SLK/R170: Video claims aftermarket windshield changes handling. True?
01-27-2016, 02:07 AM
#1
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
w460 1982 280ge
Video claims aftermarket windshield changes handling. True?
My wife wants a R170 SLK, so she did online research. She found this video
where at 8:00 minutes he claims that a non-original windshield (windscreen) changes the rigidity of the SLK. At 8:00 he says to make sure it is Mercedes glass (not aftermarket).
"The smaller the car, the more substantial that becomes. Mercedes glass is vastly heavier than aftermarket glass; the reason is that Mercedes is the only manufacturer that builds the architecture of its vehicle around the concept of the windshield, so the car won't be right with an aftermarket windshield. It will rattle. It won't have the same structural rigidity. And so these big heavy slabs of Mercedes glass are expensive, and you will always see people doing it on the cheap. They will get a star in the window or a crack in the window... etc."
Now, if it is on youtube it must be true, especially if the guy saying it is a used car salesman, but in my searches I have never heard anyone saying this before. After the "etc", he goes on to make generic statements about wavy glass, etc, which can be true, but is very different than saying the car will rattle and the structure will lack the same rigidity. I would like to make sure this is not a cause and effect.
Having said that, one thing we noticed was friction noises from the various interior panels, and when we pulled into the driveway I could feel the body respond to the irregular surface (whereas in my G-wagon it does not).
Incidentally, this is our first foray into SLK territory. When I lived in the USA I owned a 1987 300D (E series) that I leased new and when the 5-year lease expired, I bought a 1986 300E from the dealer. Both were brilliant but boring, meaning after the buzz wore off they were just German taxis that did everything perfect but with no thrill. In contrast, my 1982 280GE never bores, except when refuelling. The odometer is in miles, and it generally shows about 110 miles elapsed with a cost of about NZ$110, or a NZ dollar per mile. So if we bite the bullet on the SLK, I'll be on this forum reading all the collective wisdom... but I digress. Back to the question:
Has anyone heard or experienced this claim about MB vs aftermarket windshields? Really, I want to know if there is something to this, or if this is just a salesman trying to pitch his car.
I'll attach an image of the glass that is in the car now... not MB. Also, I stopped by the MB dealer. They want:
NZ$923 for the glass (US$600) plus 15% tax
NZ$257 for the sealant (US$166) +tax
NZ $360 to install it (US$233) +tax
Not sure what is the sealant, must have gold flakes in it. Anyone know if the MB sealant is superior or just MB jacking up the price?
"The smaller the car, the more substantial that becomes. Mercedes glass is vastly heavier than aftermarket glass; the reason is that Mercedes is the only manufacturer that builds the architecture of its vehicle around the concept of the windshield, so the car won't be right with an aftermarket windshield. It will rattle. It won't have the same structural rigidity. And so these big heavy slabs of Mercedes glass are expensive, and you will always see people doing it on the cheap. They will get a star in the window or a crack in the window... etc."
Now, if it is on youtube it must be true, especially if the guy saying it is a used car salesman, but in my searches I have never heard anyone saying this before. After the "etc", he goes on to make generic statements about wavy glass, etc, which can be true, but is very different than saying the car will rattle and the structure will lack the same rigidity. I would like to make sure this is not a cause and effect.
Having said that, one thing we noticed was friction noises from the various interior panels, and when we pulled into the driveway I could feel the body respond to the irregular surface (whereas in my G-wagon it does not).
Incidentally, this is our first foray into SLK territory. When I lived in the USA I owned a 1987 300D (E series) that I leased new and when the 5-year lease expired, I bought a 1986 300E from the dealer. Both were brilliant but boring, meaning after the buzz wore off they were just German taxis that did everything perfect but with no thrill. In contrast, my 1982 280GE never bores, except when refuelling. The odometer is in miles, and it generally shows about 110 miles elapsed with a cost of about NZ$110, or a NZ dollar per mile. So if we bite the bullet on the SLK, I'll be on this forum reading all the collective wisdom... but I digress. Back to the question:
Has anyone heard or experienced this claim about MB vs aftermarket windshields? Really, I want to know if there is something to this, or if this is just a salesman trying to pitch his car.
I'll attach an image of the glass that is in the car now... not MB. Also, I stopped by the MB dealer. They want:
NZ$923 for the glass (US$600) plus 15% tax
NZ$257 for the sealant (US$166) +tax
NZ $360 to install it (US$233) +tax
Not sure what is the sealant, must have gold flakes in it. Anyone know if the MB sealant is superior or just MB jacking up the price?
