RE: Driven: Mercedes SL500

[bigricho]

Dave Hedgehog said:

80 fooking grand!!!!

thats as far as i got lol

Seeing as in 1995 an SL280 would set you back 60k. Adjusting for inflation (according to thisismoney.co.uk), 60k is now 93k. I think 80k is great value for a Merc SL. Or have Mercedes just devalued themselves over the years?

[Ecosseven]

looks really ugly compared to the last SL.

[MRCC]

lockup said:

Monkey said:

There has been a quiet, most welcome trend in the motor industry over the past few years - one of removing mass. Mercedes-Benz has quietly been a championing (if perhaps unexpected) voice of this trade and put itself on one massive corporate diet.

Monkey said:

...this great whale of a two-seater actually weights a snip under 1,800kg

Congratulations Mercedes-Benz!

I'm amazed though that Mercedes are so late in arriving to the aluminium party!

[angusc43]

gmh23 said:

DoctorX said:

The screen, vents and centre console are all out of alignment. I couldn't live with that. OCD.

Glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that, think it would bug me too

Why? Do you habitually sit in the centre of the car?

[Henry Fiddleton]

Not a patch on the MY2003 ish model in terms of looks.

Could not care less how it drove, SL are wafters, and lookers not drivers cars.

SL55AMG 2003 all day long for me.



Err hope that image works.

[DoctorX]

angusc43 said:

Why? Do you habitually sit in the centre of the car?

There's no logic to it, it just lacks symmetry (and, yes, I like my air vents, climate control temps etc the same on each side...) Maybe you're right and it looks ok from the driver's seat.

[nickwilcock]

"It's no beauty but it does the SL thing well"

That statement is mutually contradictory.

The latest SL is technically good, but aesthetically dreadful. The offset interior is as bad as it is on the ugly new SLK....

2012 SL and 2012 SLK are M-B's ugly sisters. The 2003-6 era SLs were beautiful, the 2000-2004 SLKs timeless. But the latest M-B roadsters are sinfully ugly.

Edited by nickwilcock on Tuesday 13th March 17:31

[chris333]

bigricho said:

Dave Hedgehog said:

80 fooking grand!!!!

thats as far as i got lol

Seeing as in 1995 an SL280 would set you back 60k. Adjusting for inflation (according to thisismoney.co.uk), 60k is now 93k. I think 80k is great value for a Merc SL. Or have Mercedes just devalued themselves over the years?

13 years ago, £58k got you an SL280 with a staggering 193bhp. The SL500 was £81k then.

Obviously MB cars now aren't as massively over-engineered as the R129 generation SL was (plastic paddles for goodness sake!), but I don't think there can be any doubt that cars now are much better value for money than then.

[VX Foxy]

Fail

[carl0s]

IMO the problem with that 'new' nose is that it makes the car look like a drop-top saloon, rather than a drop-top coupe, i.e. a proper sportscar.

[carnut360]

no one seems to have noticed the elephant in the room...

Why would you pay 200k for the SLS convertable!!

especialy since this is so good!

[Daniel1]

gmh23 said:

DoctorX said:

The screen, vents and centre console are all out of alignment. I couldn't live with that. OCD.

Glad I'm not the only one who picked up on that, think it would bug me too

Oh that would drive me mad.

[anything fast]

I dont think they have ever made a bad SL. The looks you will get used to. Not very pretty but handsome and more modern than the previous model. No doubt performance, refinement, economy and the technology has all move up a notch...

A fantatsic car that I am sure is STILL the convertible of choice for the moderately wealthy. One thing though, SILVER is still the best hue for these motors, the red does not suit it at all.

[f328nvl]

I saw one for the first time yesterday and the rear just looks wrong, too rounded and ill thought through - a bit like a Lexus. Shame, I'm sure they'll sort it out in the next iteration.

[tommy vercetti]

I like this I think it looks mean and agressive, but imo the previous Sl looked more prettier and classier.