Which SL?

[pace]

Thanks for all the advice in the previous posts. Its the 129 model SL I would be interested in. I just like the solid feel. I seem to prefer the interior of the pre face lift model, I think a 500 may be a bit heavy on fuel and a little scary if it goes wrong! would a 320 be OK? or would it be under powered? are there any issues with this engine? I would be using it as a weekend car (about 5K p/a). Does anyone know the width of the car compared to my C240? My garage is narrow but plenty long enough. I guess folding mirrors would be a must? (my car fits in fine without folding mirrors).
Thanks,
Paul.

 

[television]

Nothing wrong with the 320, I had one, great car.

The 07-98 on has folding mirrors, with mirrors out its 1.982, folded 1.809

the length is 4.499 and height is 1.288

 

[type49]

Main thing here is how much are you spending?? 320s come in two types, a V6 & earlier, an in-ine 6. 500s come in two different V8s. All engines are generally very good but the early in-line 6 suffers from oil leaks & the later (V6) one can suffer from coil leads & air mass meters. Early V8 is argueably one of the strongest engines MB have built but they still have to be serviced properly & they are getting old & sometimes neglected now. Later V8 is basically a V6 with two extra cylinders, so the same lead/air mass meter problems. I get what you mean about the early interiors - more wood etc but just check carefully as trims are often damaged by being removed wrongly (bodywork or non MB garage maintenance work). Insist on trying the roof in all positions + hardtop on.

 

[pace]

Thanks for the information and advice, I am looking to spend up to 10K, I am not into bells and whistles or flashy trims. Having looked at a few on line I like the light tan leather/black dashboard combination best and prefered body colour would be silver, dark blue, black or dark red. My C240 has been a great car but lacks the feel of quality of the older cars and my main gripe has always been with the gear change which is extremly smooth if you drive gently but can be harsh on kick down and if pushed. I appreciate mine is not a sports car but on the odd occasion when you need to put your foot down it could be a lot smoother!
I am not too concerned about the age or milage of the car, number of owners and history is more important to me. When you look at an older car you can normaly feel if it is 'right'. I think a mid 90's 320 SL would suit and I guess if I continue to look after it it may not depriciate much? Are 320's much more economical to run than 500's? or is it worth the extra pennies for a bigger lump?

 

[television]

If you are spending £10, then you can get a good V6 as type49 says, everything that was extra on the earlier car became standard on the V6.

Yes the V6 is much cheaper to run than the 500 and the V6 returns 30ish MPG

and is more economical the straight 6 also reaching 60 in just over 8 sec

 

[pace]

Thanks Malcom, what year did the 320 SL get the V6? Is it a bigger version of the V6 in my 240?

 

[television]

Thanks Malcom, what year did the 320 SL get the V6? Is it a bigger version of the V6 in my 240?

07-08 1998 was the start, you can recognize the cars easily as they come with 17" wheels that are much more open than the 16" earlier versions. and yes it is basically the same engine as the 240

 

[pace]

So am I better off going for a later 3.2 with the V6? Is the straight 6 not as good to drive? you mentioned oil leaks?

 

[type49]

The early straight 6 (or 104 engine) is very strong but is common for oil leaks at the very front of the head & at the rear OS head. Both are quite expensive to cure & usually results in the leak returning after 10-15K miles (poor machining fit). The V6 is smoother & quieter & should be better on fuel + more likely to have a 5-speed auto but will obviously cost more to buy as it is newer.

 

[television]

I agree with type49 on this and the engine and the updates on the car, this is the perfect time of the year to buy one

 

[hawk20]

Don't know if this is of any interest but Autocar's website still carries past reviews. here's a nice impressive SL review: -
http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsData/Mercedes-Benz-SL-500/200071/

 

[Richard Moakes]

I will speak up for the 500SL, mine is a 1991 version without all the complicated fuel injection, electronics, catalysts etc....

I seem to get about 25mpg when on a run, not enough when round town

My previous car was an rx7 twin turbo, and the 500SL does not disappoint on performance when I want it.

 

[Richard Moakes]

Go on, you know you want it

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/SUPERB-MERCED...oryZ9855QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[pace]

That looks the biz and the dealer seems to have a good reputation too! I see he has recently sold a nice 73' Rover P5 B coupe, I had one of the same year about 10 years ago, nice car but took some looking after!

I think I will seek out a late 320 (V6) or an earlier 500.

 

[Speedmaster]

I have a 1999 V6 SL320 and it is a fantastic car. Try and get one with the panoramic roof as it transforms the car

 

[type49]

Where are you?? The "locals" could keep an eye out for one.

 

[pace]

I am in Oxfordshire, between Oxford and Reading. If anyone knows of a good one let me know.
Cheers,
Paul.

 

[hawk20]

..... the 500SL does not disappoint on performance when I want it.

Gosh. Really? You actually find a 5 litre V8 just about adequate then?

 

[television]

Gosh. Really? You actually find a 5 litre V8 just about adequate then?

No comment

 

[Richard Moakes]

Gosh. Really? You actually find a 5 litre V8 just about adequate then?

Yep

It had to compare with a twin rotor, twin turbo, developing 320Bhp and weighing a shade over 1200Kg. That was savage