R129 SL s

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
I've not put the hard top on mine yet ... on the radio they were talking about 20C later this week?!!

thats why I am contemplating removal, although its pretty grim "oop north" today
 
20 to 24 mixed conditions worst/best case, the least I have ever seen is 16.91 all urban, the best 27.11 driving through France last year.
Average over 11600 miles 24
Yep that's about right....even my sixty doesn't do Spike's mate's consumption.

Nor for that matter does my M class which is a pig....I get 19.8 out of that.
 
Last edited:
A mate of mine recently bought a '95 SL500 and is reporting only getting 17mpg driving normally. :eek:

If this is to be expected then I'm starting to think the 320 is a better option.

I'm sure he could improve on his fuel usage if he tried to but then if you are going to drive like a nun then whats the point? :dk:

So what sort of MPG are you lot getting under norrmal usage (not best case, driving like Miss Daisy)?

The 'combined' book figures are 19.8 mpg for the 500 and 22.6 for the 320. 2.8 mpg wouldn't change my mind ;)

It's a 2 tonne car (near enough) - stop/start drving is going to use a lot of fuel, no matter which engine you have.

I've only worked out the consumption on mine occasionally (no trip computer), I know on a long motorway run it's nudging 30 mpg (book 'extra-urban' figure is 28.5).
 
The 'combined' book figures are 19.8 mpg for the 500 and 22.6 for the 320.

I suspect that in real life driving conditions that the figures would be even closer than that, and that the 500 might just have the edge. And as you say, even if the figures are true, it's a tiny difference for a lot more fun:D
 
I've had my SL 500 for eight weeks and the cumulative average so far is 23 mpg. I'm expecting that to rise a little because of one or two special factors, and it's been almost all with the roof open, so I guess that takes its toll too. I did 25+ on one long trip with roof open and a passenger on board. My driving style is fairly gentle.

I've just checked the official MB figures and am surprised that the earlier 119.960 engine is supposed to deliver 24 mpg at 75 mph, whereas the later 119.972 is 19 mpg. Mine's the 119.982, but my source doesn't cover it and the M113 successor.
 
Last edited:
With helium in my right boot I can get 28 - 30 on a run but that's a waste of a great car. Enjoying the car but still acting my age (well, sort of) 22 - 26 is about it depending on the type of journey.
 
Yes aerodynamic drag is a lot higher with the hood down, which affects fuel consumption at higher speeds.

The car is also sleeker with the hard top on than with the hood up (Cd 0.32 vs 0.34).

Just to show how much things have moved on since then ... my Vito has a Cd of 0.33!
 
Yes aerodynamic drag is a lot higher with the hood down, which affects fuel consumption at higher speeds.

The car is also sleeker with the hard top on than with the hood up (Cd 0.32 vs 0.34).

Just to show how much things have moved on since then ... my Vito has a Cd of 0.33!

a great van in the making perhaps the other club will appoint a captain
 
Mine's normally low-mid 20's, but I don't use it for commuting.
 
Mid to low 20's seems very nice in a SL500 as my V70 2.4 petrol on manages 23mpg on short trips....
 
i use my car for daily commuting (20 miles per day) and i get exactly 20mpg consistently over the last year.

it is a mix or A roads and crossing thru some small villages, as soon as i do longer stretches on the Motorway MPG goes up to about 25mpg

also still have not bothered with putting the hard top back on, but this is due to lack of neighbourly help (they seem to be away when i want to put it back on) and my wife things it is too heavy for her (it isn't but who am i to convince her :) )
 
A mate of mine recently bought a '95 SL500 and is reporting only getting 17mpg driving normally. :eek:

If this is to be expected then I'm starting to think the 320 is a better option.

I'm sure he could improve on his fuel usage if he tried to but then if you are going to drive like a nun then whats the point? :dk:

So what sort of MPG are you lot getting under norrmal usage (not best case, driving like Miss Daisy)?

I've spoken to the same chap who has now decided that he is was mistaken. The fool can't subtract, and lost 100 miles. :eek:


He's now claiming 24.28 mpg :doh:
 
That sounds a bit more sensible.
 
You've lost me... and him I think.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom