"New" Mercedes SL R231
Discussion
Just been looking at pictures of the revised styling of the R231 and was struck by how much it owes to the R129.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by this as the R129 is the grandfather of all SLs that have seen the light of day since 1989 but I have to say that stylistically the new car is far too fussy for my tastes and the twin power bulges on the bonnet make it look like a larger version of the R170, itself a close relative of the R129 school of design, but without its or the R129's pureness of form.
Sacco was right, the R129 was his masterpiece and a legacy that Mercedes SL designers since have struggled to emulate.
Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised by this as the R129 is the grandfather of all SLs that have seen the light of day since 1989 but I have to say that stylistically the new car is far too fussy for my tastes and the twin power bulges on the bonnet make it look like a larger version of the R170, itself a close relative of the R129 school of design, but without its or the R129's pureness of form.
Sacco was right, the R129 was his masterpiece and a legacy that Mercedes SL designers since have struggled to emulate.
I like the r129 (I would, I wouldn't I?) and believe it has a really beautiful purity of form; the styling is extremely subtle: the wheel arch flares, the rise and fall and rise again of the belt line and the tapering trapezoid boot.
The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
r129sl said:
I like the r129 (I would, I wouldn't I?) and believe it has a really beautiful purity of form; the styling is extremely subtle: the wheel arch flares, the rise and fall and rise again of the belt line and the tapering trapezoid boot.
The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
r129 I don't disagree with anything you have said here and strongly agree with your last paragraph.The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
You make a valid point about the R129 not having to accommodate a folding steel roof but the R170, which is like a 3/4 scale R129 did incorporate the folding steel roof and managed not to have a lardy backside. Again, in my book, it remains the best looking SLK of the three iterations so far produced. It kept the lines simple and avoided unnecessary flourishes.
Of course the R129 had courtesy seats in the back as well as storing the soft-top in the boot whereas the R170 did not. Why then could not the R230 and R231 neither of which has or had rear-seats but are of similar dimensions to the R129 accommodate a folding steel roof without undermining the styling?
Just to be fair I must declare a bias. I too am a fan of the older cars having a 1988 300SL and a 1990 500SL. The newest MB I've ever owned is my latest, a 2001 230K SLK.
I love the r170. I really appreciate the way the panel gaps have been made into a styling feature, especially around the base of 'C' pillar. I do think it has a bulky rear end, especially from some angles (see below), but it shows the virtues of plain and subtle styling. The use of very subtle curves is particularly good, again, wheel arches and the tumblehome where body meets window line. My mother has one which she bought new in 1999. It doesn't get much use these days. The rust is shameful but one of these days I might do it up.
I guess it's all about volume these days.
I guess it's all about volume these days.
Edited by r129sl on Monday 29th February 16:07
r129sl said:
I like the r129 (I would, I wouldn't I?) and believe it has a really beautiful purity of form; the styling is extremely subtle: the wheel arch flares, the rise and fall and rise again of the belt line and the tapering trapezoid boot.
The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
Spot on as usual R129SL, though I can see some attributes to the very latest cars like the new C class coupe and cabrio. But with the SL the R129 just gets better and better with age and people remember how positive the views on its styling and engineering were in the '90s as modern car design gets fussier and fussier. The r129 was the last SL not to have to accommodate a folding hardtop: that demand of the market fetters the designer's freedom of movement considerably. In other words, folding hardtop equals bulging rear end. The bulk of the folding hardtop has to be concealed by stylistic jewellery: scoops and slashes and fancy light clusters. Up front, the demands of pedestrian impact regulations have a similar result: ungainly bulk. Again, this has to be hidden by styling. So what you end up with is a fundamentally lardy and ugly car that is made passable by rather naff styling trinkets. But there's very little choice in the matter: look at the Ferrari California, it's the same story there.
I don't really understand why anyone buys a modern Mercedes-Benz. Whereas once they were at the cutting edge of automobile development, with mega-build quality and really pleasing styling, accompanied by rock-solid residuals, now they're all pretty ho-hum technologically, with average build quality, really horrible, vulgar styling and dreadful residuals. How long can Mercedes' old reputation continue to carry its trash?
I can see how Mercedes were seduced into giving the SL a folding hardtop after the success of the SLK but I think it was the biggest mistake they could have made because it also meant losing the rear seats which were hugely popular with owners meaning they could use the car with small kids or dogs! one of the reasons a 911 remains so popular otherwise most would buy a Boxster/Cayman.
Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
GPH said:
I can see how Mercedes were seduced into giving the SL a folding hardtop after the success of the SLK but I think it was the biggest mistake they could have made because it also meant losing the rear seats which were hugely popular with owners meaning they could use the car with small kids or dogs! one of the reasons a 911 remains so popular otherwise most would buy a Boxster/Cayman.
Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
So glad I don't live in your world. The R230 SL is one of best aesthetic designs Mercedes have ever produced not that is saying much really given much of their output is and always has been hideous. But a fabric roof?????? Jesus wept! Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
cb1965 said:
So glad I don't live in your world. The R230 SL is one of best aesthetic designs Mercedes have ever produced not that is saying much really given much of their output is and always has been hideous. But a fabric roof?????? Jesus wept!
Mercedes was capable of making a superb soft-top roof able to deal with the vagaries of the UK weather on a daily, year round basis in the nineties and fitted it to the A124.I am sure that if it chose to go that way again it would make an even better job of it.
Other manufacturers have already reverted to the soft top option and adopting that approach would give Mercedes designers alternatives in styling a new SL. I appreciate that beauty is in the eye of the beholder but to me the folding steel roof of the R230 together with other design wrong turns forced compromises in its aesthetics which are not present in the R129.
cb1965 said:
GPH said:
I can see how Mercedes were seduced into giving the SL a folding hardtop after the success of the SLK but I think it was the biggest mistake they could have made because it also meant losing the rear seats which were hugely popular with owners meaning they could use the car with small kids or dogs! one of the reasons a 911 remains so popular otherwise most would buy a Boxster/Cayman.
Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
So glad I don't live in your world. The R230 SL is one of best aesthetic designs Mercedes have ever produced not that is saying much really given much of their output is and always has been hideous. But a fabric roof?????? Jesus wept! Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
r129sl said:
This is what most people think. And this is why Mercedes today makes rubbish cars. Their great cars were made when they ignored what the market thought and built what they knew was right. A reliable maxim: popular means rubbish.
Well said. That maxim can be applied almost universally.See the success of Carling Black Label and soap operas like Eastenders for more proof.
cb1965 said:
GPH said:
I can see how Mercedes were seduced into giving the SL a folding hardtop after the success of the SLK but I think it was the biggest mistake they could have made because it also meant losing the rear seats which were hugely popular with owners meaning they could use the car with small kids or dogs! one of the reasons a 911 remains so popular otherwise most would buy a Boxster/Cayman.
Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
So glad I don't live in your world. The R230 SL is one of best aesthetic designs Mercedes have ever produced not that is saying much really given much of their output is and always has been hideous. But a fabric roof?????? Jesus wept! Instead the SL became a clone of the SLK. Cue falling sales by at least 20% less than the R129 over its life even though the world was getting wealthier and MB sales going up.
After continuing with this strategy with the latest SL it would appear sense has finally prevailed as an interview with one of the management stated they realised the mistake in making the SL too similar to the SLK and the next model would revert to a fabric roof and 4 seats. Hooray!
I owned a 2004 R230 SL500. It was beautiful with its modern interpretation of the F1 nose look Mercedes were following but compromised by its need to have a folding metal roof ( and unfortunately the awful quality these are known for especially the suspension made out of chocolate). Speaking as an owner of several eras of SL the usefulness of the rear seat area with a reasonable boot with the roof down for me means I would never buy another 2 seat metal roof SL as I like to use mine for more than just short journeys.
swisstoni said:
Another SL thread railroaded into a discussion about how great a couple of people think the R129 is and how inferior all subsequent versions are.
Bit tiresome.
oh bless ... if you bother to read the OP again it was comparing the R231 to the R129. so no "railroading" going on anywhere Bit tiresome.
but well done for adding something constructive ....or not.
Got to say I think current SL500 R231 is a pleasure to drive ,not a sports car but fast comfortable and quiet but powerful V8 which will eat up the miles.Considered new R230 SL300 in 2011 but test drive proved it to be a very dated car with awful engine nothing like R231. I have had various cars this century namely Honda S2000,Lexus LS400,BMW525d, Mercedes CL55,Porsche Cayman, Mercedes CLS500,BMW M6, BMW M3 v8, BMW X6 40d, Porsche 997, new 991GTS, 2015 SL500, Ferrari California and new SL500 arriving shortly. SL500 is best proposition of all these for me in the real world and I think anyone who knocks it probably hasn't lived with one?
Being the owner of an R129 SL320 and R230 SL55 PP I can see the development through the years, albeit maybe not the improvement in quality. However I think the latest model (never driven one) addresses many of the faults of the last model in improved quality although maybe no longer at the leading edge of tech developments. Personally I think they all look good in their own way and have their strengths and weaknesses. I agree the new one looks a bit disjointed styling wise but on the whole I like it. A diamond white SL63 with red leather zoomed past me in Belfast this morning with the roof down, blonde babe's hair blowing about. I was like wow that's a nice car. That's why people buy convertibles and even on an average day get the roof down.
Anyone know what performance kits can be added to the R231 SL500 to up the power to over 500bhp? I've read some can tuned to 560bhp but I don't know by who.
I think there is a place for folding hardtop cars. I just think Mercedes need to rename their range. The current SL should be named GT as it's more a Grand Tourer and the GT renamed SL as it's closer to the original Sport Light brief. Thereby addressing the concerns above but if you need a 4 seater convertible choose the C, E or S class convertibles with a broader engine range etc.
I'd like to hear other owner comparisons on the SL range to obtain a more objective view than the traditional R107, R129, R230 or R231 camp opinions. Happy 'open top' motoring Easter!
Anyone know what performance kits can be added to the R231 SL500 to up the power to over 500bhp? I've read some can tuned to 560bhp but I don't know by who.
I think there is a place for folding hardtop cars. I just think Mercedes need to rename their range. The current SL should be named GT as it's more a Grand Tourer and the GT renamed SL as it's closer to the original Sport Light brief. Thereby addressing the concerns above but if you need a 4 seater convertible choose the C, E or S class convertibles with a broader engine range etc.
I'd like to hear other owner comparisons on the SL range to obtain a more objective view than the traditional R107, R129, R230 or R231 camp opinions. Happy 'open top' motoring Easter!
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff