RE: Mercedes-Benz 500SL: Spotted
Discussion
Kierkegaard said:
Strange comment, considering the SL hasn't been a sports car since the 1950s! And even then it was the 300SL/SLR etc. From the 190SL, the Pagoda and R107/129 and even to early R230 (you could argue the SL55/63 are) have never been a 'sports car' they've all been top down cruisers - you'd be foolish to think otherwise. If you want a sporty drive from a German manufacturer buy a Porsche 911.
It adds to the appear of the SL being a useable cruiser - a sort of classic GT car that quite frankly is unrivalled.
I've driven a lot of SLs over the years, and it's surprising how many people expect it to be reasonably sporty, like an R230 or Jag XK. Like you said, the reward comes in a relaxing comfortable drive, covering huge distances while listening to some decent music, but some people don't 'get' that. It adds to the appear of the SL being a useable cruiser - a sort of classic GT car that quite frankly is unrivalled.
The car advertised really hasn't had much spent on it, they do have the ability to chew up vast amounts of money.
The trouble is they're 20 y/o cars, often little used (mine was doing around 2k pa when purchased) and have the ability to hide poor maintenance.
Once pressed into regular service all sorts of stuff appears. Mines now doing 6k annually, over 3 yrs it's had it's purchase price spent again, with me as head mechanic. Not cars you can easily run on the cheap. (hoping I'll have a couple of cheapish yrs now with just regular servicing)
Would I do it again? Of course I would, just with my eyes open, more knowledge and a little more picky.
I treat mine as my "GT" car, not sporty but munchs miles, wife, dog, luggage on board with ease, a 70mph roof down cruise is quiet and comfortable. A/C, power hood, great seats, lazy engine, smooth ride, keep occupants happy and comfortable on hot days travelling through France.
The trouble is they're 20 y/o cars, often little used (mine was doing around 2k pa when purchased) and have the ability to hide poor maintenance.
Once pressed into regular service all sorts of stuff appears. Mines now doing 6k annually, over 3 yrs it's had it's purchase price spent again, with me as head mechanic. Not cars you can easily run on the cheap. (hoping I'll have a couple of cheapish yrs now with just regular servicing)
Would I do it again? Of course I would, just with my eyes open, more knowledge and a little more picky.
I treat mine as my "GT" car, not sporty but munchs miles, wife, dog, luggage on board with ease, a 70mph roof down cruise is quiet and comfortable. A/C, power hood, great seats, lazy engine, smooth ride, keep occupants happy and comfortable on hot days travelling through France.
Paddy_N_Murphy said:
We were parked up on the Lake Garda ferry as part of the Italian road trip this year and next to us was a ever so little jaded 500SL basking the the sun an. I did think to myself what an epic way to travel the continent in sunshine and comfort.
I can see me getting one some way or another in due course.
I adore those R107s - it's a matter I suspect though that they are now on the up curve, and missed the chance to get in to one.
I started with intention of an R107, loved the style. The R129 won the day, it's just more useable day to day.I can see me getting one some way or another in due course.
I adore those R107s - it's a matter I suspect though that they are now on the up curve, and missed the chance to get in to one.
Kierkegaard said:
I actually like the facelifted later R129s - I may be in the minority there. Give me a lovely Designo or Limited Edition model.
No, I agree with you. I sold ad space in 2003 into the Motoring section of some local papers. One car sales place I visited regularly was run by 2 mates and they'd both treated themselves to late R129s that looked awesome. Have had a soft spot for them ever since.
0a said:
I see what you did there 
I recently sold my 95 sl500, I just did not gel with the car, they do drive like an old car (which they obviously are). In my case, I think it was a lot to do with the 4 speed box, I bet the 5 speed is much better, I have this in my s500 and it is much nicer to drive.
Maybe I am being a little unfair, I really don't get the whole convertible thing, nice to look at but with the roof down and the sun out you get burned, you can't hear anything above 60mph and the whole experience is ruined by the wind (even with the deflector fitted). I much preferred mine when the hard top was fitted but then you get to thinking what's the point of a convertible if you leave the hard top on?
Oh well, at least I have tried one, they are a nice old car, just not for me.
Maybe I am being a little unfair, I really don't get the whole convertible thing, nice to look at but with the roof down and the sun out you get burned, you can't hear anything above 60mph and the whole experience is ruined by the wind (even with the deflector fitted). I much preferred mine when the hard top was fitted but then you get to thinking what's the point of a convertible if you leave the hard top on?
Oh well, at least I have tried one, they are a nice old car, just not for me.
I have over 260,000miles on my r129 SL500. It has proven very reliable in use. I enjoy driving it a great deal. It enables me to cover distance on mixed roads very fast and very comfortably. I feel that I can count on it.
I have drawn the aesthetic comparison between the 129 and its successor the 230 once before and will do so again. The 129 plainly relies on the simplicity and proportionality of its fundamental form. It is form is curvaceous and organic, defined not by straight lines but by curvaceous shapes.
By contrast, the 230 relies upon disguise and jewellery: its fundamental form being of necessity compromised and ill-proportioned (the necessity being the accommodation and functionality of a folding metal top, the compromise and ill-proportion being the over-sized rear end, the under-sized cabin area and the over-long windscreen). These are disguised by the manifold (straight) feature lines on the flanks and bumpers and the shut lines, particularly that of the boot lid. The jewellery used to distract the eye is in the headlamps, the front fog lamps, the over-badging and the wheels. The 230, it strikes me, is an angular design: the definitive feature of the car in profile is the sharp, angular, wedge shape formed where the windows cut down into the flanks at the 'A' pillar. This is accentuated by the angular feature line lower in the flanks. The wheel arches are, obviously, less curvaceous and less three-dimensional than the 129's.
The 231 suffers the same approach in spades. Whereas the disguise worked very successfully on the 230 (subjective or no, only a blind idiot would deny that the 230 is an handsome vehicle), it is an almost total failure on the 231. I suspect the addition of aggression that came with the 231 was a stylistic mistake: a car of this nature should be elegant, not aggressive. The 230 is the epitome of modern elegance in vehicle design, it seems to me. It is a shame the 231 is such a dog's dinner.
What I like about the design idiom of the 126, 201, 124, 129 and 140 is, I suspect, the very same thing that renders those models dull to others: the absence of glitz, the simplicity of form. Whether you like one or the other, of course, is a matter of personal taste. But today's eye, it seems to me, is incapable of seeing past jewellery: that is why today's cars are bedecked with baubles and almost wholly lacking in substantial qualities.
I have drawn the aesthetic comparison between the 129 and its successor the 230 once before and will do so again. The 129 plainly relies on the simplicity and proportionality of its fundamental form. It is form is curvaceous and organic, defined not by straight lines but by curvaceous shapes.
By contrast, the 230 relies upon disguise and jewellery: its fundamental form being of necessity compromised and ill-proportioned (the necessity being the accommodation and functionality of a folding metal top, the compromise and ill-proportion being the over-sized rear end, the under-sized cabin area and the over-long windscreen). These are disguised by the manifold (straight) feature lines on the flanks and bumpers and the shut lines, particularly that of the boot lid. The jewellery used to distract the eye is in the headlamps, the front fog lamps, the over-badging and the wheels. The 230, it strikes me, is an angular design: the definitive feature of the car in profile is the sharp, angular, wedge shape formed where the windows cut down into the flanks at the 'A' pillar. This is accentuated by the angular feature line lower in the flanks. The wheel arches are, obviously, less curvaceous and less three-dimensional than the 129's.
The 231 suffers the same approach in spades. Whereas the disguise worked very successfully on the 230 (subjective or no, only a blind idiot would deny that the 230 is an handsome vehicle), it is an almost total failure on the 231. I suspect the addition of aggression that came with the 231 was a stylistic mistake: a car of this nature should be elegant, not aggressive. The 230 is the epitome of modern elegance in vehicle design, it seems to me. It is a shame the 231 is such a dog's dinner.
What I like about the design idiom of the 126, 201, 124, 129 and 140 is, I suspect, the very same thing that renders those models dull to others: the absence of glitz, the simplicity of form. Whether you like one or the other, of course, is a matter of personal taste. But today's eye, it seems to me, is incapable of seeing past jewellery: that is why today's cars are bedecked with baubles and almost wholly lacking in substantial qualities.
Just why don't pistonheads actually employ journalists with actual knowledge of the industry
"It's not possible to buy a decent sl500 for £5000"
Bought a Superb sl500 from a retail website for a client for £4400 in June this year... 90k miles full history - and these cars are out there.
Come on pistonheads inform people by leading with relavent / actual information... I believe it's called journalism.
"It's not possible to buy a decent sl500 for £5000"
Bought a Superb sl500 from a retail website for a client for £4400 in June this year... 90k miles full history - and these cars are out there.
Come on pistonheads inform people by leading with relavent / actual information... I believe it's called journalism.
Fantastic cars and that roof combination was a real plus in its day
Factory finish hard top for the winter and flat stowing roof for the better months,
the later cars had less roof motors if I remember correctly and could be more of an issue
I seem to remember facelift 320 v6 engines in these suffering terribly from rattly cats, was also an issue
On other models at the time like the w210's
There won't ever be another car built like a r129
Or for that matter it's brother the w140 and it's big sister the c140
Factory finish hard top for the winter and flat stowing roof for the better months,
the later cars had less roof motors if I remember correctly and could be more of an issue
I seem to remember facelift 320 v6 engines in these suffering terribly from rattly cats, was also an issue
On other models at the time like the w210's
There won't ever be another car built like a r129
Or for that matter it's brother the w140 and it's big sister the c140
Another owner here. Had mine for 3 years + (92 500SL). It was initially bought as a second car, and after the first summer it was left standing (outside!) for over 18 months. Anyway, it's recently been recommissioned and is now in daily use as my only transport. I absolutely love it. The levels of luxury are mad, can't imagine what it must have been like back in the day. Door pockets and glove box that lock with the c/l, so I can leave it parked roof down, electric everything, including rear view mirror and steering wheel (all of which are part of the memory function, a real crowd pleaser for new passengers). The prices can continue to go up, I don't care as I won't be selling it any time soon.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff