Mercedes SL 500
Discussion
I am thinking of getting a 500SL R129 pre cat and looking for advice. I would look for full service history, have it checked by MB prior to purchase, prefer low ownership, under 100,000 miles. So, how much would I expect to pay for my dream car, where should I look for it, any particular year recommended and any other suggestions very welcome.
R129's are very very nice cars to own, my wife has a 280, I really regret us not buying a 500, in fact I've been drifting around the web looking at 500 for the last half hour.
I'd say when viewing a car, check everything works, everything, seat back and forward, up and down headrest, memory function, steergin wheel movement, air con, remote locking, fit and unfit the hard top, raise and lower the roof, every light and switch.
Check over body work, especially in the wheel arches. Check underneath for leaks.
If after all that it look ok, just buy it.
Remember there is two V8's, the earlier 32 valve with full throttle enrichement (full on fut fat version), and the later 24 valve with a few less HP.
Lovely silver one on PH classifieds now, with blue leather and panoramic top.
Oddly the hardtops can leak more that the hood, gave Merc a bit of a mare at the time.
I reckon you should get a good clean late car for £10k.
Oh, and finally, have it as your daily driver.
I'd say when viewing a car, check everything works, everything, seat back and forward, up and down headrest, memory function, steergin wheel movement, air con, remote locking, fit and unfit the hard top, raise and lower the roof, every light and switch.
Check over body work, especially in the wheel arches. Check underneath for leaks.
If after all that it look ok, just buy it.
Remember there is two V8's, the earlier 32 valve with full throttle enrichement (full on fut fat version), and the later 24 valve with a few less HP.
Lovely silver one on PH classifieds now, with blue leather and panoramic top.
Oddly the hardtops can leak more that the hood, gave Merc a bit of a mare at the time.
I reckon you should get a good clean late car for £10k.
Oh, and finally, have it as your daily driver.
Why bother with an MB inspection? They'll pick up every fault - I'd tend to ask a specialist to look at it...and don't hang around, the good ones tend to go quickly. I don't think the 500 is much faster in the real world than a 320 (the latter will hit an easy 145 leptons) and is surprisingly frugal too if you want an everyday car.
I'd echo the other comment - test everything, especially the electric hood - raise and lower it several times and make sure the side and rear screen of the hood are in good condition (£300 to sort)....but I think that beyond this they seem bullet proof, although my MB fit cd radio has just died...oh and the alloy wheels always seen to corrode - a "feature" of every Merc I've ever owned except the 2.3-16 which seemed to have excellent quality fittings all round...
Pricing?....£4k upwards regardless it seems of engine size....I'd go for a facelift car - post 1995 from memory....
I'd echo the other comment - test everything, especially the electric hood - raise and lower it several times and make sure the side and rear screen of the hood are in good condition (£300 to sort)....but I think that beyond this they seem bullet proof, although my MB fit cd radio has just died...oh and the alloy wheels always seen to corrode - a "feature" of every Merc I've ever owned except the 2.3-16 which seemed to have excellent quality fittings all round...
Pricing?....£4k upwards regardless it seems of engine size....I'd go for a facelift car - post 1995 from memory....
rubystone said:
I don't think the 500 is much faster in the real world than a 320 (the latter will hit an easy 145 leptons) and is surprisingly frugal too if you want an everyday car.
The 500 is on a different planet performance-wise to the 320: it is a much faster car. After all, it packs 308 to 326bhp and about 325 to 349lb/ft torque as against 220bhp and 220lb/ft for the 3.2litre car. There is no significant difference in petrol consumption between the two: they are both 1,800kg cars. If anything, the 3.2 will have to work a bit harder to drag the bodywork around.These are the best value cars in the market today. They are superbly engineered and built. They drive wonderfully. Just make sure you get a good one. For me, the litmus test is the tyres: if it is not fitted with Dunlop, Continental or Michelin (preferrably the latter), it is a pretty good sign that the owner cannot keep it right.
Hi and thanks for replies. I am probably convinced on the 500. I fancy the pre cat for the performance and another costly thing not to worry about. I have heard that post 1993 models suffered quality wise and 1990 to 1993 are the ones to go for. Will certainly hope to go for the best but budget restraints say a max of £10,000. What say you experts?
r129sl said:
rubystone said:
I don't think the 500 is much faster in the real world than a 320 (the latter will hit an easy 145 leptons) and is surprisingly frugal too if you want an everyday car.
The 500 is on a different planet performance-wise to the 320: it is a much faster car. After all, it packs 308 to 326bhp and about 325 to 349lb/ft torque as against 220bhp and 220lb/ft for the 3.2litre car. There is no significant difference in petrol consumption between the two: they are both 1,800kg cars. If anything, the 3.2 will have to work a bit harder to drag the bodywork around.I think that is right.
I have a 320 TE with the M104 straight six, so I am very familiar with the engine. I have to say, the M104 straight six is a wonderful motor, much more characterful than the M113 V8 in my SL 500. It has great urgency above 4,000rpm, as you have pointed out, almost a step change in character and performance at that point. It is smooth. It spins well past 6,000rpm. And it has a wonderful twin-cam rasp, rather like a classic British DOHC straight six from the 1960s (think Jag and Aston). I really like the powertrain in my 320.
But the 500 has torque, mountains of it, throughout the rev range. And it keeps going strong, well above 100mph.
I have a 320 TE with the M104 straight six, so I am very familiar with the engine. I have to say, the M104 straight six is a wonderful motor, much more characterful than the M113 V8 in my SL 500. It has great urgency above 4,000rpm, as you have pointed out, almost a step change in character and performance at that point. It is smooth. It spins well past 6,000rpm. And it has a wonderful twin-cam rasp, rather like a classic British DOHC straight six from the 1960s (think Jag and Aston). I really like the powertrain in my 320.
But the 500 has torque, mountains of it, throughout the rev range. And it keeps going strong, well above 100mph.
niva441 said:
Having done a few miles in a 320 now I would assume that the difference in performance in more in real life than when measured in testing against the clock. Until the 320 gets over 4000 rpm the performance in adequate, but transforms after that point. I would imagine the performance of the 500 is always readily acceptable, rather than waiting for the 320 engine to come on cam.
100% accurate. Yes the 320 does indeed come on cam around 4000rpm but since these cars are all abut cruising, I stand by my first statement...I drove both and am very happy with my 320. I do have access to other fast cars, so for me, it's not all about the power. I am surprised about the fuel economy statement though, but perhaps it's an SL thing...maybe the 5 litre V8 in them is more efficient thn the same engine in other Mercedes (a mate owns an S Class, always whinging about the low teens MPG in that!)BTW if you want to avoid the on-cam off-cam 320, simply drop it into 3rd and drive it that way - works well...I've always done that with my auto Benzes :-)
eta my 1998 SL has a V6 motor not a straight six. Do both share the same characteristics then in terms of caminess?
Edited by rubystone on Thursday 13th May 16:00
The V6 develops its torque lower in the rev range and over a broad spread, so it should feel much more flexible than the older I6. It should be quicker, too, although it probably doesn't feel it because of the more linear power delivery. I can't remember off the top of my head, but the m113 develops peak torque from something like 2,500 to 4,000rpm whereas the I6 only develops its peak torque only at 4,000rpm.
The m113 V6 is also more fuel efficient than the I6: not only is it set up for efficiency rather than outright power, but you don't have to rev the nuts off it because of the fat torque curve. I had a w202 with the 2.4litre version of the m113 and it was ultra-smooth, smoother than the m104 I6 in my w124. The m113 V6 and m112 V8s are modular: in essence the V6 is the same as the V8 with a pair of cylinders lopped off.
The m113 V6 and m112 V8s are mega-reliable. A lot of people have said they are less of an engine builder's engine than the m104 I6 and the m119 V8. Maybe, but they just do not fail. The only weakness is the crankshaft vibration damper on the m113 V6: look out for the rubber insert starting to break up, it will wreck your engine if it lets go: there is a revised part.
There is nothing wrong with the sixes. As I say, the I6 in my opinion is a joy. However, they are significantly slower than the V8. I have no idea what the V12 is like as I haven't driven one. I would very much like to.
The bottom line on these cars is that you must buy on condition rather than particular spec. A good 280 or 320 will be much better than a poor 500. And a poor 600 will bankrupt you! I am not aware of any big change in 1993, other than the change in model designation from suffix to prefix. I like the look of the pre-facelift cars (1989 to 1995) but fundamentally the design is the same throughout, they were built in the same factory throughout and use the same materials throughout. Condition, condition, condition. There are some lovely early 500 SLs out there for less than £10k. As well as good tyres, look for originality: two tone bumpers on the early cars, orange indicators, concealed exhaust, 16" wheels. After market mods are nearly always inferior to factory fitted.
The m113 V6 is also more fuel efficient than the I6: not only is it set up for efficiency rather than outright power, but you don't have to rev the nuts off it because of the fat torque curve. I had a w202 with the 2.4litre version of the m113 and it was ultra-smooth, smoother than the m104 I6 in my w124. The m113 V6 and m112 V8s are modular: in essence the V6 is the same as the V8 with a pair of cylinders lopped off.
The m113 V6 and m112 V8s are mega-reliable. A lot of people have said they are less of an engine builder's engine than the m104 I6 and the m119 V8. Maybe, but they just do not fail. The only weakness is the crankshaft vibration damper on the m113 V6: look out for the rubber insert starting to break up, it will wreck your engine if it lets go: there is a revised part.
There is nothing wrong with the sixes. As I say, the I6 in my opinion is a joy. However, they are significantly slower than the V8. I have no idea what the V12 is like as I haven't driven one. I would very much like to.
The bottom line on these cars is that you must buy on condition rather than particular spec. A good 280 or 320 will be much better than a poor 500. And a poor 600 will bankrupt you! I am not aware of any big change in 1993, other than the change in model designation from suffix to prefix. I like the look of the pre-facelift cars (1989 to 1995) but fundamentally the design is the same throughout, they were built in the same factory throughout and use the same materials throughout. Condition, condition, condition. There are some lovely early 500 SLs out there for less than £10k. As well as good tyres, look for originality: two tone bumpers on the early cars, orange indicators, concealed exhaust, 16" wheels. After market mods are nearly always inferior to factory fitted.
Edited by r129sl on Thursday 13th May 23:43
Yes. The r129 was available with ADS (Adaptive Damping System) pretty much from launch. It was a very expensive option on the 280, 320 and 500 and standard on the 600. Supposedly it is fantastic and very reliable but expensive in the event it goes wrong.
This particular car has every option then available, so far as I can tell, and it is stunningly original. So it has ACC, heated seats, memory seats, orthopaedic seats, expensive Becker stereo, traction control, tow and country horn, the aforementioned ADS... it has everything. If I didn't have one already, this is the kind of car I'd be looking for.
(I have no connection with this car and have not seen it in the metal.)
This particular car has every option then available, so far as I can tell, and it is stunningly original. So it has ACC, heated seats, memory seats, orthopaedic seats, expensive Becker stereo, traction control, tow and country horn, the aforementioned ADS... it has everything. If I didn't have one already, this is the kind of car I'd be looking for.
(I have no connection with this car and have not seen it in the metal.)
Hi all, am now about to join the clan, spent a few days cruising the South of England looking at a few R129 SL's, including the one suggested by R129sl and have done the deal on it, paid a deposit and will be driving it home this week. It will not be my daily driver but will get used 2/3 times a week but not in the wet, it will be garaged and connected to an accumate. It is replacing my TVR Chimaera, not the same sort of car and I am looking forward to a different sort of enjoyment. Thanks for all the advice and will be chatting again.
Congrats looks lovely!
I'm doing a 2/3 week tour of Scotland for my honeymoon this summer and am stuck between an s2000 for fun and a r129 sl for pure waft factor.
A lovely 2000 sl320 has just popped up for sale in the next town to me, not my first engine choice but going for a test drive thismorning to see how I get on with it........
I'm doing a 2/3 week tour of Scotland for my honeymoon this summer and am stuck between an s2000 for fun and a r129 sl for pure waft factor.
A lovely 2000 sl320 has just popped up for sale in the next town to me, not my first engine choice but going for a test drive thismorning to see how I get on with it........
Edited by irish boy on Tuesday 8th June 07:24
Having had an R129 SL320 without ADS, and having an SL500 with ADS (that I have decided is a keeper):
r129sl said:
Yes. The r129 was available with ADS (Adaptive Damping System) pretty much from launch. It was a very expensive option on the 280, 320 and 500 and standard on the 600. ...
From memory, something like £4,300 in 1999 on the 'millenium edition' car, and it does make a quite extraordinary difference. r129sl said:
... Supposedly it is fantastic and very reliable but expensive in the event it goes wrong.
The issue that I am told arises routinely, is that the air cell accumulators ('spheres') at the back end wear out and have to be replaced. I have just had that done (at 56,000 miles, along with a load of other overdue mechanical work, by A&A Merctech in Hoddesdon, Herfordshire, who I had not heard of before, but who somebody recommended to me a couple of months ago, and who were totally excellent) and it's made the car handle like new.r129sl said:
The 500 is on a different planet performance-wise to the 320
Agreed completely.TimboL said:
The issue that I am told arises routinely, is that the air cell accumulators ('spheres') at the back end wear out and have to be replaced. I have just had that done (at 56,000 miles, along with a load of other overdue mechanical work, by A&A Merctech in Hoddesdon, Herfordshire, who I had not heard of before, but who somebody recommended to me a couple of months ago, and who were totally excellent) and it's made the car handle like new.
Correct. The spheres perform the same function as shock absorbers in a regular suspension. They are a very tough plastic sphere internally divided by a diaphragm. On one side of the diaphragm is air and on the other is hydraulic fluid. In place of the shock absorber are simple struts, the fluid level in which is adjusted so as to keep the car level no matter what load it is carrying and how that load is distributed. There is a fluid reservoir under the bonnet. Is this making any sense? All Mercedes estate cars since the s123 have had this system at the rear (as have all saloons and coupes with self-levelling suspension) and it should be familiar to Citroen afficionados. I know my 320 TE was bouncing all over the joint until I replaced the spheres. On the 129 there is a complex valve block assembly which provides the extra functionality: this is the really expensive bit, the spheres are about the same price as shockers.
It is interesting to have further confirmation that ADS transforms the car's ride and handling.
I had a 280sl v6 yr 2000 which I bought new. Its a long story but between myself and my sister had it for 6 years. All I can say is that I and others always admired the car and its reliability was faultless and quite clearly higher quality than the W210 I had of the same year. I much prefer the interior of the last R129,s. Thats all the good news. However it was desperately underpowered although very smooth and better balanced than the M113 V8 I tried. Also I dont think they drive very well especially if you push them in any way, suspension just isnt in control and without the hardtop the loss in torsional stiffness made it really bad.
I would say the 320 is minimum spec but agree the v8 is the one to buy if your doing it.
I now have an slk55 amg and it trully is in a different time zone (as expected) but I still love the look of a late r129 the R230 just doesnt have the same inherent quality and class imo. A cruiser.
I would say the 320 is minimum spec but agree the v8 is the one to buy if your doing it.
I now have an slk55 amg and it trully is in a different time zone (as expected) but I still love the look of a late r129 the R230 just doesnt have the same inherent quality and class imo. A cruiser.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff