choices, choices

[ianh]

Dear all.
a potted history....

If you read my past threads, you will note that I have had a 1978 450sl, a 1985 500sl, a 1988 560sel, a 1989 560sec and a 1991 300-24 ce in the last 3 years.
obviously, I like my Merc V8's (CE excused!!) but I have a dilemma. I now want an R129 but am genuinely unsure which one. I would normally just say V8 and be damned, but I am planning to use it as a daily runner (10 miles each way)

My question(s) is

Basically 320 or 500?
Did the 500 get the 5spd auto? Is that better on fuel?
Is there any difference in the drive of a 1990 to a 1997 (all things being equal)
Was there a better quality stereo in 1997? (Bose?)
I understand from the American sites that a 97 sl500 would be the one to have, having good power and a good spec?
Is the 320 powerful enough for non motorway driving? (ie do you have to rev it's nuts off to get anywhere?)
Likewise, is the extra 100bhp on the V8, a waste of time for normal driving?
Other than the engines, is there much difference in the price of consumables?
Is the panoramic roof worth having?
Like the 320, is the V8 common to other mercs? (cheaper repairs?)

I will have a budget of £7 - 7.5k

Any and all advice welcome

 

[BTB 500]

The 5-speed box was standard after the '96 facelift. It was an option (rare) for a while before that.

Bose was an option, not standard.

Most people like the panoramic roof, but I don't personally think the more "rounded" profile suits the 129. It's also heavier than the standard one.

I can dig out the official MPG figures tonight (I have a 1997 range brochure) but there's not much between the 320 and 500 in terms of fuel consumption. It's still a 2 tonne car (nearly) whichever you have!

Both engines are as used in many other models. The V8 is generally pretty bulletproof, the 6 can have head gasket issues.

I've not driven a 320 but the 500 doesn't feel mad/excessive at all.