280: 0-62 in 9.9 secs
320: 0-62 in 8.4 secs
And the 280's combined mpg figure is only 0.6 mpg better (23.2 vs 22.6).
320: 0-62 in 8.4 secs
And the 280's combined mpg figure is only 0.6 mpg better (23.2 vs 22.6).
masmas
Member
Hiya I have a 320w129 and to be honest,if I had wanted a quick car i`d have bought a scooby,but driving the sl is somthing else , you don`t even feel like you want to go sub 6 seconds anywhere,give them chance to have a good look!i`d have been fine with a 280 no probs.
Try a 500. Probably the most reliable engine in the R129, and the power and torque make for a relaxed drive.
IanA2
MB Enthusiast
And costs you less in petrol......
thanks for the info guys, i would love a 500 but as a daily driver i think running costs would kill me, my 320 clk v6 is just about managable so a 500 would be painful, i would like a 320 v6 sl but they are out of my price range.
Fuel-wise you might be surprised at how small the difference is between a 280 and a 500
Urban cycle: 3.2 mpg
Extra-urban cycle: 2.9 mpg
Combined cycle: 3.4 mpg
Dont care if u guys have the car or not, but there is a massive difference in economy between the v8 and the 320 or 280, i know its carrying about 1.8 tonnes but still.
If you drive a little enthusiastically with a V8 its easy to see 14mpg! something that would never occur with the 320, and i've seen this with a c43 which is only 4.3 litre v8 carrying alot less weight.
And if he will use it as a daily driver, and your saying the diff between the 500 and the 280 is 3.4mpg (ill take your combined cycle number for arguements sake), assume the average person will use 2 full fuel tanks per month, which for an SL is 70 litres? so thats 12.7 gallons x2 = 25.4 gallons of fuel. And if we assume the 3.4mpg is the diff between the 280 and the 500 as stated by BTB_500 above, then you are missing out on 86.36 miles.
I do 90 miles a week to work an back, so thats a whole week of fuel i have to pay for extra because i'm in a 500 rather than a 280!
Not being a killjoy here, (or trying to contradict myself either), but if you can afford the 500 then definately go for it, but dont be fooled into thinking it will have anywhere near the same running costs as a 280 or 320 like some people are suggesting. Fuel consumption is one of the many things that they consume, dont want to go into oil plugs or servicing (ok maybe not insurance if your older than me). But i would personally opt for the 320 over the 280, i agree with most people here that the 280 was very underpowered and badly specced both in the SL and the S-class of that era.
Just my 2p
If you drive a little enthusiastically with a V8 its easy to see 14mpg! something that would never occur with the 320, and i've seen this with a c43 which is only 4.3 litre v8 carrying alot less weight.
And if he will use it as a daily driver, and your saying the diff between the 500 and the 280 is 3.4mpg (ill take your combined cycle number for arguements sake), assume the average person will use 2 full fuel tanks per month, which for an SL is 70 litres? so thats 12.7 gallons x2 = 25.4 gallons of fuel. And if we assume the 3.4mpg is the diff between the 280 and the 500 as stated by BTB_500 above, then you are missing out on 86.36 miles.
I do 90 miles a week to work an back, so thats a whole week of fuel i have to pay for extra because i'm in a 500 rather than a 280!
Not being a killjoy here, (or trying to contradict myself either
), but if you can afford the 500 then definately go for it, but dont be fooled into thinking it will have anywhere near the same running costs as a 280 or 320 like some people are suggesting. Fuel consumption is one of the many things that they consume, dont want to go into oil plugs or servicing (ok maybe not insurance if your older than me). But i would personally opt for the 320 over the 280, i agree with most people here that the 280 was very underpowered and badly specced both in the SL and the S-class of that era.Just my 2p
Last edited:
R129 tank is 80 litres / 17.6 gallons.
Go for a 320 and the fuel saving compared to a 500 drops to:
Urban: 2.5 mpg
Extra-urban: 2.2 mpg
Combined: 2.8 mpg
My SL500 costs about the same on fuel as my Vito. When diesel was more expensive recently it was cheaper to go in the SL.
Go for a 320 and the fuel saving compared to a 500 drops to:
Urban: 2.5 mpg
Extra-urban: 2.2 mpg
Combined: 2.8 mpg
My SL500 costs about the same on fuel as my Vito. When diesel was more expensive recently it was cheaper to go in the SL.
Sorry Adam but your opinion isn't really valid unless you have owned and run a V8 on a daily basis. The C43 produces the same bhp as the M113 500 as it is in a higher state of tune. Admittedly you're not going to see much more than 28mpg cruising in a 500 but if you're enthusiastic with any car the mpg will halve.
Given the fact residuals for the 500s are better and in higher demand, the extra fuel and servicing costs are outweighed by lower depreciation.
Insurance costs are fairly irrelevant as they qualify for classic insurance - my first SL500 cost me £500 a year when I was 28.
Doodle
MB Enthusiast
Ive thrashed mine to bits on a full tank (which is 60 litres) and the minimum i have EVER seen is 280 miles. (26mpg-ish)
And it performs very close to the what the 320 does.
I know i've never owned one but having a 5 litre engine cannot have the same running costs as a 3.2 litre engine.... it just doesn't make sense i'm sorry i just dont see it
.
Doodle
MB Enthusiast
When you're trying to shift the best part of 2 tons, grunt counts for a lot.
The V8 has to work significantly less hard than the sixes do, helping to claw back the figures. Think Top Gear, with the Prius and M3.
The V8 has to work significantly less hard than the sixes do, helping to claw back the figures. Think Top Gear, with the Prius and M3.
