Vehicle heavily corroding not advisory

Gewakefie

Hi guys I’m looking to buy my first car and have found a Mercedes all from 2006 that I fell in love with in my local town for sale at 2.5k with 90k miles in the clock, I did my insurance quote and we went to look and took it for a test drive and all was good, done my insurance quote and coming in at £100 which I was surprised with as all the other usual cars come in near about the same! When my dad checked the mot record it came up with a few advisories which have now put me off, I know without looking at the car or taking it to a mechanic I won’t know but what advise would you give me should I buy it and take the risk? I’ll include the advisories here but it passed its MOT and has one till November next year, it also had a £350 service last month and has a full service history! 

Gewakefie

It’s the corrosion one I’m worried about 

Goudy

Between around 1996 and 2003 wasn't a good time for Mercedes, rust wise.
The bean counters at Mercedes really bit into production techniques like paint application and the results are obvious these days, the older these cars get, the worse they become.

If you do a full search of past MOT's,
What is the vehicle's registration number - Check MOT history – GOV.UK
You'll see evidence of the car corroding over the last few years and this is the things the tester is looking for and spotting, they'll be plenty of other non structural rust on it.

Once rust has gotten hold of parts like the suspension mounting points, it's game over.

The SLK had a few drain hole problems as well that let water creep in, so they can rust both outside in and inside out.

Apart from that parts will come with a Mercedes tax. Anything you have to buy from Merc will cost a fortune.

Mildly_Miffed

It's a £2.5k 19yo Merc SLK200k - not exactly mainstream "first car", and very likely to turn into an expensive baptism of fire...

The R171 was not one of the really rot-prone Mercs of the era, but still not one of their all-time highpoints.

They do have a rep for the rear subframes rotting - and if you look a bit further into the MOT history, that's what seems to be going on here.
https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/results?registration=gh56grh
2024 - generic "rear"
2023 - rear subframe specifically mentioned
2022 - rear subframe
2021 - "suspension components"

Even 2011 got an advisory and a suggestion to get some wax around it...

Everything else is just routine consumables.

400ixl

No one can answer that from that little information. Price is on the low end for a 2006 SLK 1.8 auto but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

The advisory could be a non issue if it is just some surface rust on the boot panel for example which can be cleaned up, rust treated and re-sealed. If however it is high corrosion on the rear chassis legs then that is a different matter. They are fully galvanised bodies by 2006 so would be concerned if it was more than some surface rust as it would suggest something else such as poor accident damage repair.

Do you know of a local Mercedes specialist? Take it to them for a quick check over or at the very least go back and re-check it. I assume you lifted all of the boot panelling to check for rust on the boot floor and rear arches (obviously through the panel openings for the arches)? What about underneath, did you get under the back and look at the condition underneath?

At the very least, getting advice from a money saving forum for a car condition question isn't the best, go to one of the specialist Mercedes forums where they can tell you what common issues to look for. I don't know too much about SLK's but helped a couple of friends buy them in the past (rust wasn't an issue although we identified a few £k's worth of work needing doing on most we looked at), my Mercedes experience is with later E class convertibles. 

You will need a specialist anyway as this age of car will need maintenance and could easily cost you £500+ annual running costs in upkeep. Are you prepared for that?

MattMattMattUK

I would absolutely not buy that car full stop, it is going to cost you a fortune in maintenance and issues and I would not consider buying an SLK as a first car at all. 

daveyjp

Unless you have evidence previous keepers have spent a fortune on continual maintenance and repair any almost 20 year old car is a disposable item.

You buy it cheap with 12 months MOT and decent breakdown cover, hopefully drive it for a year and at next MOT rinse and repeat or see it fail and drive it to the scrapper.  All in the knoweldge that any time during that 12 months could see an expensive component failure.

Gewakefie

So guess I’m not buying g that then. Thing is I’ve set my heart on that car people saying first car I’m 34 and I liked it, but they’re all that age the model I like so should I just stay away from it the. I’m confused haha

Gewakefie

MattMattMattUK said:

I would absolutely not buy that car full stop, it is going to cost you a fortune in maintenance and issues and I would not consider buying an SLK as a first car at all. 

Can someone explain this it’s a 2.5k car if I buy a corsa for 3k is it really gonna cost me that much less to repair then this slk ? I’m getting so many mixed opinions from family ect

MattMattMattUK

Gewakefie said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I would absolutely not buy that car full stop, it is going to cost you a fortune in maintenance and issues and I would not consider buying an SLK as a first car at all. 

Can someone explain this it’s a 2.5k car if I buy a corsa for 3k is it really gonna cost me that much less to repair then this slk ? I’m getting so many mixed opinions from family ect

Yes, most things going wrong on an SLK will cost a lot more to repair than on a Corsa. If you need new break pads or discs they will cost more, if you need new tyres they will be at least twice the cost of the tyres for the Corsa, if you need any major part then the SLK will likely cost more to repair than it is worth, where as for the Corsa it will be a lot cheaper to fix. As Goudy said, Mercs of that era are renowned for rust and that could also write the car off at MOT if there is rust to any key structural part. As a new driver you are also less experienced and statistically more likely to have an accident, driving a car that is very expensive to repair and rear wheel drive as a first car is in no way a sensible choice. 

Gewakefie said:

So guess I’m not buying g that then.

That would be a very sensible decision to make.

Gewakefie said:

Thing is I’ve set my heart on that car

Make a rational decision, not an emotional one.

Gewakefie said:

people saying first car I’m 34 and I liked it, but they’re all that age the model I like so should I just stay away from it the. I’m confused haha

You should stay away from twenty year old SLKs yes. The reason you are confused is because you are letting your emotional desire for an SLK interfere with the rational thoughts that it will be a financial disaster. 

It is a first car, buy something sensible like a Corsa, Focus, Golf, Polo, Ibiza etc. and run that for a couple of years, save as much money as you can, then when you have a few years experience under your belt buy a car more towards the want end of the want/need scale, but somewhat newer, in better condition and that will not cost you more than it is worth when things go wrong with it.

Ectophile

Goudy said:

Once rust has gotten hold of parts like the suspension mounting points, it's game over.

Things have changed since I started driving (late 1980's).  Back then, cars were expected to rust.  If it was bad enough to fail an MOT, you took it to a body shop, and they would weld a patch on.

My first car was an old Mk1 Ford Escort, that was mostly rust and body filler.  Even if the suspension mountings started to go, they could be welded back up again.