R171, that one pictured is an R170) and the 171 era are galvanised so the bodies are pretty good but front wings still go and as said, the rear subframes rot for fun, not helped by the drains for the roof running into the subframe itself with no way out!

Brilliant design Mr Mercedes!

170s rot in the sills, rear wheel arches, front wings but otherwise, seem to be okay and are getting rare and well-loved. Mechanically, the earlier cars are bomb-proof while the later (171) V6 engined ones suffer cam chain gears failing early (bad batch from one particular supplier) and of course, the 7G gearbox which is a well-known problem.
I like the styling of the 171 more than the earlier (and the later) cars but that is purely personal taste, your view may differ. Interiors seem to hold up well, the leather (if it really is) seems to be hardy and the plastics well made, a tatty one inside is one to avoid as it's probably been owned by an idiot with dogs (er, like me) and there are still plenty to choose from.
The Reverend Bluejeans
Prize Cunt
Posts: 6326
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:31 pm
Location: Big Al Granvia’s armpit.
Has thanked: 718 times
Been thanked: 2337 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by The Reverend Bluejeans »

The original R170 is an old school Merc so basically alright, just niggly issues and cosmetic rust. The M111 engine is excellent.

The R171 is a fucking horrible thing. The M271 engine is junk, the 7 speed auto bloody horrible. I ran a 350 and hated it. That also had a new rear subframe from Mercedes and Christ knows what else. It was an absolute bastard to work on and I lost all respect for Mercedes who couldn’t supply new wings for it - these had to be rebuilt with new steel.

The Z4 runs rings around it as a sports car.
AMCrebel
Officially Not Quite Totally Useless
Posts: 5306
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2019 8:58 am
Has thanked: 2263 times
Been thanked: 1860 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by AMCrebel »

Thanks all
2005 Land Rover Discovery SE Manual
2003 Mercedes E320 Estate
1968 AMC Rebel SST Convertible
1967 AMC Rebel SST Convertible (for parts)
1994 Fleetwood Colchester 1850 EB

Hoping for roffle win :)
NigelBickle
Posts: 330
Joined: Sun Apr 28, 2019 5:25 pm
Location: Arundel& Liege
Has thanked: 129 times
Been thanked: 414 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by NigelBickle »

I run a yellow R170 as spare soft top for the Mrs. it sits around, ready to go, month in month out. Coincidentally I drove it yesterday- having been unused since August. It started first turn, and drove without issue or compromise. For a worthless hard/ soft top, it’s a damn good car. Perhaps a little lacking in feel, rapid - but uninspiring…

Next drive will probably for its ticket, in the Spring. Every year( 5 or 6) so far, it’s passed without issue.

Only downside is rust beginning to bubble on the front arch’s. Guess I’ll have to get that sorted.
The Reverend Bluejeans
Prize Cunt
Posts: 6326
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:31 pm
Location: Big Al Granvia’s armpit.
Has thanked: 718 times
Been thanked: 2337 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by The Reverend Bluejeans »

New pattern wings are cheap enough.
User avatar
xtriple
Paranoid Dog Parent
Posts: 1963
Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 1573 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by xtriple »

I think you're being a tiny bit harsh on the poor old 171, I still love mine which is why the bastard is still here! Mine had the cam gears done at 53000 miles, a gearbox fluid change at a similar mileage and it is not rusty (yet) anywhere... other than the rear subframe.

I like the noise the 350 makes, especially at 3000 rpm and over when it howls jolly nicely and they do go well!
User avatar
I am not Diesel
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 7:58 pm
Location: Knocking one out to the free 10 minutes on Babestation.
Has thanked: 53 times
Been thanked: 122 times

Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?

Post by I am not Diesel »

These seem to be cheap as chips at the moment. I am seriously considering getting one before spring. I like the fact that it’s got the hard top rather than being a dyed in the wool sort top convertible. Time and finances will tell.
Post Reply