1990's SL which?? 300 or 500

[stats007]

I don't think Peter and logic go together in the same sentance

A 141k mile SL500 is a brave buy. For this mileage I'd check the timing chains / tensioners etc have all been changed and when it had new distributors / gearbox / diff / cats etc.

Catalytic converters were introduced in 1991 I believe.

 

[peterchurch]

Im not getting your logic at all peter!!!! 230k asked what was the better 90's r129,,300sl or 500sl ???

What relevance does a 2002 mr2 ,a Saab 93SE , a 911 or god forbid a meganne have to his original question??

If you went into a restaurant and asked the waiter which wine he recommended and he started telling you to forget the wine because he'd had a bad bottle once but he'd had a cracking pint of Guinness the other week ,,you'd think he'd lost the plot :bannana:


IMHO,, like most things in life, every car fits a purpose. If someone wants a value for money, quality, open top tourer for weekend/occasional use, pound for pound a r129 can’t be beaten. It’s just down to buying the right one in the 1st place to minimise the risk of future major expenditure.

Sorry it went off on a bender on the basis that any 10+ year old SL going for less than 10K will be a pile of crap and most likely to cause more hassle than it was worth The other cars were instrumental in the fact that I owned and enjoyed all of them a hell of a lot more than my SL and all of them on the list could be found for 10K or less If you wanted a Weekend Roadster for < 10K

IMO an SL is not value for money if for the price of a 10 year old car you can get 3 - 5 year old cars that are more fun to drive

 

[Denis O]

Facts. Owned a 97 500SL for nearly 3 years and 35k miles. Costs were 2 services at an independant totalling £407. 2 tyres at £125 each. Power steering box replaced with 2nd hand unit at £170+Vat and £150 labour. Did an average of 26mpg with about 70% motorway driving. Now, for a very classy, very quick open top car that is dirt cheap motoring.
Prices are incredibly cheap for these at present. I was offered £11k through the trade against a 911 (they have back seats that have more room than the SL) but eventually did a deal with a private seller and got £15k against a 911 Cab. That's only £8k depreciation in 3 years. For a luxury car that is amazing value.
The 911 is more of a drivers car and in many ways is actually more comfy than the SL which was a great suprise to me. It's a bit quicker but not a lot and I hope it only costs me the same to run.
I would thourouhgly recommend a 96 or later SL due to the digital climate, more modern interior and colour coded body work. And go for the 500. 280 is gutless, 320 is not much better but the 500 is a real flyer. If you don't want a 500, for any reason, don't test drive one. Be warned, if you do, you won't buy the others after.
By the way, what the hell is a Meganne???????

 

[230K]

Denis

What mileage was on the car when you sold it?

230K

 

[peterchurch]

By the way, what the hell is a Meganne???????

Its the total opposite of the SL a light weight, frog built piece of tin. But if you knew what you were doing, and you bought the 2.0 16v, that had a 180 bhp Williams tuned engine in it. It also had next to no wieght to carry. Renault lied through their teeth to get it insured as a group 14 (while it kept up with cars far more powerfull)
It was small and nimble through the lanes, gave great chassis feedback and seemed to grow horns every time you started the engine. It made you feel like you were sitting on the front of a rocket. but unlike cars that are much heavier you clould still sling it around without it killing you, although Im sure its killed a few people by now

There was no gliding ride quality, no leather no climate control, not even a CD player as standard but it always entertained. roof was electric although the manual softop was better. Renault buried the 2.0 so that they could sell millions of shitty 1.6e as they were cheap and did not need to compete with the newly launched MGF. They were built for R & S registration before Renault face lifted them to a total mess and detuned the engine to 140 Bhp and ruined the car for good

They did do a car called the spider that had the same engine stuck in the back of a fibreglass body you see their wrecks on ebay quite a bit.

I have seen several for sale at less than 6K of late and when I move house and get more space I will get one for "special occasions"

Cheap Clean Fun (and 100% license loser)

 

[Barryh]

shame you are so obssesed by gadgets,a bmw 3 series conv would be be more of a drivers car.an sl is a srious roadster and luxurious.you have to consider priorities.IMHO and many others ,the saab is seriously boring ,despite its Fwd i,t has no quodos and no residual value.

 

[peterchurch]

shame you are so obssesed by gadgets,a bmw 3 series conv would be be more of a drivers car.an sl is a srious roadster and luxurious.you have to consider priorities.IMHO and many others ,the saab is seriously boring ,despite its Fwd i,t has no quodos and no residual value.

If you drive the 154/ 185 bhp models I agree Saabs are not much to write home about but the 205 Hot and the Viggen were both far from boring
As for the BMW yes some of them are OK but they suffer just as bad with the 318 320 wannabe keyring owner models BMWs are so common now there is little to choose between them in the kudos stakes.

I don't think their residuals suck. Its more a case of you dont shell out as much at the begining. If you bought a clk for £42,000 vs a 93 for £32,000
the MB might be worth 18K vs 13 in year three but you didn't shell out the cash in year 1...

 

[Will]

I thought CLK Cabs enjoyed some of the better residual values of used cars out there?

Not sure how long the new model has been out but looked at this on Parkers:

http://www.parkers.co.uk/pricing/us...0&model=504&plate=72&pay=false&buyorsell=sell

75% (on a PX valuation) or 85% (privately) retained value over two years doesn't sound bad to me? Even an independant dealer price is apparantly only £4/5K less than it was two years previously?

I think that if you buy wisely, Mercedes can make a great choice! I've never lost a penny on any of the Mercedes I've sold so far

Will

 

[stats007]

Its the total opposite of the SL a light weight, frog built piece of tin. But if you knew what you were doing, and you bought the 2.0 16v, that had a 180 bhp Williams tuned engine in it. It also had next to no wieght to carry. Renault lied through their teeth to get it insured as a group 14 (while it kept up with cars far more powerfull)
It was small and nimble through the lanes, gave great chassis feedback and seemed to grow horns every time you started the engine. It made you feel like you were sitting on the front of a rocket. but unlike cars that are much heavier you clould still sling it around without it killing you, although Im sure its killed a few people by now

There was no gliding ride quality, no leather no climate control, not even a CD player as standard but it always entertained. roof was electric although the manual softop was better. Renault buried the 2.0 so that they could sell millions of shitty 1.6e as they were cheap and did not need to compete with the newly launched MGF. They were built for R & S registration before Renault face lifted them to a total mess and detuned the engine to 140 Bhp and ruined the car for good

They did do a car called the spider that had the same engine stuck in the back of a fibreglass body you see their wrecks on ebay quite a bit.

I have seen several for sale at less than 6K of late and when I move house and get more space I will get one for "special occasions"

Cheap Clean Fun (and 100% license loser)

Peter where do you get your information? Sometimes I think you believe everything your mates down the pub tell you.

The Renault Megane never had any Williams involvement - the only car that did was the Clio which appeared as the Clio Williams 1 (150bhp), 2 and 3 (165bhp). The Megane 2.0 16V you're talking about was always 140bhp. The Spider got the derived F7R 710 engine developing 150bhp @ 6000rpm and 185 Nm of torque at 4250rpm. The Megane weighed 1220kg - giving it a mighty 114bhp /ton - front wheel drive - more chassis flex than a Curly Whirly and a 0-60 of 8.6s.

Hairdresser's Car

 

[peterchurch]

Peter where do you get your information? Sometimes I think you believe everything your mates down the pub tell you.

The Renault Megane never had any Williams involvement - the only car that did was the Clio which appeared as the Clio Williams 1 (150bhp), 2 and 3 (165bhp). The Megane 2.0 16V you're talking about was always 140bhp. The Spider got the derived F7R 710 engine developing 150bhp @ 6000rpm and 185 Nm of torque at 4250rpm. The Megane weighed 1220kg - giving it a mighty 114bhp /ton - front wheel drive - more chassis flex than a Curly Whirly and a 0-60 of 8.6s.

Hairdresser's Car

Stat you are a mis-informed banana I bought one ! had it for a year then had to sell it when I changed job and got a company car package that did alow running my own car believe what you like the fact is they existed in a small very small numbers and can still be found if you know what you are looking for...

 

[stats007]

Like you had an SL320 that could do 0-100 in 11 seconds, some 3 seconds quicker than an SL500?

I think there must be something in the water where you live Peter.

 

[Shude]

I think there must be something in the water where you live Peter.

More likely something in the petrol, surely?

 

[stats007]

banana? I preferred the original

 

[peterchurch]

There you go 230 theres a link to one that might be worth a look

http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=11912

Stat have you ever bothered timing the car you drive? or do you only believe figures spoon fed to you in brochures? My guess is you are not old enough to drive and are still being driven round in the back of your dads car Anyway thanks for continuing my opinion that Surrey is full of rude stuck up idiots

 

[Flash]

Guys - lets please stop arguing amongst ourselves. We all are entitled to our own opinions but have respect one another on this forum. We are all here to help each other...

 

[stats007]

Why am I rude and stuck up - because I challenge you with facts? Your statements about the SL320 were complete rubbish - as are your facts about the Megane. Without getting personal, you seem to know very little about the cars you've owned.

My figures come from manufacturers / magazines / forums / websites / roadtests / TV and I always try and get three different sources for the figures I quote. I have timed my own car, as I imagine a few people have - and yes the figures do equate to the ones I've mentioned on here. There are plenty of official roadtest figures available if you look - sometimes videos you can download as well for cars like the SL55 doing 0-100 etc. By all means prove me wrong with some evidence - Renault and Williams are on the phone interested to hear about a car they didn't make

 

[stats007]

Guys - lets please stop arguing amongst ourselves. We all are entitled to our own opinions but have respect one another on this forum. We are all here to help each other...

I'm not arguing about an opinion - this is about factual statements. If someone is looking for advice and gets told things that aren't true then this isn't helping them is it?

 

[Flash]

I'm not arguing about an opinion - this is about factual statements. If someone is looking for advice and gets told things that aren't true then this isn't helping them is it?

I'm not disputing anything ur saying or doubt anything... I understand what u are saying.

 

[Denis O]

Denis

What mileage was on the car when you sold it?

230K

230K
It was on 72k. I had it advertised on Pistonheads for 3 weeks at £14750 and didn't get 1 call. The guy I did the deal on the 911 with has got it on Pistonheads at £15250 so I suspect he's not being inundated.
It will probably sell privately for about £13k if someone has the bottle to buy a 500.

 

[230K]

Hi all

Was to look at a 94 500 tonight 141K miles AMG wheels and kit for £7500 but it was sold earlier today.

Not meant to be.

230K