Can this be used as a daily hack?
Discussion
http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/1367115.htm
can something like this feasibly used as a daily hack, circa 40 mile round trip commute? Obviously the fuel economy isnt great but in terms of reliability etc?
can something like this feasibly used as a daily hack, circa 40 mile round trip commute? Obviously the fuel economy isnt great but in terms of reliability etc?
I use my 1999 r129 SL500 almost every day, covering 30,000miles a year at the moment. Current mileage is 189,000 and it is totally reliable. Now I have no idea about this car, but the 300 SL should be even more reliable as it has the bullet proof m103 12 valve motor. It will not be fast but it should be smooth.
r129sl said:
I use my 1999 r129 SL500 almost every day, covering 30,000miles a year at the moment. Current mileage is 189,000 and it is totally reliable. Now I have no idea about this car, but the 300 SL should be even more reliable as it has the bullet proof m103 12 valve motor. It will not be fast but it should be smooth.
- cough* head gaskets
r129SL,
Just wondering how you'd rate the SL320 vs SL500? Having sold my SL280 to a colleague at work I'm thinking (tenatively) about replacing it with another R129 in the future. I loved the style and build quality of the SL280 that I had and whilst not a complete slouch I did feel the 2.8L engine was having to work just a bit too hard for a car of that weight.
I'm also thinking this time in terms of a later 'face-lifted' car (especially like the sound of the panoramic roof!) even though I've read elsewhere that some say the pre-'98 cars are the better built? Why is that?
So I'm tossing up being between a 320 or 500. I don't intend to go tearing around the countryside but at the same time don't want it to feel under-powered. There seems to be a very big power gulf (on paper) between the 320 and 500? (Wish maybe they made something in between).
What are your personal opinions?
Many thanks in advance.
Just wondering how you'd rate the SL320 vs SL500? Having sold my SL280 to a colleague at work I'm thinking (tenatively) about replacing it with another R129 in the future. I loved the style and build quality of the SL280 that I had and whilst not a complete slouch I did feel the 2.8L engine was having to work just a bit too hard for a car of that weight.
I'm also thinking this time in terms of a later 'face-lifted' car (especially like the sound of the panoramic roof!) even though I've read elsewhere that some say the pre-'98 cars are the better built? Why is that?
So I'm tossing up being between a 320 or 500. I don't intend to go tearing around the countryside but at the same time don't want it to feel under-powered. There seems to be a very big power gulf (on paper) between the 320 and 500? (Wish maybe they made something in between).
What are your personal opinions?
Many thanks in advance.
I haven't driven a SL320 but I do run a 320TE which has the same motor and weighs less.
The SL500 is a fast car. It's still pretty quick at the traffic lights grands prix, giving most stuff a run for its money. It is a rocket from 50 to 100mph and pull strongly up to 145mph. It takes a little while beyond that. My later m113 engined car also has a very wide and low torque plateau: 339lb/ft from 2,750 to 4,000rpm. 70mph equates to 2,000rpm. Third gear runs to 125mph. So it feels strong.
The 3.2litre m104 is a completely different motor. It is much more characterful and reminds me of many of the classic English DOHC straight sixes of the 1960s, the Jaguar and Aston engines in particular. It is fairly gutless low down or, at least, is much stronger above 4,000rpm than below. It revs round to about 6,700rpm, loves revving, and has a real rasp about it. But, a big but, it is not really fast anymore. In my TE it is spinnig fast at 70mph (3,000 rpm or more) and it is very much weaker than the heavier SL. It is also very thirsty, more so than my V8. I sense that the m104 is less reliable certainly than my bullet proof m113 V8.
There is very little difference in running costs between SL320 and SL500. The insurance is the same. The fuel consumption if anything is heavier in the smaller-engined car. The V8 is a bit more to maintain but not a quantum leap ahead in costs.
All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
The SL500 is a fast car. It's still pretty quick at the traffic lights grands prix, giving most stuff a run for its money. It is a rocket from 50 to 100mph and pull strongly up to 145mph. It takes a little while beyond that. My later m113 engined car also has a very wide and low torque plateau: 339lb/ft from 2,750 to 4,000rpm. 70mph equates to 2,000rpm. Third gear runs to 125mph. So it feels strong.
The 3.2litre m104 is a completely different motor. It is much more characterful and reminds me of many of the classic English DOHC straight sixes of the 1960s, the Jaguar and Aston engines in particular. It is fairly gutless low down or, at least, is much stronger above 4,000rpm than below. It revs round to about 6,700rpm, loves revving, and has a real rasp about it. But, a big but, it is not really fast anymore. In my TE it is spinnig fast at 70mph (3,000 rpm or more) and it is very much weaker than the heavier SL. It is also very thirsty, more so than my V8. I sense that the m104 is less reliable certainly than my bullet proof m113 V8.
There is very little difference in running costs between SL320 and SL500. The insurance is the same. The fuel consumption if anything is heavier in the smaller-engined car. The V8 is a bit more to maintain but not a quantum leap ahead in costs.
All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
r129sl said:
Head gaskets are not as big an issue on the m103 (especially the 12 valve motor) as on the m104.
Have to respectfully disagree there, having been through a 1992 300SL myself a few years back (12 value) and a fairly expensive bill. Seemed like they was a glut of them failing in 2007 since the indies and main dealers I spoke to when pricing for the work (plug for Tony Purslow Guildford - excellent service) were either doing others, or had done them recently.r129sl said:
I haven't driven a SL320 but I do run a 320TE which has the same motor and weighs less.
The SL500 is a fast car. It's still pretty quick at the traffic lights grands prix, giving most stuff a run for its money. It is a rocket from 50 to 100mph and pull strongly up to 145mph. It takes a little while beyond that. My later m113 engined car also has a very wide and low torque plateau: 339lb/ft from 2,750 to 4,000rpm. 70mph equates to 2,000rpm. Third gear runs to 125mph. So it feels strong.
The 3.2litre m104 is a completely different motor. It is much more characterful and reminds me of many of the classic English DOHC straight sixes of the 1960s, the Jaguar and Aston engines in particular. It is fairly gutless low down or, at least, is much stronger above 4,000rpm than below. It revs round to about 6,700rpm, loves revving, and has a real rasp about it. But, a big but, it is not really fast anymore. In my TE it is spinnig fast at 70mph (3,000 rpm or more) and it is very much weaker than the heavier SL. It is also very thirsty, more so than my V8. I sense that the m104 is less reliable certainly than my bullet proof m113 V8.
There is very little difference in running costs between SL320 and SL500. The insurance is the same. The fuel consumption if anything is heavier in the smaller-engined car. The V8 is a bit more to maintain but not a quantum leap ahead in costs.
All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
Thanks for that! A very helpful insight.The SL500 is a fast car. It's still pretty quick at the traffic lights grands prix, giving most stuff a run for its money. It is a rocket from 50 to 100mph and pull strongly up to 145mph. It takes a little while beyond that. My later m113 engined car also has a very wide and low torque plateau: 339lb/ft from 2,750 to 4,000rpm. 70mph equates to 2,000rpm. Third gear runs to 125mph. So it feels strong.
The 3.2litre m104 is a completely different motor. It is much more characterful and reminds me of many of the classic English DOHC straight sixes of the 1960s, the Jaguar and Aston engines in particular. It is fairly gutless low down or, at least, is much stronger above 4,000rpm than below. It revs round to about 6,700rpm, loves revving, and has a real rasp about it. But, a big but, it is not really fast anymore. In my TE it is spinnig fast at 70mph (3,000 rpm or more) and it is very much weaker than the heavier SL. It is also very thirsty, more so than my V8. I sense that the m104 is less reliable certainly than my bullet proof m113 V8.
There is very little difference in running costs between SL320 and SL500. The insurance is the same. The fuel consumption if anything is heavier in the smaller-engined car. The V8 is a bit more to maintain but not a quantum leap ahead in costs.
All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
I'm not in a position to do anything in earnest at the moment.
Thanks again.
r129sl said:
The SL500 is a fast car. It's still pretty quick at the traffic lights grands prix, giving most stuff a run for its money. It is a rocket from 50 to 100mph and pull strongly up to 145mph. It takes a little while beyond that. My later m113 engined car also has a very wide and low torque plateau: 339lb/ft from 2,750 to 4,000rpm. 70mph equates to 2,000rpm. Third gear runs to 125mph. So it feels strong.
All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
Could not agree more. The SL500 (I have a 1999) is a very quick car and if you drive one, you will never look back. Midrange punch is astonishing but it more the way that it does it, so calmly and effortlessly, that is amazing.All things being equal, I can't imagine taking a 320 over a 500. I too am surprised there was no 420 or (latterly) 430 option. In practice, of course, a 420 costs exactly the same to manufacture as a 500.
Final word, though, there seem to be a lot more 320s than 500s, especially late model cars.
The noise is incredible too - I was so used to the insulated, double-glazed CL's and S classes that I laughed like a loon when I gave it some acceleration with the roof off down around London. Sounded incredible.
r129sl said:
derin100 said:
Thanks for that! A very helpful insight.
I'm not in a position to do anything in earnest at the moment.
Thanks again.
Derin, when are you going to get some more fantastic BMWs? If you come across a E21 320/6, you must let me know, especially if it is silver.I'm not in a position to do anything in earnest at the moment.
Thanks again.
In terms of E21s they're few and far between now however...(and it's not mine)... I do know of what should be an absolutely superb 323i which should by now be complete or very near completion. I've yet to see it myself but I do know it has all the desirable 'bits' i.e lsd, Recaros, headlamp wash/wipe, Mahle's etc. Might try if I can see it and get pics next week.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff