'98 500 SL Pros and Cons ?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

CAT220

Active Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
230
Location
Glasgow
Car
w210 e55 estate
Interested in buying one of these around March next year have saw several low mileage examples (under 40,000) in the 15-20k mark. Whats everyone's opinion on these? Have checked the insurance and it less than £600 full comp for the year, id only really be using the car three times a week mostly at weekends so fuel consumption isnt really an issue.

Anyone know of any weak points on these?

Cheers,
C
 
1998 / 1999 was the boundary between the final facelift models and the engine change from the M119 32V V8 to the M113 24V twin-spark V8. If you're looking at that age then you may as well opt for the late model with subtle styling changes. I looked at both models and asked questions on forums and decided that the M113 was a better bet. It appears to be more reliable and has a variable inlet manifold creating a broader torque band at low revs, even though the peak bhp is slightly lower at 306. Drive both and see what you think. Options invariably up the price on these models - so check what you're getting - there are already a few threads that go through this, try:

http://www.mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=18371

£20k will get you a low mileage late model SL500 - £15k a 1996 50k miler I'd say.

If you have any specific questions then PM me. R129s are a great buy at the moment! Good luck :)
 
Arguably that's the best variant, post-facelift but still with the more powerful 32-valve engine. From '99 onwards it had a 24-valve engine. I have a '97 with 44k miles, fuel consumption isn't actually that bad ... particularly cruising at motorway speeds. But I'm also low mileage so not really bothered.

Full service history goes without saying, these are fairly complex cars and lack of maintenance could prove expensive later. Check everything electrical works as intended, things like the hood are likely to be costly if there are problems.
 
stats007 said:
even though the peak bhp is slightly lower at 306.

Yup it's not a huge difference, the M119 engine in my '97 is 320 bhp.
 
Performance figures are slightly quicker with the M113 engine (albeit minimal) due to the increased torque over a wide rev range. It's also a lighter engine with a different exhaust / CAT setup.
 
Very interesting about the torque range (and weight) because the peak torque is lower. The 113 is also meant to have a (deliberately) slightly louder exhaust note I think.
 
The pre 1998 cars were slightly quicker than the later model. Also it is cheaper to maintain with less consumable items as i believe the facelift model has 16 spark plugs instead of 8 etc.
The pre 1992 models had 322 BHP compared to the 302 of the last model.
The best built models were between 1996-1998 and more info can be found here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sl/

Tells you what year is better and why:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sl/history.htm
 
I have a reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeallllllllllllllyyyyyyyyyyyyyy old one and I love it :)

ummm not helpful but go go go - swipe that card - do that thang ;)

Don't wait til March get it now!!!!!

Oops
 
KLP 92 said:
The pre 1998 cars were slightly quicker than the later model. Also it is cheaper to maintain with less consumable items as i believe the facelift model has 16 spark plugs instead of 8 etc.
The pre 1992 models had 322 BHP compared to the 302 of the last model.
The best built models were between 1996-1998 and more info can be found here:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sl/

Tells you what year is better and why:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/sl/history.htm

I'm afraid that's just not true. I spoke to Ken whilst I was researching the models and he admits to favouring the mid series 129s as he owns one. He also knew little about the technical differences of the M119 & M113 engined cars - at the end of the day he is a photographer with an opinion on owning a MB like we all have. MB official figures show that the M113 series are slightly faster (we're talking 0.5sec), more economical and produce fewer harmful emissions.

As for consumables - the spark plugs should be changed once every 50k miles according to MB on the M113. It also uses 8 twin coil packs instead of distributors of which the M119 is known to have voltage tracking problems with - probably the most common cause of erratic running on these cars. The catalytic converters were also redesigned as again earlier cars had premature failure issues and a £1000 bill for most owners. The M113 engine is also the basis for the 43, 500, 55 and 55 Kompressor engines including the SLR.

When I was looking for a 129 I started out looking at the straight six, then V6 then M119 V8 and finally M113 V8. From what I can tell you'll have far less trouble running a later car than any of the M119 cars - which by the way went through 3 major revisons:

119.96*
119.97*
119.98*

- in which the coils and distributors, guide rails, oil guides, lifters, belt and tensioner and wiring loom were redesigned. The revisions also replaced camshafts, pistons, valve guides, crankshafts, cylinder heads and general improvements to increase economy / emissions with complete changes to fuel injection systems almost on a yearly basis. That's not to say they're not still great engines - just be aware of what you're buying. A '97 or '98 M119 or any of the M113 cars would be your best bet.

BTB 500 said:
Very interesting about the torque range (and weight) because the peak torque is lower. The 113 is also meant to have a (deliberately) slightly louder exhaust note I think.

The big difference is that the M119 of your car produces 470Nm @ 3900 rpm whereas the M113 produces 460Nm @ 2700 - 4250 rpm.

Some useful websites:

Used SL500s
R129 Club
MB Owners Club
US MB Forum
US SL Forum
US M119 information
Australian MB Forum
US Vehicle Technical Data
Honest John Vehicle Links
SL60 Info
SL73 Info
 
Last edited:
stats007 said:
A '97 or '98 M119 or any of the M113 cars would be your best bet.

No issues with the early M113 engines? Did that first appear in the '99 MY R129, or was it used in other vehicles before? Were there any significant revisions to it?

All good info!

PS Did US spec. cars differ slightly due to emission rules etc.? Ken's website gives 315 bhp for the 97-98 M119 whereas my UK spec. sheet for the '97 model year gives 320 bhp.

PPS did the lighter M113 reduce the R129's kerbweight? Mine is quoted as 1840 kg. Interesting that the SL60 AMG (same model year) is 1930 kg ... wonder where the extra 90 kg came from - the AMG wheels & bigger tyres?
 
I'm in the middle of compiling some info for late model 129s - just bought some original brochures etc - so watch this space!

US models do have a number of changes - to what extent I couldn't tell you though I know they got OBD2 a number of years before we did.

The weight issue will vary between cars and their spec anyway. The panoramic roof is 20kg heavier than the aluminium one, AMG bodykit slightly heavier as are the wheels, ADS etc etc. I have a figure of 1910Kg for your car so take it all with a pinch of salt.
 
Brilliant guys,

Thanks for all the replies and great info. Will be next year before i'm in a position to go ahead and get one but will keep you posted.

Cheers,
C
 
stats007 said:
I'm in the middle of compiling some info for late model 129s - just bought some original brochures etc - so watch this space!

Excellent! I have the original UK spec. sheet, price list, and A4 hardback brochure for my model year ... isn't eBay a wonderful thing :)
 
Great for towing caravans.

I think my R129 is actually rated to pull 2000 kg. Not sure that a towbar would rate as a desirable option on resale though ;)
 
stats007 said:
You'll be glad to know the next series SL will have a diesel variant :eek:

Seriously?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom