W129 SL320 or SL500?

[gbjeppm]

All,

I am new to the forum, not particularly new to MBenz, but not currently an owner. I have decided that it is time to own another, and I have always loved the W129 SL, they are now cheap enough for me to entertain buying one to run mainly as a summer car.

I would like to gauge views on whether to go for the SL320 or SL500, I am prepared to wait for the right car, economy is not really an issue, as I am not proposing to do a great many miles.

What I am looking for is real luxury, a head turner (it must be blue with cream leather), and I would like a reasonable degree of assurance that it is not going to give me any really nasty electrical problems. These are 10 years old + and I know I cannot expect to not spend any money on it, but I would like to avoid the unexpected.

Anybody have any views on the W129 they would like to share with me, or with the other readers.

Great site by the way.

Matt

 

[e55]

If you want a real head turner..........go for the SL60

 

[gaz_l]

If you want a real head turner..........go for the SL60

Or buy a 500 and saw off the back boxes

Cheers,

Gaz

 

[BTB 500]

Hi Matt, and welcome to the Forum.

If you search on "R129" you will find tons of information as your query is a fairly common one.

320s are more plentiful and will be a bit cheaper to insure, but in fact fuel consumption is only marginally better than the 500. So I would suggest waiting for a good 500. On a long run I get 26-28 mpg from mine, which is pretty good, IMO.

 

[reflexboy]

Hi Matt and welcome! I know absolutely nothing about the W129 variant, but have heard from many people that the 500 is the one to go for.

 

[KLP 92]

Having owned both i would definately go for a SL500. I wouldn't think twice about it, the 500 is so much more relaxing to drive due to the power being available throughout the rev band.

The 320s aren't slow, just need to be revved to get the best out of them. Economy wise, there's not a noticable difference between them, i just found myself driving the 320 harder! When i had my V12 SL, tere was 20-30 miles per tank difference between fuel economy compared to forum member aka$h's SL 280!

 

[stats007]

As Nav says - a 500 every time. I would regard the six cylinder cars as slow for a sports car - and the V12 as unnecessary.

Bide your time and look at plenty of cars - even if they're not in the colour you want - you'll gain a lot of insight into what difference there really is in cars of varying price. You get what you pay for - there are a lot of 5+ owner cars out there for a reason!

 

[gbjeppm]

All, thanks for the useful info, and have been reading some really useful nuggets. Definitely not in a rush to find one, post 97 facelift seems to be the one for me, although there seems to be some of these out there with the old steering wheels on (if with the wood pack, is that normal?).

SL320's seem to be a lot more common, I suppose i need to drive one to make up my mind between the 2.

 

[stats007]

The facelifts were '96 and '99.

'97 is a good year to buy though '98 saw the introduction of Mobilo Life. A good 500 of this era with ~60k miles should be about £14k. Add £1k for a panoramic roof, which in my opinion is essential as it transforms the spacious feel of the car.

 

[l5foye]

Hi gbjeppm
Almost a year ago, I faced the same sort of situation as yourself (320v500). I drove quite a few of each and eventually settled on a 320. What I found was that the R129 tends to make you want to waft/cruise about,rather than burn rubber ( I hope fellow SL owners do not take offence at that). On a nice summer's day and the hood down, who wants to speed? Having experienced a Porsche 911 (one of the good ones) and a Mitsubishi Evo- they do want to make you 'race'- the question was -how soon would I lose my licence. Maybe it is old age or something but with the SL, I am quite content to travel briskly as opposed to 'race'. I did of course have to find out what the 320 would do. After getting to 150 on the clock (once and once only), I went back to more sedate driving, relatively speaking. My advice- buy on condition, service record etc but not on engine size.

 

[BTB 500]

I drive my 500 fairly sedately, the auto gearbox has a lot to do with that. That's why I've modified the exhaust system - it was virtually silent before unless really pressing on ... big risk to licence. But for me the V8 was the reason for getting an R129 in the first place

Re. steering wheels, the standard post-97 facelift one slightly lets the interior down IMO and is the one thing I'd like to change (even a chromed star on the airbag cover would make a big difference). As posted in the past though a 'wood & leather' one from M-B worked out at almost £2.5k

http://mbclub.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=26950

... and most of the aftermarket / eBay ones don't include an airbag (for postage/shipping reasons).

 

[stats007]

Hi gbjeppm
Almost a year ago, I faced the same sort of situation as yourself (320v500). I drove quite a few of each and eventually settled on a 320. What I found was that the R129 tends to make you want to waft/cruise about,rather than burn rubber ( I hope fellow SL owners do not take offence at that). On a nice summer's day and the hood down, who wants to speed? Having experienced a Porsche 911 (one of the good ones) and a Mitsubishi Evo- they do want to make you 'race'- the question was -how soon would I lose my licence. Maybe it is old age or something but with the SL, I am quite content to travel briskly as opposed to 'race'. I did of course have to find out what the 320 would do. After getting to 150 on the clock (once and once only), I went back to more sedate driving, relatively speaking. My advice- buy on condition, service record etc but not on engine size.

A bit of a strange argument that one. Rolls Royce, Bentley - even Jaguar XJs you would say were all designed to waft and cruise - yet nearly all potentially faster than a 500. Just because a car is capable of acheiving speed very quickly doesn't mean you have to race it!

Condition and service record are very important - but I'd decide what engine to have first.

 

[nickg]

Good morning Matt!

I've owned 3 SLs - a 320, and 2 SL60s - )see pics of mine in the members gallery posted yesterday) and driven all variants.

Here are my personal opinions.

The 320 has well-known head gasket issues and has no major advantages over the 500, particularly if your use will be casual/lowish miles of pleasure driving - get a 500 every time.
Drive both and you will instantly understand why you will want the 500 (although the 320 is still a wonderful car).
The '97 face lift is definitely what you want - modernised climate controls etc etc.
IMHO the pano roof is nice to have, but is much heavier than the metal (aluminium) roof and so more difficult to shift about.
I would always buy a car on the car's condition, rather than the roof, because you can buy a roof off ebay later if necessary and you so decide.

Good luck.
And when you've seen and driven all the rest come and have a drive in the SL60..........

nick

 

[stats007]

The SL60 would be the one to have though are in short supply. I noticed yours doesn't have an AMG exhaust Nick?

 

[GrahamC230K]

Dorain (member Doriant) had his fantastic SL320 for sale in the Classifieds a while back. Think it's a '98 I think blue/green or black/green whatever it's called and beige interior. Very nice spec with Xenons and Sat nav I recall. Hard top possibily panoramic too I think.

 

[nickg]

The SL60 would be the one to have though are in short supply. I noticed yours doesn't have an AMG exhaust Nick?

No, but it has an AMG engine..........

The car is as quiet and docile as a 320/500, until you bury your foot in the carpet and then it makes a very pleasant roar.

 

[stats007]

That's the photo you need to add to your recent post .

I thought all SL60s came with AMG exhausts as standard?

I've patched together some acceleration graphs for the R129 range:

Left to right:

SL60 (black line)
SL600
SL500 (M119)
SL320 (M104)
SL280

These are just acceleration from standstill to 150mph (where possible) with a passenger. I have in-gear times and fuel consumption ones which I can get together if anyone is interested.

Figures from the graphs roughly equate to:

0 - 100mph

SL60: 12s
SL600: 13s
SL500: 14s
SL320: 20s
SL280: 25s

0 - 150mph

SL600: 36s
SL60: 38s
SL500: 45s
SL320: 138mph @ 60s
SL280: 133mph @ 60s

Edit:

Dodgy link

 

[BTB 500]

I thought all SL60s came with AMG exhausts as standard?

AMG suspension was an extra, so I wouldn't be surprised if the exhaust was too.

AFAIK 'all' you got (compared to an SL500) was the AMG-modified V8, split-rim wheels, and body kit. Plus some badging etc. of course.

I would still love one ...

 

[stats007]

The AMG exhaust is listed as standard on the EPC for the SL60. The suspension was AMG as standard with a further option of fully adjustable according to the AMG forum. The brakes were uprated as well, stiffer torsion bar and recalibrated transmission and speedo with an AMG steering wheel.

Nick does your car have optioned suspension or AMG 'standard'? You can read the AMG logo and part number from the dampers.

 

[KLP 92]

I remember a debate on this forum regarding the 500 being as quick as the V12! 9s quicker quicker to 150mph, it certainly feels more responsive to drive!

Yes its excessive but it is quicker!