What convertable to buy?

[brianp]

I was looking at the Peugeot CC and the dealer said the roof mechanism was designed by MB.
That got me thinking.
Why not get a MB, a used one, and get more car for my money.
But what to get?
I don't want a super fast one, just a fun car.
There is a SL320 advertised locally, what are members opinion on these.
It is advertised at £10,750 with 57000 miles, leather up and fMsh.

Any advice would be appreciated.

Many Thanks

 

[David Nock]

I would like an SL, but have instead a CLK. The CLK is a full 4 seater in comfort- useful to take friends to the Theatre/ Weddings/ Outings etc etc. I think that 2 seaters or even 2+2's are always a bit restrictive in that sense. Only my opinion.

 

[100%Bitch]

Go for the SL. Mine's only a 320 but it's fun.

 

[RichardSmith]

If you want the metal folding roof then go for an SLK, unless you can stretch to a 2002+ SL.

You can get a decent late model, early shape SLK230 or even a 320 for £10-14k. £19k will buy you an early new shape SLK200 (1.8 kompressor).

I had an SLK230 kompressor and that was a nice car. I've just bought a 55 reg SLK350 and it's an excellent car.......

£25k will just get you a 2002 500SL with 60k miles. I did think about it but decided to have a newer SLK:mrgreen:

Richard

 

[A210AMG]

Hello

If you looking at a pug cc I doubt your budget is new shape SLK or SL, however the old shape SLK is a great car.

My dad had one for 8 years and 60K miles, only needed tyres / service. Sold for 8K last year to make way for an SL.

His was a 230K did over 30mpg and was quck enough (auto), the 320 would be smoother as the 230K can sound like its trying, but still a nice car (below). My advice would be which ever you go for get heated seats. They are great and it amazes me how many dont have them (only around £350 when the car was 30K) roof down in winter / night its ace !!!

 

[growla666]

Which one?

Hi,

I've owned both SLK and SL. Agree with A210 if your budgeting for a Pug CC then I assume that you'll be looking for lowish running costs. That's not something you're gonna get with any SL. Even my 97 320SL cost a fortune to service and that was at an indie, however it was a great, fat, wafty GT and was marvelous in summer (obviously) but attracted zero attention (maybe because it was vivanite green!). The SLK (red) used to attract all kinds of flattering comments and was a great to use daily - unless you wanted the roof down and had loads of luggage.

Anyway in practical terms the SLK was a better day to day car and had the vario roof that fits in the boot. The SL's glass roof needed two people to get if off and a decent, secure place to store it. In fuel terms my SLK230 was averaging around 27 mpg, which was about 1 more than my SL. However the SL cost more to run, parts were much more expensive and it was difficult to park in many places. Summary - buy an SLK. Great to drive, reliable, easy to get and great to live with. I know, I've just bought another - yesterday from Mercedes of Peterborough, a 320SLK in brilliant silver.:mrgreen:

Growla

 

[brianp]

Many thanks to you all for your comments.
I will let you know how I progress.

Brian

 

[GMK]

I've had all 3 convertibles and, in choosing, it really depends why you are buying it. If it's for every day practicality and you need 4 seats, then it's the CLK. There's no hard top to lift off (as with the older SL) and you still have some boot space with the hood down (unlike the SLK). The 320 V6 engive is v nice in any of the models mentioned.

My CLK gave a few electrical glitches (nothing too serious though) but the simpler SLK never gave a moments trouble other than one slightly wayward warning light. The SL gets my vote for make-me-smile driving though