Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Most desirable year 107 280SL?

7K views 15 replies 10 participants last post by  freshairfiend 
#1 ·
Is there a consensus on the most desirable year for the 280SL.
I have seen a couple for sale and the prices are all over the place.

I would also assume that the stick shift is probably worth more than the automatics.
 
#2 ·
I don't believe the 5 speed was available from about 1977-1981, but could be wrong about that. Personally, I think it all comes down to what features you'd prefer. I think some would say a 5-speed is the most desirable since it was only available in a m110 in the r/c107. The 350sl came with a 4-speed, and I believe that the 4-speed will always play second fiddle to at least the 3.5 4 speed.

I will say though, I think the 4-speeds seem to be more fun to drive through the first 4 gear though. I think the low gears may be geared better, but I don't really know. The early 74-76 5 speed might be better than the 81-85 one. In any case, I wouldn't turn down any manual trans r/c107.

The most unique would probably be the 74-76 5-speed d-jetronic.
 
#9 ·
Although, Pete's '79 ran like a raped ape with the 4 speed.
It still does. This '79 4 speed is a barrel of fun to drive. Sure seems to be livelier than it's rated HP.
I have to admit, my '84 with auto is no slouch either.

Which year 280SL is the best? I don't know that there is enough REAL difference from a drivers standpoint between any year R107 280 to affect value. The stick vs. auto discussion is probably more relevant to the individual, and condition is by far the biggest factor. The 560 seems to be the most "valuable" of the 107's- probably a crapshoot between the rest, with maybe the 500SL having an edge for those who know what they are looking at.

Good luck with your search!
 

Attachments

#5 ·
Interesting that an original question with regard to the most desirable year for the 280SL should be hijacked into a discussion on the superior qualities of a stick shift. For those who enjoy a stick shift I'm sure they feel that it is superior to an automatic, however a manual transmission is not a year and I believe the choice was available every year anyway. There are cars that really need a manual transmission, however very few cruisers (as opposed to performance cars) do, and I don't believe the 280SL is one of them. I hope the purists won't be too shocked by this "outrageous" statement. That said, I think perhaps the best year for a 280 SL is 1985 - the last year it was produced when all the bugs had been worked out. That was the reasoning I used when buying mine anyway.
 
#7 ·
Fair enough.

But to be honest....it's hard to mention the 280SL WITHOUT having the transmission discussion.
Having driven both options and having driven mine for 75,000 miles and Pete's 4 speed.....the manual transmission still has my vote.

Pick a year.:)

And let's not forget that this particular forum is FAMOUS for veering slightly OR drastically off topic....especially when the topic has been discussed in the past. One of it's quirks.
 
#10 · (Edited)
I like the 380 for it's weight advantage over the 560 and I assume the 280 is even lighter than
the 380.

A 280 with small bumpers-euro headlights and roll up windows would be neat IMO.
I don't need no stinkin air nor even a soft top---would only leave the garage on sunny days!

I am looking forward to driving my 560-hopefully by next weekend--if the shipper comes through.


Just looked up some numbers
560----3569 lbs
380----3395
280---1985 3395lbs

Probably not accurate as 0-60 for the 280 showed 8.7 and 9 something in another part of the arcticle.
 
#11 ·
My comments about the different manual transmissions being available during different year ranges was just one major item that someone might be concerned with if looking at manual trans 280sl cars. M110 certainly feel lighter than v8s even if they aren't. Perhaps it's the lack of torque and how they are usually geared, with a 3.58 or 3.69 rear end. Put that on a v8, and it's going to feel pretty light I bet.

I don't know about "working the bugs out". It seems to me that the cars got a little more complex over the years, and the earliest ines are the simplest. But the simplicity of k-jetronic over d-jetronic certainly is a win for simplicity.

Personally I never look at the "year" as something that makes me think any r107 280sl is any more desirable than any other. I believe it's all about the features the car has.

Someone told me that mine, a supposed 1985 280sl 5-speed is the most desirable. I personally think it's a crock of ____, but I guess it works out for me. Whatever.

And I've owned a bunch of 107s now.

- 73 450sl
- 78 450slc 5.0
- 81 280slc 4-speed
- 85 280sl
- 72 350sl (4.5) parts car
- 1973 450sl
- 1979 280sl
- 1979 450sl
- 1986 560sl parts car
- 1988 560sl parts car
- 1972 350sl 4-speed
- 1976 280slc parts car
- 1975 450slc

There's a few more not even worth mentioning.

My final comment on the topic, IMO, year for a 280sl r107 does not matter nearly as much as the features it has, which is always trumped by condition too.
 
#14 ·
1979 is best becasue its the one I have

Interesting this thread started on Saturday because that was when mine rolled off the transporter and I was asking the very same question.

1979 280 SLC was the one I bought.....but the best was probably the rust free CA example I missed days after I started looking a few months ago, but did not know any better.
 
#15 ·
Kinda like my 84 280SL 5spd. It was the first R107 I ever sat in, and drove. Was a dog when I bought it, but after replacing valve stem seals, adj. valves, replace dis. cap, wires, plugs, and fixed throttle linkage it runs like the proverbial "raped ape" The second R107 I ever drove was a 350SL with a 4spd Manual. It's owner, and I both agreed after driving both cars, that the 280SL felt torquier/more raw in its power than the 350SL. While the 350SL seemed more refined/smoother in its power. This summer a friend bought a 82 380SL, the power of the M110 feels slightly greater than the 380SL. We have not lined them up and done an actual test yet, but in a 360 mile drive the 280SL did use close to 3 gal less gas. The Manual really shines when going up winding mountain roads, the 380SL struggled to keep up, but some of this might be due to drivers attitude:smile

green R107 is the 350SL, blue my 280SL
 

Attachments

#16 ·
My final comment on the topic, IMO, year for a 280sl r107 does not matter nearly as much as the features it has, which is always trumped by condition too.[/QUOTE]

I think this puts it all in a nutshell. I guess we all have our preferences together with different reasons for enjoying these cars. The oohs and aahs a clean shiny 107 (any powertrain, any year) receives both parked and in transit are a big part of this but the smooth, effortless cruising and the sheer quality of the automobile - that's the ace of trumps.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top