Shopping for R129 - advice please....

[Gregp]

Hi All,
I am a bit of a newby so please be gentle with me.
I am looking for a R129 and would appreciate your advice and guidance.

I am trying to decide between the SL300-24 and the SL500 and from what I have heard the SL500 is really the one to get. It obviously has m[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]uch more power than the SL320 or 300-24, but I understand there is very little difference in fuel consumption. This seems a bit difficult to believe so could someone who has an SL500 please let me know what the "real world" fuel consumption is like.

[/FONT]Is there anyone who has had experience of both cars and can guide me?
What do I need to lookout for?
Is there anything bad I need to know about either of these cars?
What do I need to look at when looking them?
What questions do I need to ask the owner?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
Also, with the SL500 it seems that in 1995 the transmission was [/FONT]changed from 4-speed hydraulic to 5-speed electronic. In 1998 they changed the engine from the M119 to a less powerful version - so I guess the one to look for is an SL500 between 95 and 98. Is that correct?

The SL500 seems to have been pretty much fully loaded from the start, so what were the available and desirable options with these cars.
What options should I look for on the SL300-24?

Finally, does anyone know of any that are for sale and look interesting?
Your help would be much appreciated!

 

[d w124]

Welcome to the forum.I don`t know much about R129,but all i know is that the SL300-24 is the early M104 engine,is much better than the later one.The same power as SL320,but i does not have problems with the loom.

 

[stevieb15]

Hi,
I bought a 1999 SL500 in March of this year, its actually a 1998 with the more powerful engine but I think it may have hung around a bit before being sold, probably due to the slightly unusual colour, I think it was a frustrated special order . I understand the later engine had greater torque so every day performance is probably similar to the earlier engined models.
My mileage is fairly mixed but I think it fair to say you don't buy a 5 litre car if fuel economy is an issue, however I do take note of my consumption because I think an unexpected increase does give an early indication if something is wrong with the car.
In my general mix of driving somewhere between 18 and 22 is the norm and the lowest I have seen is high 16s. On a run the most I have seen is 27 and a bit, and the average across 7000 miles in 5 months is a little over 23. I have just returned from France, a round trip of 1260 miles and got 26 overall. Incidentally I have tried both Super Unleaded and the usual stuff and as far as I can work out there is absolutely no discernable difference in either power or consumption between the two.
I'm not sure about equipment levels, I think most of them came with everything but the panoramic roof is certainly something really worth having and I dont think it was standard until quite late in the models life.
In terms of finding a good one, I spent ages before I found what I wanted, which was low miles, great condition, FMBSH, and I love it.
Hope this helps and you find one to suit you.

 

[stats007]

Lots of information on the forum about buying these cars. Have a look here and here for starters.

The later M113 engine for the 1999 model year (08/98) has a better power-to-weight ratio than the M119 and a broader torque curve as shown here.

Make yourself a cuppa and have a search - pretty much anything you can think of has been discussed before .

 

[Roger Jones]

"the SL300-24 is the early M104 engine,is much better than the later one."

That may be if you like an engine that delivers maximum torque high up the range (272 Nm at 4600 rpm) and enjoy high revs (max. 7000). I have the M104 3.2 in my Coupé and two M103s in other cars. The 3.2 is distinctly smoother -- smooth as silk, actually -- and delivers maximum torque lower down (315 Nm at 3750 rpm; max revs 6400) in a band that makes sense with my relatively gentle driving. I recently talked to someone who had owned a M104-24 and he confirmed its somewhat highly strung characteristics without my prompting him.

Each to his own, but the R129 is surely an ideal car for relaxed cruising rather than pushing around aggressively. The 5.0 V8 is a natural (450/470 Nm at 4000/3900 rpm; max. revs 6000), but the 3.2 six is a fine power unit too.

 

[stats007]

300SL-24 with a manual gearbox would be nice. A 500 is the way to go though.

 

[IanA2]

I had a 92 129 and have a 97 129. No doubt in my mind which has the better build quality, the early one. That said there are good aspects to the later models. 500 is the way to go, with a good history, I wouldn't be scared of high mileage. I bought my 92 129at 90+K and other than routine servicing had very little else to do over about four years of ownership.

Good luck and have fun.

 

[MD5]

When looking for mine, one thingI remember when test driving one car, was the rollover bar flying up under hard braking, so don't be polite with the car when test driving, if you think it's the one for you. All kinds of faulty sensors could go undetected otherwise. One private seller didn't want me to drive his car, despite me bringing my insurance docs. I realised that the gearbox was playing up when he begrudgingly let me. Both of these were pre 96 cars, and I ended up with a 96 500. It would be worth while getting any fault codes read on any perspective purchase.

Now nearly six years of ownership and 138k on the clock and I am still delighted with the car, which became more of a daily driver than intended. Worst job to date was replacing the cats, and aircon won't be cheap! If the evaporator goes, it's dash out time!

 

[stats007]

Not heard of too many evaporators going (unlike on the Aston) - it's the condenser that tends to go.

 

[MD5]

True! Had a new condensor last year, plus unions and pipes. I hate aircon!

 

[Gregp]

Very helpful

Thank you very much to everyone for your rapid response and useful information, please keep it coming!

I had a test drive in a 300-24 last night and so can bear witness to the lack of lower down torque. I was quite surprised to find that the power did not really arrive until 4000+rpm and wondered whether it was specific to that car or typical of the engine. You have answered my query, thanks for the explanation.

I understand that prices have been dropping recently due to the "credit crunch effect".
Do you have any idea what sort of price should I expect to be paying for a good SL500?
Does anyone know of any good quality (and value) examples?

I noticed these two on Pistonheads today, does anyone know anything of them or their history?
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]MCP Motorsport : MERCEDES 500 SL - RHD [/FONT]
MCP Motorsport : MERCEDES 500 SL - RHD

They are both at the same dealer,does anyone know him or have any experience of buying from him?

Thanks for your help.

 

[Doodle]

MCP normally specialise in imported German exotica - M3's, tweaked Porsches, RS Audi's etc.

Most customers seem to be happy, but there is a bit of a price premium.

 

[stats007]

I'd go for a '97/'98 SL500 myself - or if you can find one a late model '99 facelift.

There's a 2001 '51 plate Silver Arrow up for £17k.

 

[kraftwerk]

The only time I've calculated the MPG for my car (97 500, 90k-ish miles at the time) was after a 1300-mile trip around the UK at Christmas last year. Mix of motorway, town, A- and B-road driving produced 24mpg. The car lives most of its life in the city, however, and consumption is doubled, at a guess.

As already mentioned, the 500 is the more complete car and there's a negligible difference in real-world consumption next to the six-cylinder model. Get the 500.

If you're worried about fuel, buy a Citroen C1 diesel instead.

 

[BTB 500]

Yup go for the 500. As Stats said, stretch to a 1996 model onward (facelift) car if you possibly can.

Driven gently you are looking at 28-29 mpg on a long run (I've done it). Stop/start & short runs will be less than half that - it is a 2 tonne car after all.

 

[Roger Jones]

The official MB figures are (city, 90kph, 120kph):

320
104.992: 14.4, 8.5, 10.0

500
119.960 KE: 16.6, 10.1, 12.0
119.972 LH: 16.0, 9.6, 14.5

Convert here, among other places:

Convert MPG to Litre (Miles Per Gallon to Liter Converter)

A friend of mine is also looking for a 129. As I said to him, if I were in the market for a quality two-seater, it would be a 129, but I'll stick to my more practical cars. Checking around for him, it looks like it shouldn't be difficult to find a good'un for under £10k. The general range seems to be £5k to £15k, and of course there's the Sultan of Brunei's car at Charles Ironside for £45k (see the August Mercedes Enthusiast). I've told him that my impression is that the 129 probably has the best build quality of the 1990s MBs and that the only corrosion problems I've seen reported were related to blocked drainage through the doors. I'd welcome further comment on this.

 

[stats007]

Minor corrosion issues. Rear bootlock on early cars, rear quarters on Panoramic roof and some rust in the boot. Front wings on early cars I've seen rust on though from stonechips.

 

[neilrr]

I've always liked the look of these brutes & think they've aged v. well.

Does anyone have or know of a list of what came as standard equipment through the years & what was optional? What are the 'must have' options?

Prices seem to be low & there are literally dozens of them available, surprising given the huge amount of money they were when new. What would those who keep their finger on the pulse of the R129 market think is the minimum spend to get a good car? I know it's both difficult & dangerous to generalise but would a £5K R129 be just a series of problems waiting to happen? Would a £7-8K one actually be cheaper & more satisfying in the long run?

Nobody has had much to say about the V6s. Anyone got an opinion?

 

[Will]

I'm absolutely no authority on R129s, but from what I understand - the 500 is probably the more desired model. Similar running costs to the six-cylinder cars and obviously much nicer to drive.

Possibly the larger-engined 500s come with a better standard specification? Later cars seem to get more equipment as standard too.

It seems as though later cars with panoramic roofs, decent colour combo and good service history/sensible mileage are the best buys. Like many cars I suspect it's worth paying more upfront for a well maintained faultless car rather than trying to buy a cheaper one that's got outstanding issues.

It would also seem quite unusual for somoene who owns a well maintained car to let it go for the prices of the 100k+ tatty trade cars. I guess they're somewhat 'enthusiasts' cars now due to their age etc and most people are well aware of what good ones are worth.

Will

 

[Sp!ke]

I've been looking for the right car for 6+ months and not found a decent 500 for sensible money yet.

£5k buys you either a high mileage dog or a very early example.

£10 and you start to see reasonable examples but I've not seen a single £10k minter yet and I've looked at loads now.

I'm beginning to change my opinion and start looking for a 320 as there's lots more to choose from and those that are around seem to have been much better cared for and are at least 30-40% cheaper.

This marginal difference in fuel consumption that people talk of is underplayed as well from the research I've done, especially with city driving.