RE: Mercedes SL400: Review

[E65Ross]

iloveboost said:

E65Ross said:

Well done, congratulations on missing the entire point of the SL

Well done, congratulations on missing the entire point of an opinion.

But in a car and its purpose is there an opinion to be had? I mean, if I say a Caterham is a rubbish open top GT car would you turn round and say that my opinion was rubbish because, in fact, it's a small lightweight sports car without compromise? Or would you accept it because it's my opinion?

Extreme example, I appreciate but the point is still the same.

[RDMcG]

I bought an R230 SL500 new in 2003 partly because I thought it was the nicest SL styling since the Pagoda. It has aged better for me than its facelifted successors. The redesigned current car looks bloated and clumsy. Of course it is a much better car,but have kept my 2003 car and it is still great as an occasional weekender.

[anglophile]

[quote=mikebradford]Have seen a few of these, and accept in person they look much better than the pictures.
They ooze quality, and the interiors are definatley better quality than any C Class ive ever sat in!.

But for me, the SL of recent generations have lost their way from the proportions touched upon in the article.
This for me is the defining SL type of recent generations.
If they could have improved the drive train and engines as they have. But somehow retained the delicacy of below.
I imagine they would be selling a lot more than they currently are.

Mr. Bradford, I couldn't agree more. This current one looks as designed by corporate committee. Since all their cars have gone to the "bold new (ca. 1954 SL) grille," it is an undistinguished and sad looking pastiche of the current styling regime.

Those early '00 SLs were among the cleanest designs they have ever built.

[Baryonyx]

E65Ross said:

But in a car and its purpose is there an opinion to be had?

You make a good point because the initial argument put forward was that it wasn't as sporty and didn't handle as well as a 911 or whatever, completely missing the fact that the SL has long occupied - and been the pinnacle of - it's very own class of car. It's a niche thing but there aren't many products that really compete with the SL.

[Wills2]

Baryonyx said:

E65Ross said:

But in a car and its purpose is there an opinion to be had?

You make a good point because the initial argument put forward was that it wasn't as sporty and didn't handle as well as a 911 or whatever, completely missing the fact that the SL has long occupied - and been the pinnacle of - it's very own class of car. It's a niche thing but there aren't many products that really compete with the SL.

Agreed my old r129 SL I had back in 1999 was wonderful on the motorway and for wafting about but quickly fell a part in the twisties but it was lovely and very good at what it was designed to do.

[iloveboost]

Baryonyx said:

It's a sporty GT, that's the point of it. These long dream trips people talk of, where they procrastinate about driving all over Europe, seeing the sights and wanting one car that will do it all. It's a tough bid, especially for the sorts who can afford the time and money to take a trip like that (older couple, kids grown up, sound like an SL buyer to you?). A young feisty lad would probably be happy in a knackered old M3 or a boomy old TVR, but if you want to do it in a little more luxury and enjoy some roof down motoring, who really does the 'full size two seater' thing better than Mercedes? Lexus with the SC430? Not sure about that.

The SL is a car that will happily crawl through the congested south of England, cruise through France, thhunder across Germany and still feel taut and rewarding on the Alpine roads, whilst being comfortable enough to drive all day and looking stylish and inspiring at whatever hotel you live at. It's just a materialisation of 'the good life' in car form, and their owners and former owners are forever singing their praises about how they have a huge feelgood factor as a car.

They are popular in America where longer travel over variable road surfaces, combined with stunning views and scenery make comfortable convertibles make a lot of sense. They do have a trophy wife/golf course club house image, but that's because they have also long been a status symbol, like most expensive products from coveted brands are. I defy any petrolhead to spend time with one and not come away loving them.



And with looks like this, who can argue?






You could ask the same questions of the X100 Jaguar XK8, ie: who is going to want that? It's comfortable, plushly trimmed and has an automatic gearbox. It's strengths are exactly the same as I mentioned above!

Thanks for replying. Well I know that the engine makes a nice noise and I guess the expensive computer controlled suspension is good. It's just that the new model, like most current Mercedes, look weird to me. From the back they all look ok but from the side and front they are a bit wrong to my eyes.

Also mega power and high speed cruising in a convertible just seems a bit pointless with the wind noise and buffeting, especially over a long time. I suppose if you've got lots of money the price and depreciation doesn't matter much, If it was my money though I'd probably just buy a cheaper and/or sportier convertible or an SLK/CL if I had to have a Mercedes.

They aren't for me but I guess you could put the roof up for high speed and down for low speed. Not a big deal when you think it's just a short wait and a button to press.

[E65Ross]

Baryonyx said:

E65Ross said:

But in a car and its purpose is there an opinion to be had?

You make a good point because the initial argument put forward was that it wasn't as sporty and didn't handle as well as a 911 or whatever, completely missing the fact that the SL has long occupied - and been the pinnacle of - it's very own class of car. It's a niche thing but there aren't many products that really compete with the SL.

Indeed. As above, I think its closest contemporary rival is the BMW 6 series, but I don't think it's quite got it.

[E65Ross]

iloveboost said:

Thanks for replying. Well I know that the engine makes a nice noise and I guess the expensive computer controlled suspension is good. It's just that the new model, like most current Mercedes, look weird to me. From the back they all look ok but from the side and front they are a bit wrong to my eyes.

Also mega power and high speed cruising in a convertible just seems a bit pointless with the wind noise and buffeting, especially over a long time. I suppose if you've got lots of money the price and depreciation doesn't matter much, If it was my money though I'd probably just buy a cheaper and/or sportier convertible or an SLK/CL if I had to have a Mercedes.

They aren't for me but I guess you could put the roof up for high speed and down for low speed. Not a big deal when you think it's just a short wait and a button to press.

But this is where the SL comes into its own. Compared to the more sporty opposition of the 911, V8V, R8 etc the Mercedes is SO much more refined with the roof down it's unreal.

[Baryonyx]

E65Ross said:

Indeed. As above, I think its closest contemporary rival is the BMW 6 series, but I don't think it's quite got it.

Nah, the 6 series looks like a charabanc and is about as sexy as a shrivelled scrotum. An SL fighter? Not any time soon !

[E65Ross]

Baryonyx said:

E65Ross said:

Indeed. As above, I think its closest contemporary rival is the BMW 6 series, but I don't think it's quite got it.

Nah, the 6 series looks like a charabanc and is about as sexy as a shrivelled scrotum. An SL fighter? Not any time soon !

Errr, that's my point! It tries and probably is it's closesnt contemporary rival....but doesn't have that thing the SL does so well.

Still, the R230 pre-facelift was such a fantastic looker.

[jdw1234]

iloveboost said:

alfabadass said:

I disagree.

The current SL is the best looking merc in a long time. Awesome stance and presence.

Those alloys are wk though!

It looks like my Crossfire without the uggers.

I don't really like the way most modern Mercedes look most look bad from the front and average from the side to the back. The SL doesn't change my opinion!
If you have to have an top end convertible there's the Audi R8 Spyder, Porsche 911 convertible, F-type convertible. I'd rather own a Z4 or Boxster! Who buys an SL?!

The SL is an average looking car with an interior that's nice but still has some cheapness to bits of it. It's meant to be sporty but it still weighs a tonne and three quarters-ish. It's got powerful, thirsty engines but it's a convertible and a road car so it's never going to go above motorway speeds.
Why do people buy an SL?! What is the appeal?! Is it a status thing?! I mean do people buy them because they just want the 'best' and most expensive Mercedes?!

I think the 'SL' is an American and middle eastern biased car. Wealthy people buy them to get looks and an ego boost. It's a big, shiny, loud car and has a big three pointed star on the bonnet. For value for money, driving, looks, etc surely there are better cars than an SL though?
I obviously wouldn't say no if somebody gave me one or lent me one, but would I buy one if I was a millionaire?! Never.

It's for people like me.

I had a Ferrari when I was 25. Wouldn't appeal now. I'd like a wafty SL.

Likewise I would have no interest in an Elise, caterham or any track focused car. I can see why someone would want one though. I'd also love a Bentley GT, EClass drop top and M4 drop top.

[dbdb]

By God, modern Mercedes are grim looking things.

[DJRC]

E65Ross said:

Baryonyx said:

E65Ross said:

Indeed. As above, I think its closest contemporary rival is the BMW 6 series, but I don't think it's quite got it.

Nah, the 6 series looks like a charabanc and is about as sexy as a shrivelled scrotum. An SL fighter? Not any time soon !

Errr, that's my point! It tries and probably is it's closesnt contemporary rival....but doesn't have that thing the SL does so well.

Still, the R230 pre-facelift was such a fantastic looker.

Exterior looks *really* don't matter compared to the interior for a GT driver. And the pre 2012 cars have fking atrociously ste cheap interiors. Exterior looks only matter to ppl who look *at* the cars not sit in them.

[DJRC]

jdw1234 said:

iloveboost said:

alfabadass said:

I disagree.

The current SL is the best looking merc in a long time. Awesome stance and presence.

Those alloys are wk though!

It looks like my Crossfire without the uggers.

I don't really like the way most modern Mercedes look most look bad from the front and average from the side to the back. The SL doesn't change my opinion!
If you have to have an top end convertible there's the Audi R8 Spyder, Porsche 911 convertible, F-type convertible. I'd rather own a Z4 or Boxster! Who buys an SL?!

The SL is an average looking car with an interior that's nice but still has some cheapness to bits of it. It's meant to be sporty but it still weighs a tonne and three quarters-ish. It's got powerful, thirsty engines but it's a convertible and a road car so it's never going to go above motorway speeds.
Why do people buy an SL?! What is the appeal?! Is it a status thing?! I mean do people buy them because they just want the 'best' and most expensive Mercedes?!

I think the 'SL' is an American and middle eastern biased car. Wealthy people buy them to get looks and an ego boost. It's a big, shiny, loud car and has a big three pointed star on the bonnet. For value for money, driving, looks, etc surely there are better cars than an SL though?
I obviously wouldn't say no if somebody gave me one or lent me one, but would I buy one if I was a millionaire?! Never.

It's for people like me.

I had a Ferrari when I was 25. Wouldn't appeal now. I'd like a wafty SL.

Likewise I would have no interest in an Elise, caterham or any track focused car. I can see why someone would want one though. I'd also love a Bentley GT, EClass drop top and M4 drop top.

They are for me in 3 yrs. I still have enough of my younger TVR, Integrale, Ferrari self inside me to settle for the more hooligan SLK55 over an SL, but gimme 3 yrs...

[jdw1234]

DJRC said:

jdw1234 said:

iloveboost said:

alfabadass said:

I disagree.

The current SL is the best looking merc in a long time. Awesome stance and presence.

Those alloys are wk though!

It looks like my Crossfire without the uggers.

I don't really like the way most modern Mercedes look most look bad from the front and average from the side to the back. The SL doesn't change my opinion!
If you have to have an top end convertible there's the Audi R8 Spyder, Porsche 911 convertible, F-type convertible. I'd rather own a Z4 or Boxster! Who buys an SL?!

The SL is an average looking car with an interior that's nice but still has some cheapness to bits of it. It's meant to be sporty but it still weighs a tonne and three quarters-ish. It's got powerful, thirsty engines but it's a convertible and a road car so it's never going to go above motorway speeds.
Why do people buy an SL?! What is the appeal?! Is it a status thing?! I mean do people buy them because they just want the 'best' and most expensive Mercedes?!

I think the 'SL' is an American and middle eastern biased car. Wealthy people buy them to get looks and an ego boost. It's a big, shiny, loud car and has a big three pointed star on the bonnet. For value for money, driving, looks, etc surely there are better cars than an SL though?
I obviously wouldn't say no if somebody gave me one or lent me one, but would I buy one if I was a millionaire?! Never.

It's for people like me.

I had a Ferrari when I was 25. Wouldn't appeal now. I'd like a wafty SL.

Likewise I would have no interest in an Elise, caterham or any track focused car. I can see why someone would want one though. I'd also love a Bentley GT, EClass drop top and M4 drop top.

They are for me in 3 yrs. I still have enough of my younger TVR, Integrale, Ferrari self inside me to settle for the more hooligan SLK55 over an SL, but gimme 3 yrs...

What you are I once was.
What I am you will become.
I am 32!

Hehehe

[DJRC]

Im 38!

As for the guy saying he doesn't get high speed convertibles. Sir, I can only suggest you hit the A5 north from just outside Basel on an August night, targa in the boot and your Ferrari pointing towards Calais for a morning chunnel.

Or the N149 from Parthenay to Poitiers with the Griff topless and the hammer down.

Boxster on an early Sept morning, past dawn but still a nip, sun not really awake, heater whacked up on a fast run to Goodwood across southern England. A24 and then A29 running fast to Arundel.

Fast and topless is when life becomes fun

[sealtt]

NickZ4 said:

Convertibles don't need to be Unnecessarily this big.....and basically, seats aside, it's the interior from an SLK, which is awful and I have one right now as a loaner. The only thing these cars have over other brands, is that they are solid and chunky....and feel secure. Good sound too from their engines which don't rely too much on their exhaust note.

But depreciation savages these cars, and keep it one year and you've lost £20k

Better buying an F Type....or an M4 convertible

Agreed the interior in the SLK is awful as I hired one in Cannes, however I borrowed the new SL63 AMG for a day in the UK and the interior is nothing like that of the SLK.

Fantastic quality, great design and nice and modern. it really did feel like a £100k+ car in there. Just a shame the outside doesn't look quite as good as it should.

[sealtt]

E65Ross said:

Indeed. As above, I think its closest contemporary rival is the BMW 6 series, but I don't think it's quite got it.

I chose between a new SL63 AMG and new M6 Cabrio last year. In the end I went for the M6 Cabrio which I think has a far more elegant exterior and is a more convenient car due to the space, however I have no hesitation in stating that the SL63 AMG is a far better car.

SL interior was incredible - one of the nicest I've ever been in & really comfortable, M6 interior is OK but nothing special, engine in the SL (I was looking at performance pack spec) was in a different league with it's totally mental torque and great noise, much nicer to drive the SL as it had a lighter on it's feet feel than the M6, and at the 100k+ price point I'd always prefer the Mercedes image than the BMW.

However, the non-AMG SL R231s really fail to cut it for me with the exterior styling. It is not a good looking car in base form, well spec'd AMG models look so aggressive they get away with it, but the regular one just really doesn't cut it without piling on £1000s of extras. The 6 series cabrio however remains an elegant and very premium looking car even in lower spec models, so I can see it being a valid option for the buyer taking a lower spec model as looks do matter with these type of cars.

[supersingle]

Baryonyx said:

It's a sporty GT, that's the point of it. These long dream trips people talk of, where they procrastinate about driving all over Europe, seeing the sights and wanting one car that will do it all. It's a tough bid, especially for the sorts who can afford the time and money to take a trip like that (older couple, kids grown up, sound like an SL buyer to you?). A young feisty lad would probably be happy in a knackered old M3 or a boomy old TVR, but if you want to do it in a little more luxury and enjoy some roof down motoring, who really does the 'full size two seater' thing better than Mercedes? Lexus with the SC430? Not sure about that.

The SL is a car that will happily crawl through the congested south of England, cruise through France, thhunder across Germany and still feel taut and rewarding on the Alpine roads, whilst being comfortable enough to drive all day and looking stylish and inspiring at whatever hotel you live at. It's just a materialisation of 'the good life' in car form, and their owners and former owners are forever singing their praises about how they have a huge feelgood factor as a car.

They are popular in America where longer travel over variable road surfaces, combined with stunning views and scenery make comfortable convertibles make a lot of sense. They do have a trophy wife/golf course club house image, but that's because they have also long been a status symbol, like most expensive products from coveted brands are. I defy any petrolhead to spend time with one and not come away loving them.



And with looks like this, who can argue?






You could ask the same questions of the X100 Jaguar XK8, ie: who is going to want that? It's comfortable, plushly trimmed and has an automatic gearbox. It's strengths are exactly the same as I mentioned above!

Goodness that R129 is a handsome beast. No fuss. No curves. Just styling by straight lines.

Make mine an SL73 AMG

[RDMcG]

I do have some track-focused cars, but the SL is not meant to be that. It is a cruiser, lovely to simply take along run on an open road, not at some insane speed, but to tootle along at 70 or even slower and feel the fresh air...I trailer it down from Canada to AZ each November where it stays at the winter place, and I have no need to update it. It is not stressed,,,and only has 20,000 miles for new, as it is really just for evening cruises. As stated before, I prefer the aesthetics of the R230, despite it being greatly inferior in performance of course. I will likely just keep this car indefinitely.