1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK Reviews - Page 2 of 3

1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 2.3 supercharged from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2003
Most recent year of ownership2004
Engine and transmission 2.3 supercharged Automatic
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 10 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
8.4 / 10
Distance when acquired39000 miles
Most recent distance46000 miles

Faults:

Tailight bulbs out on left side. Dealer replaced sockets at no charge.

General Comments:

We enjoy this car immensely. Great mileage. Good performance. The top is cool also.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 14th April, 2004

1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK 200 Kompressor 2.0 cc 192 cv from Italy

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2002
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.0 cc 192 cv Manual
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.2 / 10
Distance when acquired20000 kilometres
Most recent distance40000 kilometres
Previous carToyota Celica

Summary:

Great design and fun, but at a high cost

Faults:

Front headlights lamps burning down too easily.

Ventilation switches lamps burned at 30000 km and 35000 km.

Back headlights lamps poorly fixed goes on and off while driving.

Cooling water level low battery tension warning lights gets on and off without reason.

Seats not designed for long journeys and not good for a sport-car.

General Comments:

The car's design is fantastic and the yellow color make heads turn while passing by.

Performances (192cv) are not enough to consider the 200K as a sporty car, but still enjoyable.

Good trunk space and accessibility when roof is on, one of the best in class (can accommodate two medium-size suitcases)

With "AMG" wheels kit the steering is even too precise, needs a careful control at highest speeds.

Power over-steering is always there, although ESP is quickly reacting needs quite careful drive on bends and with wet weather.

At 10 to 12 Km/Lt is not the ideal car for an environmentalist.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 9th June, 2003

28th Oct 2007, 16:17

SLK200 has 163hp; SLK230 has 193hp.

21st Feb 2010, 16:45

Not in Italy! SLK200 has 136 HP; SLK 200 Kompressor has 192...

1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230K 2.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2003
Engine and transmission 2.3 Automatic
Performance marks 8 / 10
Reliability marks 4 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 1 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.0 / 10
Distance when acquired5 miles
Most recent distance24000 miles
Previous carPeugeot 306

Summary:

Great when the sun comes out

Faults:

Troublesome Roof. Constantly plays up.

Gearbox exchanged at 11000 miles

Gearbox Failed again at 22000 miles (out of warranty) Had an awful time with Mercedes aftercare.

Poor on tires.

Interior trim is the worst I have ever had.

Mercedes put some of it right, but just left the rest.

General Comments:

Always wanted a Mercedes, don't anymore!!

Good car let down by awful aftercare.

Not a sports car, but still good to drive.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 6th January, 2003

8th Dec 2003, 09:20

I read this review with interest. I have an SLK230, also 1999. It has only done 16,000 miles, and the gearbox has failed. I have got Mercedes to pay a large proportion of the parts cost, but the repair will still cost me nearly £4000. I accept the car is nearly 5 years old, but neither 5 years, nor 16,000 miles, seems excessive for a Mercedes gearbox! I too have not found the car to be very reliable, and have had roof trouble too... also the alloy wheels have developed strange marks around the wheel nuts. It's a shame, because I love the car, and I thought buying a Mercedes was a sure way keeping the car out of the repair shop.

1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK 2.3 Kompressor from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.3 Kompressor Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 7 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
6.8 / 10
Distance when acquired500 miles
Most recent distance4500 miles
Previous carVolkswagen Corrado

Summary:

A stylish and elegant car

Faults:

The AM radio has not performed especially well.

The top had the normal problems with electronics for this year and refused to retract; however, the dealer did fix it.

The paint does chip easily, a fault found by others elsewhere.

General Comments:

I find the car attractive and fast.

The SLK may not have the eternal qualities of deutsche Wertarbeit as in older DB cars (I also own a 1979240D), but it seems more durable than the BMW roadster.

For an open car, it has a very solid feel, even if its ride is a bit choppy.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 1st January, 2003

1999 Mercedes-Benz SLK 230 Compressor 2.3 from UK and Ireland

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2002
Engine and transmission 2.3 Automatic
Performance marks 4 / 10
Reliability marks 4 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 1 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 7 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
4.6 / 10
Distance when acquired5 miles
Most recent distance75000 miles
Previous carMercedes-Benz C-Class

Summary:

Very poor built quality, and, watch out for Mercedes Dealers

Faults:

The most common problem is the roof. It has a tendency to stick when folding, or worse still, when you try to put it up. According to the main dealer, this is a common problem with the SLK, but only in 'summer'! Apparently the heat affects the sensor controlling the roof.

The interior paint work is paper thin and started to peel after 6,000 miles.

You must also be aware of the usual Mercedes "excessive" front tyre wear. The dealers will refuse to admit this exists, until you talk to other Mercedes owners.

General Comments:

Mercedes built quality is the worst of any car I have ever owned.

I will also give you a word of caution about the Mercedes dealers. Service charges are very reasonable, however, based on my personal experience I can assure you that you will probably pay for the work that is not carried out, or, pay for new part only to discover second hand parts have been used (be careful if the dealer has a second hand car forecourt as well, as you are probably servicing them as well!)

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 9th November, 2002

14th Jan 2003, 14:51

I would dispute these comments about build quality.

The build quality and materials on the Mercedes SLK are of a high standard. I have owned VW's, a Vauxhall Calibra and Astra, a Toyota Celica, a Peugeot 406, and 205 GTI plus a Renault 5 (Gordini)!! The only cars that come close to the build quality on the Mercedes SLK are my VW Golf, and my old Toyota Celica.

Average review marks: 7.1 / 10, based on 15 reviews