280SL / 300SL fuel consumption

[superaquarama]

Hi Guys,

For some time I've been tempted by a W107 SL, and have it in mind to look for a late 280 or 300, 1985 - 89. Having pored over road tests and even bought the Brooklands Books' Ultimate Portfolio, there are no tests of either car, only the V8s.

Can anyone give me some real-world fuel consumption figures for these sixes ? The V8s seem to be relatively thirsty compared with other similar cars I've owned (4.2 E Type, 3.0CSi, MK2 Jaguar, etc., which can all achieve mid-twenties on a run), and I've read that the 6 cyl models are not much better due to their lower axle ratios.

Thanks

 

[wobbly]

Are you looking at a 107 as an everyday car, or as a weekend pleasure car?

If its just pleasure, why look at something like a few miles per gallon, these car are not cheap to buy or maintain properly.

I tested a 300, and felt a little let down it was very underpowered. I own a 500 and have to be totally honest, the 5 litre V8 is the only way too go.

 

[superaquarama]

Thanks for the reply, Wobbly.

Well, I suppose it's somewhere between - a fine day car to use for business and pleasure, but it'll probably only do around 2000 miles p.a. unless it goes abroad or on holiday here.

So I agree that with that sort of mileage the fuel cost isn't going to be too enormous anyway but - and here's the rub - if it's only doing 18 mpg I'd think twice about blasting down to S. France in it and probably go in a 50 mpg Golf TDi instead, whereas I'd think something doing 30 or even 25 mpg would be more viable and would thus get used more.

 

[BTB 500]

Can't help with the R107 but my R129 SL500 is pretty good on a long run - I've had over 29 mpg between fill-ups with lots of motorway cruising. Of course stop/start driving is much worse ... it's almost 2 tonnes after all! The 6-cyl versions are only marginally better on fuel (when driven in the same way).

 

[jaymanek]

I agree, i think the 500SL is surprisingly economical...

I would stay away from the 300 as its not much better on fuel and the car does struggle... remember this car weighs around 2.5ton!

 

[gaz_l]

I agree, i think the 500SL is surprisingly economical...

I would stay away from the 300 as its not much better on fuel and the car does struggle... remember this car weighs around 2.5ton!

Jaymanek,

I wouldn't want to question your expertise.. but isn't 2.5 tons a bit much for a 2 door convertible? My mate's Disco3 is 2.7 tons, and that's a complete tub of lard even for a 4X4..

Cheers,

Gaz

 

[wobbly]

500 SL
Vehicle weight 1610 KG
Gross vehicle weight 2030KG

 

[superaquarama]

Yes, Super Leicht is a bit optimistic for the 107s - hardly in the Lotus Elise bracket, are they ? Seem to recall that my student days TR3 weighed a ton exactly.

Thanks for the replies to date, everyone - still be nice to hear from a 280 or 300SL owner, though............

 

[BTB 500]

Yes, Super Leicht is a bit optimistic for the 107s

Pretty sure it already stood for "Sport Leicht" by then

From memory my R129 is about 1900kg.

 

[BTB 500]

still be nice to hear from a 280 or 300SL owner, though............

I've looked up the official fuel consumption figures for the 6-cyl R129s if that helps any:

280 - City: 16.1 mpg, Extra-Urban: 31.4 mpg, Combined: 23.2 mpg
320 - City: 15.4 mpg, Extra-Urban: 30.7 mpg, Combined: 22.6 mpg

Compared with:

500 - City: 12.9 mpg, Extra-Urban: 28.5 mpg, Combined: 19.8 mpg

 

[superaquarama]

Thanks for the further info, and duly corrected on Sports Leicht !

The '81Motor road test of the 500SL 'as tested' was 1727kg or 34 cwt, whilst the 560SL for '88 weighed 3720 lbs, 33.2 cwt. This compared with a 'Vette @ 3490lbs, Allante @ 3645lbs, 328 GTS @ 3340lbs and a 911 cabrio @ 3090lbs.

So actually they're not massively heavy, in fact another test gives it at just 30.2 cwt, with the XJS conv. @ 37.8 cwt; although on test the latter had better fuel consumption, 17.4 mpg overall as opposed to the SL's 14.7.

 

[BTB 500]

in fact another test gives it at just 30.2 cwt

Weights are notoriously difficult things to quote consistently, kerbweight versus unladen weight etc!