Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?
-
- 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?
This appears rusty but operational - do they dissolve quickly?
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 1041371590
https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 1041371590
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
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
- cros
- The Elastrator
- Posts: 5898
- Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2019 9:58 am
- Has thanked: 1907 times
- Been thanked: 2135 times
Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?
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.
- Hooli
- Self Appointed Internet God
- Posts: 33605
- Joined: Mon Apr 08, 2019 9:25 pm
- Has thanked: 14375 times
- Been thanked: 11153 times
Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?
I think subframes are the issue? Didn't xtriple have to get a new rear subframe fitted to his?
Private signature, do not read
- xtriple
- Paranoid Dog Parent
- Posts: 1968
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 pm
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 1581 times
Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?
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.
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.
-
- Prize Cunt
- Posts: 6336
- 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?
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.
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.
-
- 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?
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
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
-
- 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?
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.
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.
-
- Prize Cunt
- Posts: 6336
- Joined: Wed Apr 10, 2019 6:31 pm
- Location: Big Al Granvia’s armpit.
- Has thanked: 718 times
- Been thanked: 2337 times
- xtriple
- Paranoid Dog Parent
- Posts: 1968
- Joined: Fri Jul 26, 2019 3:26 pm
- Has thanked: 189 times
- Been thanked: 1581 times
Re: Rusty early SLKs - how bad are they?
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!
I like the noise the 350 makes, especially at 3000 rpm and over when it howls jolly nicely and they do go well!
- 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?
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.