No direct experience, but in the most recent "Mercedes Enthusiast"
magazine a new owner said that while he was happy with the car, it had
been back to the dealership 5 times already.
    That said, the SLK320/230 cars made JD Powers "9 Best Cars in
America" last year. They have the occasional niggling problem, but are
otherwise sound.
    Emanuel

I've had some excellent experiences with the 200K version in Germany. Can't
imagine all that 350 power in such a small car.

cp

We bought an SLK200 manual in the UK (about a fortnight ago, so we
can't comment on reliability). First Mercedes we have owned: we have
had Audi and BMW saloons and an MX5 for fun.

Build quality seems generally good. There is sometimes a tiresome
rattle behind the passenger seat, but I have not been able yet to
track down where and what it is. It might be just something loose in
the luggage space. To tell the truth, my wife has rather taken the car
over, and I have not yet driven it very much myself.

The engine performance is pretty good, despite being only 1796 cc:
good power; good torque; good, flat torque curve, so you need to stir
the gear-box only if you want full-out acceleration. I would not
myself see any reason to go for 3.5 litres unless you are thinking of
starting a vogue for track days. The gear-box is good and smooth too.
Steering and suspension seem sound, secure, precise and reliable. I do
not find it as much fun as my MX5, nor would I perhaps trust its
handling as completely, but that may be only that it is less familiar.

I would agree with the reviewers that it is a real sports car, at
last. I tried an SLK 230 last year but did not like it: found it much
less of a sports experience (admittedly, it was an automatic).

Compared with a C230 (which I have never owned, and do not think I
have ever driven) it might be a different experience. The seats are
quite hard; the suspension is harder than a saloon. You can cruise
distances on a motorway (cruise control seems to be standard), but I
suspect you might feel rather tired at the end. I have not yet done
any real distance, just one single one-hour-there-one-hour-back trip
on motorway and dual carriageway.

I have a few gripes. The seats do not have enough lumbar support: I
may have to get something done about more support there. Since my legs
are not 6 feet long, I find it difficult to have to reach behind me
for the hand-brake. You can show your current speed digitally on the
dash in front of you, but only in km per hour, not miles per hour! A
blow for a United Europe? The User's Manual is quite entertaining in
its embarrassment at having to insert a note to this effect on so many
of its pages.

But my main complaint is about the inside rear view mirror. Because of
the car's wedge shape, the rear view is not good even in daylight:
vehicles behind can creep up so you do not see their lower part at all
well, and I find I cannot judge distances at a glance but need to
think.

At night time it is a lot worse. If street lights are on, then you get
a very marked light from them in the mirror, which can swamp and hide
the fainter image of the headlights of a car behind you. I think
Mercedes have made a real mess of this. To me it is on balance bad
enough to be an accident hazard at night. I hope I can get used to
working around it, but I do not think that Mercedes should be asking
me to.

In summary, it seems to me an excellent sports car, probably rather
hard in seats and suspension for long-distance cruising, with a few
relatively minor glitches and one serious design fault.

Michael