Mercedes 129 titivation
Discussion
Thanks all, your compliments are much appreciated.
The paint: it's not so much a wave as the usual orange peeliness. It really needs wet sanding (the Man has spent a day or so doing this already) but I have a DA and some Chemical Guys hex pads and polishes (yellow, green, black and blue pads, V32 and V36 polishes) which I will use to reduce it. It is just a matter of finding a day to do it. It's not really fair on Mrs r129sl and our spawn for me to spend all day Sunday polishing my car!
Thanks again. Increasingly sporadic updates to follow.
The paint: it's not so much a wave as the usual orange peeliness. It really needs wet sanding (the Man has spent a day or so doing this already) but I have a DA and some Chemical Guys hex pads and polishes (yellow, green, black and blue pads, V32 and V36 polishes) which I will use to reduce it. It is just a matter of finding a day to do it. It's not really fair on Mrs r129sl and our spawn for me to spend all day Sunday polishing my car!
Thanks again. Increasingly sporadic updates to follow.
Car looks fantastic now it's all back together and fettled.
Your comments about some people finding the design blocky and square etc. are interesting, but I think these things are too subjective to state a fact about anyone's opinion being right or wrong. The R129 design wise is a bit if an enigma to me as it has some lovely design touches, but for me is blighted by Mercedes leaning towards very 'square' designs of that era.
Their saloon cars of the time may have been uber reliable etc. but boy are they dull to look at and I can't help but feel that every time I see an R129 it's like the designer wanted to go further with making the design more angular but the production model was as far as he was allowed to stray from the box shape of the range.
The R230 is a nicer shape IMO although the R129s will be around a long time after the R230s have been scrapped due to their over complex and to be frank unreliable engineering.
Your comments about some people finding the design blocky and square etc. are interesting, but I think these things are too subjective to state a fact about anyone's opinion being right or wrong. The R129 design wise is a bit if an enigma to me as it has some lovely design touches, but for me is blighted by Mercedes leaning towards very 'square' designs of that era.
Their saloon cars of the time may have been uber reliable etc. but boy are they dull to look at and I can't help but feel that every time I see an R129 it's like the designer wanted to go further with making the design more angular but the production model was as far as he was allowed to stray from the box shape of the range.
The R230 is a nicer shape IMO although the R129s will be around a long time after the R230s have been scrapped due to their over complex and to be frank unreliable engineering.
cb1965 said:
Car looks fantastic now it's all back together and fettled.
Your comments about some people finding the design blocky and square etc. are interesting, but I think these things are too subjective to state a fact about anyone's opinion being right or wrong. The R129 design wise is a bit if an enigma to me as it has some lovely design touches, but for me is blighted by Mercedes leaning towards very 'square' designs of that era.
Their saloon cars of the time may have been uber reliable etc. but boy are they dull to look at and I can't help but feel that every time I see an R129 it's like the designer wanted to go further with making the design more angular but the production model was as far as he was allowed to stray from the box shape of the range.
The R230 is a nicer shape IMO although the R129s will be around a long time after the R230s have been scrapped due to their over complex and to be frank unreliable engineering.
You are absolutely right that looks are subjective. Taste is a matter of taste and all that. Nonetheless, while opinions as to the merits or otherwise of any particular design cannot be dismissed as right or wrong, the science of aesthetics is not a free for all in which nothing is right and equally nothing wrong.Your comments about some people finding the design blocky and square etc. are interesting, but I think these things are too subjective to state a fact about anyone's opinion being right or wrong. The R129 design wise is a bit if an enigma to me as it has some lovely design touches, but for me is blighted by Mercedes leaning towards very 'square' designs of that era.
Their saloon cars of the time may have been uber reliable etc. but boy are they dull to look at and I can't help but feel that every time I see an R129 it's like the designer wanted to go further with making the design more angular but the production model was as far as he was allowed to stray from the box shape of the range.
The R230 is a nicer shape IMO although the R129s will be around a long time after the R230s have been scrapped due to their over complex and to be frank unreliable engineering.
Interestingly, Sacco has recently stated that the 129 is the car he is most pleased with. I am not convinced the 129 is either "boxy" or "angular". (Although your post suggests "more angular" is less boxy, it seems to me they are similar qualities; curvaceous or organic I would understand to be the opposite of boxy.) Anyway, 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 you: 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.
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
Edited by r129sl on Friday 24th July 11:41
r129sl said:
You are absolutely right that looks are subjective. Taste is a matter of taste and all that. Nonetheless, while opinions as to the merits or otherwise of any particular design cannot be dismissed as right or wrong, the science of aesthetics is not a free for all in which nothing is right and equally nothing wrong.
Interestingly, Sacco has recently stated that the 129 is the car he is most pleased with. I am not convinced the 129 is either "boxy" or "angular". (Although your post suggests "more angular" is less boxy, it seems to me they are similar qualities; curvaceous or organic I would understand to be the opposite of boxy.) Anyway, 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 you: 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.
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
Yup, imho 129 was Sacco's triumph.Interestingly, Sacco has recently stated that the 129 is the car he is most pleased with. I am not convinced the 129 is either "boxy" or "angular". (Although your post suggests "more angular" is less boxy, it seems to me they are similar qualities; curvaceous or organic I would understand to be the opposite of boxy.) Anyway, 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 you: 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.
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
Edited by r129sl on Friday 24th July 11:41
r129sl said:
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
I think this is a key point with criticism of the newer and more complex models of Mercedes. They aren't poorly engineered or badly designed they are just complicated with maintenance requirements to match, and the 5th or 6th owner has neither the budget nor inclination to maintain the thing properly at 10+ years and 120k+ miles. Your records of your R129 are a good indication of how much motoring actually costs if you maintain the car so that it works as it should, rather than just let it all wear out and then move it on. I'm delighted to see such a thorough job done to put such a fine car back into the condition which it should enjoy. I very much appreciate people who view good quality cars of a certain maturity as genuinely long term propositions and keep them in proper order.
Having been the beneficiary of your earlier writings on the type I now have my own recently acquired 1993 R129 500SL running the way I want it, having helped it shake off the cobwebs of under-utilisation and have a few trivial (but important to me) mechanical issues seen to, and am enjoying it very much around North Yorkshire and on the occasional long distance run.
Having been the beneficiary of your earlier writings on the type I now have my own recently acquired 1993 R129 500SL running the way I want it, having helped it shake off the cobwebs of under-utilisation and have a few trivial (but important to me) mechanical issues seen to, and am enjoying it very much around North Yorkshire and on the occasional long distance run.
New floor mats from the original manufacturer, courtesy of Tim at http://www.specialvehicle.co.uk They no longer have or are prevented from using the little metal badges these days. Tim's website is rubbish but he is very, very helpful on the phone. New mats are so wonderful underfoot, but the newness will have worn off by tomorrow. Knowing my luck, I'll step in a dog s
t between pub supper and car.
t between pub supper and car.r129sl said:
You are absolutely right that looks are subjective. Taste is a matter of taste and all that. Nonetheless, while opinions as to the merits or otherwise of any particular design cannot be dismissed as right or wrong, the science of aesthetics is not a free for all in which nothing is right and equally nothing wrong.
Interestingly, Sacco has recently stated that the 129 is the car he is most pleased with. I am not convinced the 129 is either "boxy" or "angular". (Although your post suggests "more angular" is less boxy, it seems to me they are similar qualities; curvaceous or organic I would understand to be the opposite of boxy.) Anyway, 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 you: 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.
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
Good post and all fair points, as I said... it's subjectivity at the end of the day.Interestingly, Sacco has recently stated that the 129 is the car he is most pleased with. I am not convinced the 129 is either "boxy" or "angular". (Although your post suggests "more angular" is less boxy, it seems to me they are similar qualities; curvaceous or organic I would understand to be the opposite of boxy.) Anyway, 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 you: 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.
From an engineering point of view, the 230 does not seem particularly weak. With the exception of the boot lid seals, it seems to be a fine and reliable car. I suspect it suffers the neglect of some of its owners (present company obviously excepted), especially as it becomes older and cheaper to acquire. They just don't want to buy new suspension struts when the old ones have worn out.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 24th July 11:41
However as the owner of an R230 that has a full Mercedes history and more and has had loving attention heaped upon it by me for the last 3 years I can fairly state that engineering wise it is too an enigma. Some things are so well done and thought out and then others are like... wtf???? The ABC suspension being the main culprit... brilliant when it works, but a PITA when it doesn't and on a car costing as much as the SL does it shouldn't ever not be working! Add in SBC, boot/roof seals, drain holes that block up, crank pulleys that disintegrate and you begin to wonder why you bother..... but then I look at it... it's bloody stunning!!!! LOL!
One thing I find interesting from your post is about the clean lines.... I agree the R129 is super clean in this respect, but the R230 is not a car I have ever thought of as fussy design wise... then again before this I came from the world of Subaru andI was looking at a 2014 Subaru WRX STI... now that car is a complete mess design wise!!!
PS the R231 is a travesty!!!! IMO of course
This is probably the most enjoyable 8 pages I've read on PH.
Not just the content itself, more the manner in which it's written, there's a strong whiff of George Bishop about it, a motoring journalist who managed to write almost nothing about whichever car he was testing yet entertained enormously.
I'm supposed to be washing my car and cleaning the garage but instead I'm trawling the classifieds for a 129.
Thankyou Johnathan, I think.......
Not just the content itself, more the manner in which it's written, there's a strong whiff of George Bishop about it, a motoring journalist who managed to write almost nothing about whichever car he was testing yet entertained enormously.
I'm supposed to be washing my car and cleaning the garage but instead I'm trawling the classifieds for a 129.
Thankyou Johnathan, I think.......
I remember back in 1989 as a callow 18 year old being blown away by the R129 . To me at the time I struggled to see how Mercedes could build a better looking car and even now it is the early pre face lift models I still covet,Sacco's crowning glory, unencumbered with the trinkets and fripperies of the later cars.
I see parallels with the X - JS / e type. Both the R129 and XJ replaced cars that had been in production for pretty much a decade and a half and already had achieved classic status.
Both the e type and R107 were difficult acts to follow but it is only through the lens of time that we can truly appreciate their successors
I see parallels with the X - JS / e type. Both the R129 and XJ replaced cars that had been in production for pretty much a decade and a half and already had achieved classic status.
Both the e type and R107 were difficult acts to follow but it is only through the lens of time that we can truly appreciate their successors
Edited by slk 32 on Sunday 26th July 16:54
Thanks all. Being likened to George Bishop, high praise indeed, I loved that era of Car. Bishop was always getting banned from new car launches after drinking all the single malt, moaning about the car maker's staff or the hotel they'd put him up in and saying almost nothing whatsoever about the Renault 12 or whatever he was meant to be reviewing. He wrote a great article about nice restaurants within striking distance of Calais, for when people used cars properly. I seem to recall it was illustrated with some good watercolours, from when people published magazines properly.
We had a fast run back from Silverstone yesterday. 3hrs 15mins without ever really going bananas. 250 miles, give or take. It is the kind of journey the car excels at. I spent the last 75miles being irritated almost to death by the driver of a Ford Fiesta ST that would sit inches off my bumper at high speed and either refuse to pass or, when forced to pass, would slow down to about 5mph less than we had been doing before. It peeled off to go to McDonalds in South Tyneside, which tells you everything you need to know.
We had a fast run back from Silverstone yesterday. 3hrs 15mins without ever really going bananas. 250 miles, give or take. It is the kind of journey the car excels at. I spent the last 75miles being irritated almost to death by the driver of a Ford Fiesta ST that would sit inches off my bumper at high speed and either refuse to pass or, when forced to pass, would slow down to about 5mph less than we had been doing before. It peeled off to go to McDonalds in South Tyneside, which tells you everything you need to know.
CharlesdeGaulle said:
I saw the car at Silverstone yesterday, and can confirm that it looks as good in the metal as it does in the photos. A real labour of love, and an absolutely worthwhile one. Fantastic job.
It was good to see you yesterday, although quite hard not to call you "Charles" when face to face. We're off to Sunderland Airshow just now, should be more fun in the same vein. My preferred option would be snoozing on the couch, but it's not on the cards.r129sl said:
I spent the last 75miles being irritated almost to death by the driver of a Ford Fiesta ST that would sit inches off my bumper at high speed and either refuse to pass or, when forced to pass, would slow down to about 5mph less than we had been doing before. It peeled off to go to McDonalds in South Tyneside, which tells you everything you need to know.
That genuinely made me LOL! cheddar said:
Not just the content itself, more the manner in which it's written, there's a strong whiff of George Bishop about it, a motoring journalist who managed to write almost nothing about whichever car he was testing yet entertained enormously.
I think I know what you mean.I shall remember til my dying days the article he wrote describing how, during his lean years, he used to commute to the dole office in a classic Ferrari!
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff