BlownV8

I haven't had any ABC issues but have had over $5k of issues in the last few years with the soft close, amp, door handles, alarm, power steering line, and convertible top hydraulic cylinder. ABC issues can easily eclipse $5k.

Rudeney

Some ABS failures are just nuisances, like dropping when parked. Eventually, if the failure is bad enough, the suspension will drop when driving and if it drops low enough, you must stop IMMEDIATELY to prevent body and tire damage. For example, my main pressure feed hose blew a leak and once it dumped out enough fluid, the dash when red with "ABS Failure - STOP ENGINE!" and that was it. Luckily I was in a parking lot AND there was a parts store there AND they had Pentosin CHF 11s in stock, so $50 later, i had added two quarts and made it home so the car could sit while the hose was ordered.

If you want a convertible and want to stick with MBZ, and the SLK is too small and the SL is too much of a possible money pit, why not check into a CLK? I had a CLK550 and it was a very satisfying car. Same engine and transmission as my SL550, so it was plenty powerful and fun to drive, but best in straights as opposed to curves (think: German-made Mustang GT). I did have to replace the canvas top at 9 years (cost me $1K as a very difficult DIY job).

tsberkey

Based on the conversations here and in a couple of other forums, the SLK is looking more and more attractive. Clearly not too small for our bodies (5'6 and 5'3) and far less scary in terms of really expensive stuff breaking. (Yes, I am aware that it's still a Benz!)

I'm really hesitant to get a soft-top in Florida, especially when we will be in an apartment complex with no garage. One reason why I wasn't considering the earlier SL's, like the 500.

Thanks, as always, Rodney. Appreciate the advice!

El_Toro_33809

I've been following this thread as well as the one on the SLK site. We have both vehicles (2001 SLK320 & 2003 SL55). Both cars are wonderful. The SL is more comfortable, and being an AMG, the performance is out of this world. The SLK is a fun, nimble car. I purchased the SL because its a beautiful vehicle, the price was right and it's an AMG. I got it in August and have only put 1700 mikes or so on it. I replaced fluids & filters (including the ABC), and the accumulators/pulsation damper. 3 of the hydraulic cylinders had to be rebuilt for the top. Haven't had any issues with it. That being said, it is a much more technically involved car than the SLK. We've had SLK'S for around 3 years now. Our current one is the wife's daily driver. When we got it we did a lot of freshening up to the vehicle: differential fluid, fuel filter, coolant, belt, pulleys (don't overlook this, they fail with age),power steering fluid, brake fluid, air filters, cabin filter, oil & oil filter, rebuilt the hydraulic cylinders for the roof, reglued the mounts of the door cards, etc. This is all work we did ourselves.

The bottom line is, if you are not a DIY person, or if you don't have a decent sized budget for others to do the maintenance, I'd opt for the SLK. You'll get plenty of smiles per gallon with a nice hardtop roadster. In addition, I'd wait and search in Florida. I think you would probably have a better selection, they most likely will not have been exposed to the harsher elements that the northern cars may have been exposed to, and the pricing seems lower here.

Good luck with your search. I'm sure you'll be happy with the decision you make.

Tim

El_Toro_33809

I guess I should have addressed both of these in one posting.......

I am far from an expert, but will address a few things I think I know about the ABC system; there are a lot of high pressure hoses & I've read that they can leak or blow, the system runs off of a belt driven pump that also runs the power steering, there is an onboard system that monitors the ABC function & will warn you of issues on the dash display, the fluid/filter & the accumulators/pulsation dampers should be attended to, if a hose does blow or the pump is dangerously low on fluid the warning will indicate to stop immediately (if this isn't done, the pump can quickly be ruined which is an expensive repair).

All this being said, the ABC system sounds very scary. My SL was an impulse buy... I didn't know of the concerns that you read here on the forum, but people come to the forum to research when there are issues. They typically don't come to the forum to say how wonderful and trouble free their vehicles are.

Tim

carguyshu

This is simply not true. No matter how often you change the fluid or filter it is not going to extend the life of the pressure hoses in the system. Heat and age is what do those in. They start weeping near the crimp ends and the 3 in the engine compartment are the first to go.

carguyshu

Here's pics of what it looks like when hoses are about to go. They will either bubble somewhere in the hose (more rare) or start weeping at the ends (more common). The hose that runs from pump to pulsation dampener and valve block to the 2 front struts and goes under the radiator are 3 I am referring to in the previous post.

flowrider99

Ok i concede you will still get aging in the hoses but a replacement hose is not going to cost much as long as you catch the problem and dont drive the ABC pump dry.

Heatwave

Carguyshu: what locations on your car are shown in your two photos of the leaking lines? Nice pics. Thanks for posting.

El_Toro_33809

I recognize where the second photo is from. The red knob is the drain for the radiator, which is at the bottom of the left side.

Tim

carguyshu

They are hose # 60 and # 90 in one of the pics below. It is the two hoses that run underneath the radiator from the valve block to each strut. These are not wrapped with heat wrap from the factory, which was a mistake. I had these two rebuilt and AN fittings welded on the ends so just the rubber part is removable without having to remove the entire hose next time (expect the quick disconnects, which function like the end of an air compressor hose, to be rusted up and take at least 1-2 hours each to disconnect the first time off). You should also buy some heat wrap, which can be purchased at any auto parts store, for these 2 hoses. The hoses that go first are the pressure lines in the engine compartment. The return lines rarely cause issues. The power steering pressure hose will likely suffer the same fate (mine did) and also need replaced around the same time.

carguyshu

I would even argue about that. Go and price out the cost of the MB hoses. They aren't cheap and many have to be made to order in Germany. Hose #380 (which is available in the US at it commonly goes out) was over $400 wholesale for just the part (and BTW that hose you cannot rebuild as there is a dampener built into the first section of hose).

bobterry99

I decided to investigate, because I was not aware of a hose incorporating a dampener, and I was curious about price and wondered if prices really are high.

Hose 230-320-74-53 is #380 in the EPC and indeed has a pulsation dampener. A Mercedes dealership in Atlanta sells it for $327.

carguyshu

I accidentally fat fingered $400 as $500 in my previous post (I have since edited and corrected that post). The hose is actually over $400. You have pulled up the incorrect part #. The correct current number is 2303208353. From the same site you posted it is $433.92. The cheapest place to get MB parts online is actually mbdirectparts.com. I got the hose from them for $403.41 plus shipping 3 months ago. It looks like they now have it for $410.19 plus shipping. Most other hoses are between $100-$250 wholesale.

I figured out the thing had a dampener in it when I cut the hose to remove (otherwise I couldn't figure out a way to remove it without removing the AC compressor). The dampener is almost like electrical MC cable inside the rubber. The power steering pressure hose also has this and you must order the MB part.

bobterry99

Both of us have the correct part number for an expansion hose that is #380 in the R230 EPC. The difference is you posted the price of the more expensive SL55 part; I chose the more common SL500 part that would be found on flowrider's car.

dr.chitoi

I'm also searching for a SL500. In Europe they started selling the 230 in 2001.
My hesitation is that I have found a 2002 230 SL500, but at the same time I have found a 2006 209 CLK320CDI and reading the numbers, I am a little lost.
Options that lean towards the SL are that has the massage, distronic, keyless, and of course is hard top. (ABC I don't know if it's a real advantage).
On the other hand the CLK's advantages are seats heated and ventilated against heated only, 2xbetter fuel economy, 150k miles against 210k miles SL, 7 speed against 5 speed, 2006 against 2002, entire service history since new with only 1 owner, an old lady. 20% cheaper than the SL.
Now the numbers...
SL 306 hp against 224 hp CLK, but only 460Nm against the 510Nm of the CLK
That brings us to the same 250kmh limited max speed.
With a minor 0-60mph difference 6.3s for the SL against 6.9s the CLK.
Now my questions...
Is that half second really worth the possible issues?
I drove both of them, but only short drive tests, and not the way I usually drive my cars (heavy towards very heavy foot).
I really don't like the CLK soft top, but would it be worth it to make a compromise?
Normally the car will be used in the summer on the french riviera, but I also occasionally make 2000+ miles long trips.
Is the SL more confortable for very long trips?
Does the first generation ABC really make the SL more stable for my driving (heavy foot and high speed cornering) or the CLK will be a very very close performer with a better fuel economy and less possible problems?
Feedback from those who drove them long enough to make the comparaison is highly appreciated.
Thank you

Rudeney

The CLK vs. the SL with the same engine will be faster since the CLK weighs less. The SL will be more expensive to own in the long run - ABC, SBC and a more complex electrical system will need more maintenance over time. The only higher cost maintenance item on the CLK will be the canvas top, bit it should last for at least 10 years, and will be much less expensive to replace than 10 years worth of SBC/ABC issues on the SL. Of course you won't have the advantages of ABC, but you will have a back seat (if needed) and more stowage space.

flowrider99

You are comparing cars from different classes. The CLK will not give you the same experience as the SL. V8 petrol against a 6 pot diesel.......no way

dr.chitoi

I know I'm comparing cars from different classes, and by looking only at the 0-62 numbers, 6.3s (SL500) against 6.9s (CLK320CDI) is not a huge difference. This is why I am searching advice from those who drove both of them long enough to be able to make a real comparaison.
CLK500 is not an option. If I have to choose a 500 then it will be an SL certainly. But with this CLK320CDI that has good numbers and good history, this is where I hesitate.
Once the top is down in my opinion the cars are (not identical, but) similar.
Some say the CLK is a car to go only straight, with lateral stability issues in cornering at high speeds. Is that real or just stories?
2 or 4 places is not in the debate because if I want the space I can take my ML or my E-Class.
Fuel economy is not an issue. Range between refueling is what upsets me. The CLK320CDI gives me almost double the range. Even though in Europe gas is not dirt cheap like in the US, if the SL500 would have at least a 120 liter fuel tank instead of 80, that would be great. On the other hand, filling up a 120 liter fuel tank in European gas stations takes an eternity because of the low fuel flow.
Maintenance cost is an issue but not one of my main concerns.
Security on the other hand is the thing I am interested.
I'm interested in the driving stability and performances in safe conditions over long distance, but reliability is also important for long journeys. An important problem during a 2000 miles trip will not be appreciated.
Here is where the SL reliability issues appear if true.
With pros and cons on both sides. Is the SL500 really, considerably better (or not) than the CLK320CDI, or the difference is not noticeable?

Rudeney

I can't help you with the engine differences, but I have owned both a CLK550 cabriolet and SL550 roadster. In my case, the two cars have identical engines and transmissions, so performance is not much different in that respect. The SL is rated at 0.1 seconds slower to 60mph due to a few hundred pounds of extra weight, and the extra drag of the ABC pump. However, the "sport" mode in the SL's transmission is much more aggressive feelign than thte CLKs.

Engine performance aside, the SL is much more refined and feels much more solid. The CLK had some small but noticeable cowl shake, yet the SL feels like a brick. Even with new motor mounts, I could feel the engine vibrations in the CLK - zero in the SL with 50K miles on its mounts. The SL handles MUCH better than the CLK. The CLK was OK, in fact, I always thought my C240 handled better than it. my SL, with 19" tires and ABC in sport mode really feels like a sports car (though skidpad numbers are not so good). Tops up, the CLK's soft top does allow a little more noise, but not much. However, the SL has more tire and road noise transmitted into the cabin.

Beyond all that, the SL just feels more upscale and buttoned down than the CLK. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the CLK isn't a great car. It's definitely upscale, comfortable, and buttoned-down compared to many others, but the SL is MBZ's flagship model, so it's just that much better.

dr.chitoi

Thank you Rodney. Appreciate your input. Anyway the problem solved itself. The CLK got sold. So I'm going to go for the SL. :-D
By the way, is there any difference between SL and SL Roadster? If yes, what are the differences?

Ghostty

SL it is a roadster (roadster as in 2 seater convertible). Some people just add that (as an explanation, maybe?).

My 2 cents in CLK vs SL question - you are able to compare them due to high devaluation of the SL class. Compare the prices of a 2 new cars and you will understand that these cars are made for 2 different purposes. SL is more of a cruiser car, when CLK is more practical. 99% of people that buy SL they buy it as a 2nd(3rd...) car, when the CLK can be as a main car for someone

Regards

dr.chitoi

Thanks. On some car selling websites you have to chose between SL and SL Roadster when you do the search for a R230. Since you say it is the same thing, maybe they are just mistaking. It is good to have this clarified.
I always preferred the SL, but the old lady's since new CLK in impec condition... made me have a doubt. I was hoping the SL will "win", and chance also made the CLK to be sold in just 2 days after it was put on sale. For practicality, I guess I can always use one of my other cars. Anyway they are always more practical than a cabriolet ;-)
The massage in the W221 S-Class is good, but in the SL I noticed is just a simple pulse button. Is the pulse massage in the SL really good for something or it is just a scam?

Rudeney

The pulse function inflates the lumbar support at random heights and intensities. I like it better than a repeating massage as it keeps you alert when driving.

Oh, and if you want something practical to feel better about the SL over the CLK...the SL has a larger trunk capacity.

carguyshu

you're likely going to pay more in maintenance costs in the first 5 years of ownership on a 210,000 mile SL than what it is selling for, unless pricing is way higher where you are.