Mercedes SLK World banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I was reading that 2016 is the last year of the SLK.

The 2017 models will be changed to the SLC. The "secret" pictures I saw of the new SLC didn't impress me.

How reliable is this information?

It's on the Internet so it must be true. Right?
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,275 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
Has it been established anywhere that the vario roof is definitely being replaced with a rag-top? I see much on this in some spy sites, but does anyone have it on authority?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
I too would think it a shame to lose the vario roof after everyone has had time to see its attractiveness on any convertible, however, they are being ditched by most marques to save weight and allow smaller and more efficient engines to be used.

The replacement BMW Z4 has already confirmed it is moving to a rag-top. Sadly, I am sure the SLC will follow.
 

·
Registered 1999 SLK230-sold
Joined
·
15,254 Posts
Sales are in the Toilet on the SLK. MB sure screwed it up by renaming the R 172 to the SLC and touching the car up a little. MB should have started fresh with a new Model from the ground up but since the market shifted to mini SUV,s and the profit margin is much better why waste $$$$ on a new 2 Seater.
 

·
Registered 2009 SLK200
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
the slk lost its identity with the 172 family front end. The 170/171 are great looking cars.

p.s feel free to bash me but its just my opinion and we all have different ones


I agree on your comments and talked a client out on getting a 172 model
And hes is now glad he did not .

Its the front end it does not look sporty enough .
And the amg version does not stand out enough compared to a basic 250 cdi as such you gotta look really hard as such .

Just my opinion
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
I agree on your comments and talked a client out on getting a 172 model
And hes is now glad he did not .

Its the front end it does not look sporty enough .
And the amg version does not stand out enough compared to a basic 250 cdi as such you gotta look really hard as such .

Just my opinion
Seriously? One of the best things about the SLK is you can't tell what engine is in it unless you know what you're looking for. The SLK55 R172 is instantly identifiable from the front by it's totally different headlamps with HUGE DRLs and from the back by the 4 tailpipes.

If anything, the R171 SLK55 is even less easy to differentiate from smaller engined models.

As for what the front looks like, that's personal taste. You like the R171 and so do I. But I wouldn't buy one.

As for actually putting someone off an SLK - what did you steer the poor soul into instead?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
Sales are in the Toilet on the SLK.
Maybe in the USA, and for petrol cars generally but in the UK and Europe the diesel models are exceeding all sales expectations. In the UK there are very nearly 11,000 CDi 250's on the road, all built in the last 4 years. There are about 14,000 SLK 200's and 11,000 SLK 230's. All the rest add up to about another 10,000. So in 4 years the diesel has sold 25% of all the SLKs on the road and the other cars largely built up their numbers in the early 2000's. There is no doubt they are promoting ithe diesel heavily and they are discounting and doing very cheap leases, but it's a phenomenal sales success. If there was no CDi, it's very unlikely there would be an SLC.
 

·
Registered 2009 SLK200
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
Seriously? One of the best things about the SLK is you can't tell what engine is in it unless you know what you're looking for. The SLK55 R172 is instantly identifiable from the front by it's totally different headlamps with HUGE DRLs and from the back by the 4 tailpipes.

If anything, the R171 SLK55 is even less easy to differentiate from smaller engined models.

As for what the front looks like, that's personal taste. You like the R171 and so do I. But I wouldn't buy one.

As for actually putting someone off an SLK - what did you steer the poor soul into instead?
I steered him in to keeping his slk 171 amg spec non face lift one . :grin:

The trouble is most modern mercs have the same style front end as such and parked along side they look very simular .

The 170 and 171 do look totally diff .

If they kept the same ish front end look as the 171 id go for the 172 .
As the rest of the car especially the back end looks good . :smile:
 

Attachments

·
Registered
Joined
·
73 Posts
As most other brand roadsters seem to lose their vario-roof systems, or continue to stick with a rag top, let's hope MB will differentiate itself and aim for the absolute top of the premium segment and keep the vario-roof! It's so much better than a rag top and seriously, what premium roadster buyer cares about the +30kg(?) or so with that this causes? We want only the best in a high end premium roadster. Rag tops are for VW Beetles.... ;-)
 

·
Premium Member 2014 SLK55 AMG
Joined
·
900 Posts
Old news my friend :D Visit us more often! :D

The SLK will become the SLC.
Should not change to R173 until year 2019 or so based on earlier generation years
R170 1996-2004
R171 2004/5-2011
R172 2011/12-2018/19?

http://www.slkworld.com/general-discussion/197105-slk-being-discontinued-will-named-slc.html

http://www.slkworld.com/slk-r172-general-discussion/241338-slc55-rendering.html

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:slkworld.com+slc
How come you give him/her links but you make me look it up?
 

·
Administrator 2009 SLK 55 AMG/Founding Member 2006
Joined
·
96,275 Posts
gymduke has 4 posts. you have mucho more and should know better :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
I steered him in to keeping his slk 171 amg spec non face lift one . :grin:

The trouble is most modern mercs have the same style front end as such and parked along side they look very simular .

The 170 and 171 do look totally diff .

If they kept the same ish front end look as the 171 id go for the 172 .
As the rest of the car especially the back end looks good . :smile:
The only fly in the ointment with that attitude is that you end up with the same car every time. Have you seen the Mk III Audi TT.? How would you know? It looks VERY similar to the Mk II.

If they don't change anything you'd just complain that it looked the same and why should you change what you're happy with?

They basically can't win. If they go for something radical it's 50:50 if it's a hit or not. The R170 was a huge hit. The R171 was always going to be a poison chalice. Make it properly different and you risk losing the existing owner base. Make it too subtle and no-one sees any need to change.

To evolve the new model they subtly renew it in line with the current house style. If you don't like the house style, you're stuck basically.

It's a good thing you like your R171 because the SLC is an R172 with the same nose as the new C-class (big air scoops either side of the bumper under the headlamps). So you're probably not going to love that either. I liked the R171 but I wouldn't get one because I have to have a Diesel. With R172 they gave me Diesel (and a stonking Diesel at that) so I'm on my second in 4 years. Ií genuinely love my car. Would I love it more with an R171 nose? Possibly. But I can't see it when I'm in it and that makes it OK.
 

·
Premium Member 2012 SLK350
Joined
·
712 Posts
I like the 171 & 172, to me they are beautiful in different ways, but where I sit when I am driving my SLK, I will take a 172 everyday over a 171.

As for what MB will do with the top, time will tell us, I like the hard top, but I would still consider the car with a soft top.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
176 Posts
Honestly I'm okay with the looks of the r172. I just don't think it was a major improvement technology wise except for navigation. I hope they change the engine on the 55 to the 4.0 bi turbo. Although I wish they had ventilated seats, especially with the C classes having that as an option. Plus I notice a big difference when driving our 63, having then on verse off. I thought in some spy shots, they mentioned making the roof faster or something along those lines. I think it would be kinda nice if the panoramic roof tilted up, especially on somewhat slight rainy days.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
SLK 2016 facelift

I'm loving my 2012 SLK and it's the third gen SLK I've been lucky to own. Talking to my MB salesman a few weeks ago, the SLC will be the new name on the 2016 facelift. Anyone else thinking of buying one in March 2016?
 

·
Registered 2009 SLK200
Joined
·
5,048 Posts
The only fly in the ointment with that attitude is that you end up with the same car every time. Have you seen the Mk III Audi TT.? How would you know? It looks VERY similar to the Mk II.

If they don't change anything you'd just complain that it looked the same and why should you change what you're happy with?

They basically can't win. If they go for something radical it's 50:50 if it's a hit or not. The R170 was a huge hit. The R171 was always going to be a poison chalice. Make it properly different and you risk losing the existing owner base. Make it too subtle and no-one sees any need to change.

To evolve the new model they subtly renew it in line with the current house style. If you don't like the house style, you're stuck basically.



It's a good thing you like your R171 because the SLC is an R172 with the same nose as the new C-class (big air scoops either side of the bumper under the headlamps). So you're probably not going to love that either. I liked the R171 but I wouldn't get one because I have to have a Diesel. With R172 they gave me Diesel (and a stonking Diesel at that) so I'm on my second in 4 years. Ií genuinely love my car. Would I love it more with an R171 nose? Possibly. But I can't see it when I'm in it and that makes it OK.
I had the 170 facelift as the early one did not appeal to me .
Then the 171 got released and it did not appeal to me to much .......

Then the facelift 171 was realesed and that tweaked my eye the revised front end look and all the other tweaks .

So maybe the the facelift 172 may do it for me ??
Will wait and see what the final spec / photo will look like .
But at the moment my wallet is not coming out yet . >:D

For me it has to look sporty / cool all round the car .
As no good driving / owning a car that you dont like the look off .
Besides it has to park outside / in your garage .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,903 Posts
I'm loving my 2012 SLK and it's the third gen SLK I've been lucky to own. Talking to my MB salesman a few weeks ago, the SLC will be the new name on the 2016 facelift. Anyone else thinking of buying one in March 2016?
The way I see the range developing they are abandoning the bottom end of the power market to diesel and offering a much better spread of power across the petrol range.

So the 200 CGi will end up as the slow one, the 250 CDi will get another 30PS to keep it well ahead of the Audi TT TDi (and potentially be called 300 CD and then you have 300, 450 and AMG 63 so the slow selling petrols get more niche and the big volume diesel stays as the market leader in diesel performance drop-tops.

So no, I won't be getting a 2016 but a 2017 is quite likely.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top