Another in a series of my reviews that appeared in the online version of African Americans On Wheels, a now defunct automotive magazine that was included as an insert in the Sunday newspapers of major cities.
The main reason this SLK was in the press fleet was because Mercedes was pushing the new 5-speed manual that now came standard. A lot of reviews at the time criticized it as being rubbery, especially in comparison to the slick units in the Miata, Boxster and Z3. I don’t remember it being particular good or bad, which is probably why I didn’t bother to leave my impressions of it below.
I was also taking a Kung Fu class in the evenings at the time, and the instructor sponsored a camping trip to a site about half-an-hour outside of D.C. I offered to drive one of my classmates, and we were able to store all of our camping gear in the tiny 3.7 cubic-foot trunk, which goes to show you that shape is at least as important as actual volume numbers when it comes to cargo stowage. On the flip side, we couldn’t put the top down because of all of the cargo in the trunk, which my biggest problem with hardtop convertibles. You can either go to the beach OR put the top down, but you can’t do both unless you can somehow fit all of the necessary accouterments inside the car.
At the camp grounds, I decided to test out the traction control by trying to climb a wet, muddy hill to get to our parking place. No dice. I finally got there by going in reverse at an angle.
The following review ran on December 7, 1998.
It wasn’t too long ago that the list of Mercedes buyers looked a lot like the AARP’s membership list. Trying to woo young, moderately successful buyers, Mercedes introduced the tiny SLK230 roadster two years ago that is about 20 inches shorter, 1,600 pounds lighter, and up to $85,000 less than its big brother SL.
Except for a Sport Package and the addition of a five-speed manual transmission (the automatic is now a $900 option), not much has changed for this year. The wedge-shaped, long hooded, short deck roadster looks good from any angle. The Sport Package gives a more muscular appearance with its fatter 17 inch wheels and other low-key aerodynamic enhancements.
The interior is done in a chic-retro look highlighted by white gauges with black markings. To help keep the price down, the SLK does without many of the traditional Mercedes conveniences, but there’s still far more features than in a Miata.
The most unique feature, of course, is the retractable hardtop. With only the press of a button the top folds in two and slides gracefully into the trunk in about 30 seconds. It’s quite a sight, and more fun to watch than most prime-time television. Besides the added protection in the event of a rollover when the top is up, the SLK also has a reinforced windshield frame and roll bars mounted behind each seat for carefree, top-down driving. Side airbags and anti-slip control are also standard.
Powering the SLK is a 185-horsepower, 2.3-liter four cylinder mit Kompressor (with supercharger). It’s a powerful unit but doesn’t quite have the punch of the six-cylinder BMW Z3 2.8 and Porsche Boxster. The ride is understandably far from smooth, but handling is outstanding. Wind buffeting is minimal, impressive for a small roadster.
Thanks to its squarish shape, the small 3.7 cubic-foot trunk can hold more cargo than you’d expect when the top is up, which we discovered on a recent camping trip. There’s even a little room left in the trunk for small items when the top is retracted.
There’s a waiting list a mile long for the SLK230, and it’s easy to see why.
For more information contact 1-800-FOR-MERCEDES
SPECIFICATIONS
Type:Two-Door Roadster
Engine:Supercharged 185-horsepower, 2.3-liter inline four
Transmission:Five-speed manual
EPA Mileage:21 city/30 highway
Tested Price:$45,980
Did the price as tested include a bunch of options? I could swear these were advertised closer to $36K. Has anyone seen one in living memory? It has been a long time since I’ve seen any of the dreaded Kompressor cars, although it could be a matter of soy-based wiring harness insulation and none of the Kompressor models meriting the expense of replacing said harnesses. I mentioned decades of reading denigrating reviews of the 190SL. Many of them coincided with the introduction of the SLK, when long-time auto journalists had an opportunity to tell the ugly truth about an out of production model while doing their job of showering the advertiser’s new ware with unmerited praise.
The MSRP for the base 1999 SLK in the U.S. was $40,000, so this tester probably had the aforementioned Sports package and a few other options. Plus, the destination fee is also included in the Tested Price.
CJ: your memories are consistently and utterly warped, thanks to the utter lack of a filter on your massive bias.
The R170 got consistently fine reviews, and won some shoot-outs. C/D put it on its 10 Best List for 1997. Etc., etc., And I would love for you to show me some examples of all those “denigrating reviews of the 190SL”.
Have you considered having a memory test?
Here’s what C/D had to say:
We’ve seen supercharged engines before. We’ve seen carbon-fiber interior panels. We’ve even seen folding steel convertible tops before. But we’ve never seen these features, and more, wrapped in a lovely, agile package adorned with the three-pointed star on its hood.
The SLK has the responsive performance and sharp handling we would expect from a tiny two-seater. It has the cozy interior implied by its small size combined with the classy execution expected from a Mercedes. Best of all, it has that wonderful top that transforms the car from a slick convertible—which, by the way, shakes and rattles less than any other flip-top in the world—to a no-compromises closed coupe. Despite the wondrous folding roof and its attendant mechanism, there’s even a decent trunk…the SLK defines a new paradigm for sports cars—one that rivals will be chasing in the forthcoming years.
One of our neighbors owned a new one briefly, replacing a minivan as her son grew older. She replaced the SLK very quickly with a Lexus SC430.
The big ding against these cars is that they are poor sports cars. This complaint misses the mark because the SLK was never intended to be a sports car. It is a grand touring car. If it is a two-seat sports car you are looking for, there are plenty of other choices out there (Miata, Z4, Boxter).
JP Cavanaugh had a great comment on my SLK COAL post from a few years back that sums it up perfectly:
“There is sports car and there is grand tourer, and neither substitutes for the other worth a damn.”
they are poor sports cars
Seriously? How exactly so? The R170 was every bit as much a “sports car” (try defining that term exactly for me, if you please) as the other roadsters in its field. It won (or did very well) in several multi-car reviews. It won a slot in C/D’s Ten Best Cars of 1997, with these words of praise:
The SLK has the responsive performance and sharp handling we would expect from a tiny two-seater. It has the cozy interior implied by its small size combined with the classy execution expected from a Mercedes. Best of all, it has that wonderful top that transforms the car from a slick convertible—which, by the way, shakes and rattles less than any other flip-top in the world—to a no-compromises closed coupe. Despite the wondrous folding roof and its attendant mechanism, there’s even a decent trunk… the SLK defines a new paradigm for sports cars—one that rivals will be chasing in the forthcoming years.
I think we are talking about matters of degree here. Compared to most cars, the SLK could be considered a sports car. Its small size and light weight impart a degree of tossability by default. But compared to true sports cars like the examples in my earlier comment it comes up a little short. It is hard to describe: These other cars goad you on to go faster. The SLK says it would rather take things easy, if it all the same, but if you insist… The fact that the 7-speed transmission lazily launches in second gear (unless in sport mode) kind of epitomizes this thinking.
My SLK definitely has some shakes and rattles (although less then other convertibles I’ve owned). Granted, my example has 100,000 miles, so it may have lost a step or two.
The owner of the Chevy dealership I worked at in 1997 gifted the store’s general manager with one of the first SLKs to hit the state. Bright yellow, as nearly all the first-year models seemed to be.
I never actually saw the GM drive it and I’m pretty sure he sold it within three months.
That says quite a bit about Chevy in the nineties, doesn’t it?
As did the fact that all the senior managers drove Z71 pickups as demos, except for one odd duck who preferred V6 Camaros.
These little beauties go for less than £2000 in the UK. Beater C class money. I outfit down to iffy build quality of the period and, what ! an automatic in a sports car!.. Just not British…
That is odd, given that the then-current Corvette wasn’t considered a bad car by any stretch, no matter one’s personal feelings on the matter. The price was very comparable as well. As a sales manager for a brand filled with V8s in the Corvette, Camaro and lots of trucks, I’d probably feel odd about rolling up in a supercharged 4cyl SLK too, I’ll bet there was some “Damensportwagen” snickering going on in the sales office too… 🙂
I did and still find this to be an extraordinarily attractive car, the boxiness works for me and I think it has aged very well. The prices are quite reasonable these days and they came with all kinds of different engines as the years went by, lots of choices to weigh the pros and cons of. The folding hardtop is what makes it even more attractive, the soft top being the major negative in my view of most other cars in this sector. I remember seeing it introduced at either the Monterey Historics or the Pebble Beach Concours in ’97 or whenever it was, they had the display car wired so the top just folded up and down all day long, the folding hardtop was a huge deal.
Quite agreed on the continuing attractiveness, and I’ve never even picked up on any boxiness. I just wanted one back then, and only a lack of so much as a deposit stopped it. Did sit in one, and played tunes with the top, and sighed a little.
But I have since driven the Kompressor engine, and the nat asp base of it (standard in the SLK here) in C-classes: the base is horrible, and the supercharged version much more powerful, but equally horrid. Coffee grinders both, and combined with Mercedes sleepy-bye-byes transmission and monster throttle travel of the time, it’s hard to imagine the SLK drive being anything too wonderous beyond the sweet dynamics.
The ‘90s play-it-safe blobby front end did not age well, IMHO. Ironically, I didn’t like the 2005 redesign at first, but the more daring pointy nose has grown on me.
Great review as always, Adam – I marvel at your ability to cover so much in 750 words.
The thing that jumps out at me now, is that in 2020 a Mazda MX5 (Miata) with a folding hardtop, goes for around 33k – 7 grand less than the Merc did in 1999. Of course, the Mazda doesn’t have the allure of the three-pointed star, but OTOH it has 2020 Mazda reliability. I also wonder if the allure of the star has faded, given the plethora of low-priced Mercedes models these days and what I view as a general dilution of their brand equity.
Thanks Alan! For the record, the original published review clocked in at 355 words. 🙂
The allure of the 3-point star hasn’t faded. If it had, people wouldn’t be paying $40k to $50k for a relatively homely transverse-engined, front- or all-wheel drive hatchback. I know they start at $35k, but I’m willing to bet most of them have several of the generously-priced options.
I suppose you’re right. What I should have said it that their allure has faded for me.
I’ve owned one Mercedes (a 2012 GLK bought CPO in 2013 and owned until 2019) but have driven a bunch, either as rentals on trips or service rentals when my GLK was in the shop (for routine maintenance; it was quite reliable). I miss that car but that’s another story.
Over that period I noticed a distinct change. A 2012 E350 sedan was everything I thought a Merc should be – rock solid, great road manners, wonderful motor. A post-generational E300 with a four-banger seemed like a very nice Honda by comparison. A GLC (the replacement for my GLK, also with a four banger) was a step down also, both as to “solidity” and refinement. Prior and post- generational change C Class? The same story.
I understand the need to go to smaller engines and lighter weight for ever-more stringent emissions and mileage requirements, but to me they are not the cars they once were. Perhaps when one gets to the S Class the old magic is still there, but the dealer wasn’t giving those out as loaners!