Hello, I’ve also caught the SL500 bug...

[SL63 Mark]

I think that is right, once neglected I would think the 230 will go downhill very quickly. Jobs just mount up, like any car. The trick is to find a much loved, no expense spared car like mine, and then hang on to it !. I have a daily diesel beemer 320d for the daily grind, 2 Landrovers for the floods, mud and snow, and the SL55 for high days and holidays.

We have 2 Defenders because Mrs. '55 has a sentimental attachment to the old red one, and won't sell it.

 

[00slk]

Fair enough.. In the grand scheme of things I guess it probably wouldn't cost much extra.

Especially if you keep the car a while and average the costs out..

Just depends on luck Conor. Luck does have a lot to do with car ownership, I've owned late model low mileage cars in the past and none as unreliable as the Ford Escort Turbo Diesel my wife had, 6 months and every month the AA were out to it, cost a fortune in 6 months, so the r230's were much much cheaper to fix and run!! We had a 350SL with 144k on it owned for a year, it cost nothing in repairs (never went wrong) I had a 450SE for 5 years and the only issue was that I blew the diff through being young and too many wheelies

 

[LostKiwi]

Only people who don't own an SL 55 or SL 500 as their every day car really don't know the running costs and only exaggerate any problems from a disgruntled owner who has brought a cheap one in the past as all cheap ones we know have many issues. Mainly because the owners have traded it in once the age of the car is passed some of its warranty dates or their hire purchase has ended. The cars then get sold off to new owners who some don't realise that these cars need a little more care around the suspension and ignore issues until they decide to sell them off cheaply and again the cycle starts a down hill spiral leading to all the horror stories.
We have owned the r230 for about 6 years and our first one had a leak from the ABC radiator which was replaced and an ignition switch failure due to a cracked mother board (thanks to johnysbc this was fix) and new disc's and pads. Bought the car at 107k sold at 133k. Second r230 is my SL55 bought at 94k, I will have completed 30k in January after 3 years of ownership and have had a n/f strut replaced, and ABC pump replaced and a ABC strut level sensor replaced over the last 28k of everyday use. I have suffered intermittent loss of performance which has been wrongly diagnosed over the last 2 and a half years from a faulty MAF sensor, throttle pedal, crank pulley, catalytic converters through to spark plugs which have all been replaced to no avail. So with my experience there isn't really any difference between running a 55 compared to a 500, about 2 miles difference in mpg but having a 55 and a 500 you do think that driving the 500 it is a gutless wonder our 3rd SL500 has had a good service record and when it has needed anything the previous owners have had it done, bought at about 107k and had to have a new ABC pump and a level sensor repaired during our 10k ownership over the last year, so again not many issues compared to arm chair critics statistics!!
However our 2005 SL500 is still for sale.

I do seem to recall the crank pulley price was somewhat higher for the 55 than the 500....

 

[00slk]

I think that is right, once neglected I would think the 230 will go downhill very quickly. Jobs just mount up, like any car. The trick is to find a much loved, no expense spared car like mine, and then hang on to it !. I have a daily diesel beemer 320d for the daily grind, 2 Landrovers for the floods, mud and snow, and the SL55 for high days and holidays.

We have 2 Defenders because Mrs. '55 has a sentimental attachment to the old red one, and won't sell it.

Our 500 has had a well cared for past and I had thought of keeping it and selling the 55, but power wins out for me on this one.
It's a pity that the SLK came along and with its S/H being only MB Main dealers it still has its mobilo and 30 year paint warranty with paperwork etc and low miles that we thought it be a novelty to have such a car, but in all honesty it feels cheap and very Peugeot 206 like in comparison, but ha ho

 

[00slk]

I do seem to recall the crank pulley price was somewhat higher for the 55 than the 500....

About £700
At least I got some money back on the old one £120

 

[flowrider]

Also bear in mind the 2004 onwards SL500's have a 7 speed auto, the earlier cars have the 5 speed. The 55 is also a 5 speed.

The mid 2004 SL COMAND loses the AUX input in the glovebox, this is useful if you want to play music from your phone.

 

[00slk]

Also bear in mind the 2004 onwards SL500's have a 7 speed auto, the earlier cars have the 5 speed. The 55 is also a 5 speed.

The mid 2004 SL COMAND loses the AUX input in the glovebox, this is useful if you want to play music from your phone.

But has a sat nav which does half postcodes and a wider screen Oh and plays DVD's

 

[LostKiwi]

Also bear in mind the 2004 onwards SL500's have a 7 speed auto, the earlier cars have the 5 speed. The 55 is also a 5 speed.

The mid 2004 SL COMAND loses the AUX input in the glovebox, this is useful if you want to play music from your phone.

The later command is also easier to upgrade (uses MOST fibre optic connection instead of D2B).

 

[flowrider]

But has a sat nav which does half postcodes and a wider screen Oh and plays DVD's

A good point, I never use the COMAND satnav prefering either WAZE or TomTom Go. I also use the AUX in with a BT adapter to play music from Spotify.

 

[flowrider]

The later command is also easier to upgrade (uses MOST fibre optic connection instead of D2B).

Another good point, which is why I haven't yet taken the plunge and upgraded my COMAND.

 

[flowrider]

The 500/55 debate is an interesting one and everyone has their own take on it. for me the 500 won out due to the much lower purchase price (a 55 is going to 2x the price of a 500 to get a decent one) and the lower running costs. I view the SL as a cruiser not a sports car so the extra performance of the 55 would be wasted on me. The exhaust note from the 55 is sublime, the 500 is rather muted from stock but there are ways to make it much better.

 

[00slk]

The 500/55 debate is an interesting one and everyone has their own take on it. for me the 500 won out due to the much lower purchase price (a 55 is going to 2x the price of a 500 to get a decent one) and the lower running costs. I view the SL as a cruiser not a sports car so the extra performance of the 55 would be wasted on me. The exhaust note from the 55 is sublime, the 500 is rather muted from stock but there are ways to make it much better.

The most interesting aspect of running costs with us is basically the fuel costs.
SL 55 can achieve up to 27 mpg.
SL500 can achieve up to 29 mpg both these on a journey, however the 55 has a 5 speed transmission as apposed to the 500 which has a 7 speed trans so lower cruising rpm and interesting that it's only 2 mpg between them.
Bearing in mind these statics are based on our own cars and driving conditions. Also in the 55 you tend to use the 476 bhp so driving with a heavier foot makes it interesting that the 2 mpg is the amount of difference.
I have also noticed that if I accelerate quickly in the 55 to the maximum speed limits my daily commute mpg is up to 22 mpg compared to slowly gathering speed and spending longer to get to the maximum speed limit on the daily commute it will only achieve up 20.5 mpg.
Some interesting statics for you there and a great source to help you choose to better fuel economy or choosing between a 55 or 500

 

[SL63 Mark]

If fuel economy is an issue, buy a Honda, I would say . Must say I'm impressed by your 27 mpg 00slk. I once managed 28, on the way back from Germany at a steady 130 km/h for 4 hours.

On a serious note, I reckon you can cruise all day in the '55 at around 1,000 rpm, the thing has so much torque it's always in fifth gear at low throttle openings, even around town. That probably contributes to "reasonable" mpg, you don't need to rev it much to progress.

 

[ajlsl600]

Problem with the 500 is the lack of supercharger whine that you get on the 55 at full chat.

One is a lot time dead and I don’t believe there are any pockets in a shroud...

sure someone can develop an app for that !!!

 

[flowrider]

The most interesting aspect of running costs with us is basically the fuel costs.
SL 55 can achieve up to 27 mpg.
SL500 can achieve up to 29 mpg both these on a journey, however the 55 has a 5 speed transmission as apposed to the 500 which has a 7 speed trans so lower cruising rpm and interesting that it's only 2 mpg between them.
Bearing in mind these statics are based on our own cars and driving conditions. Also in the 55 you tend to use the 476 bhp so driving with a heavier foot makes it interesting that the 2 mpg is the amount of difference.
I have also noticed that if I accelerate quickly in the 55 to the maximum speed limits my daily commute mpg is up to 22 mpg compared to slowly gathering speed and spending longer to get to the maximum speed limit on the daily commute it will only achieve up 20.5 mpg.
Some interesting statics for you there and a great source to help you choose to better fuel economy or choosing between a 55 or 500

The best I have averaged on a journey is 30.5mpg the worst is 16.8mpg , quite a difference but a different driving style. There's no doubt in my mind if the 55 was only a 30% uplift in buying cost I would have one but 100% uplift is too much for me, but I can see why others are happy to spend the money, as I said the 55 is a great car as is the 500. I think the OP has said he has £10k to spend so this rules out the 55 IMO.

 

[SL63 Mark]

I think the OP has said he has £10k to spend so this rules out the 55 IMO.

I would agree with that, I guess we were just hoping to "increase" his budget a bit

 

[00slk]

The best I have averaged on a journey is 30.5mpg the worst is 16.8mpg , quite a difference but a different driving style. There's no doubt in my mind if the 55 was only a 30% uplift in buying cost I would have one but 100% uplift is too much for me, but I can see why others are happy to spend the money, as I said the 55 is a great car as is the 500. I think the OP has said he has £10k to spend so this rules out the 55 IMO.

Could I be tempted to part with my 55 for £10k?? Trouble is mines not a crappy one, but then again, its not a top one either

 

[00slk]

If fuel economy is an issue, buy a Honda, I would say . Must say I'm impressed by your 27 mpg 00slk. I once managed 28, on the way back from Germany at a steady 130 km/h for 4 hours.

On a serious note, I reckon you can cruise all day in the '55 at around 1,000 rpm, the thing has so much torque it's always in fifth gear at low throttle openings, even around town. That probably contributes to "reasonable" mpg, you don't need to rev it much to progress.

My average to work and back is quite good I must admit, so at the moment it says 22.5 mpg average.
The day I bought my car it got 26 mpg going up the A1 to Peterborough, just had to show the Missus how economical it was so she didn't think she had bought a top shelf drinker
I had a Honda Mark, that got in the mid 40's but I still made it use less fuel

 

[Dean Fletcher]

We do offer pre purchase inspection services, so do give us a shout if required!

Invaluable!!!!

 

[Kev555]

Watching this thread ive never even considered a Mercedes as a muscle car. Up to now my favourite affordable muscle car was a ford mustang, 5 litre version of course. But now I find myself being very impressed by the 55 given that ive recently seen one and hadn't figured out what it was until now. Boy did that baby sound good taking off on fire

Somebodys going to be upset I described it as a "muscle car" I have a feeling