Nice 'cheap' SL for Summer

[LTD]

Wanted - nice SL
Wanted - funds to buy

Ain't life a bitch

 

[NuisanceValue]

Depends what you are using the car for really. The R129's boot is a lot more practical than the R230's. Then you have the rear seats; even if you don't use them for kids they are handy for coats etc.

I had originally planned to 'upgrade' to a 230 but now I think I will hang on to the 129.

Likewise, I keep looking at R230's but I'm waiting for prices to drop further on 55's and 600's. With regards to practicality, I agree the R129 is great, we have managed to get a whole weeks of camping gear in ours for a trip to the Highlands, including food, firewood, cooking gear, tent, sleeping gear, loads of drink etc., and the back seats were invaluable.

 

[MD5]

Likewise, I keep looking at R230's but I'm waiting for prices to drop further on 55's and 600's. With regards to practicality, I agree the R129 is great, we have managed to get a whole weeks of camping gear in ours for a trip to the Highlands, including food, firewood, cooking gear, tent, sleeping gear, loads of drink etc., and the back seats were invaluable.

= roughly the same volume my mrs. packs for a weekend away! I think the 129s are so much value for the money at the moment, and are probably the best SLs made to date. Unfortunately, they are a bit of an ugly duckling in some people's eyes, but I love them.

All the things BTB mentions plus the wording in the ad would put me off this car, but I do like the colour. Anyone know what it is?

 

[Setanta]

Don't get me wrong, I love the R129 (had two of them) but unless you have a garage, the roof is a right PITA and even a practical matter of getting caught out in the rain with the softtop up means that you cannot put it down (mildew) and the hardtop on till it dries out.

The rear seats are very handy.

In dark colours, the R230 is absolutely stunning, even after all these years and despite the *cough* facelift

 

[swithin]

I have both a SL320 and SL500 R129 (1997 & 1999) and with regards to fuel consumption, the 320 definately gives better mpg and not just slightly. Granted I need a good run on the motorway to be completely accurate, though round town i have managed just 110 miles on half a tank in the 500, can get 150-160 miles in the 320. Remember the 500 has a lovely noise to it and packs a fair bit of punch when you bury your right foot into the carpet, which I find myself doing more often than in the 320. Therefore although official figures may show a small decrease in MPG betyween the 500 and the 320, in real life the difference can be substantialy more. I also agree that these beauties are not moving as fast as they should as mine has been in pistonheads for 3 weeks now and not received a single call. Just put it up on Ebay this morning and not asking for silly money either. I was also looking at a 230 but the lack of rear seats, which I do use on a regular basis for kids, wife's shopping/luggage etc was a turn off. If you want a 2 seater isn't that what the SLK is for??

 

[CHRIS STARKEY]

I always worry about 320s and the head gasket issue....should I? I'm in the market for an SL of about this value, but wonder whether a 500 would be better. I know they are similar mpg and the 500 is faster etc, but there are so many more 320 available...I'm confused of what to do!

Personally I would stick to the older 129's the 3 litre engines (not 24valve) are bomb proof & you can get classic insurance for peanuts.
Our 300SL has done 150,000 runs like a watch & costs £185 fully comp to insure.
My nephew has the later model ('96 if you call that newer!) & has had trouble with the extra complicated bits they use like the windows dropping when you open the door.
As swithin says the 500 & 300 may do similar MPG on paper but they don't on the road.

Just my opinion