Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

W140 S420 v S500?

34K views 33 replies 16 participants last post by  1994v12 
#1 ·
Advance apologies for this type of question...I searched the archives and didn't see anything very straight forward.

I am searching for the right S420 (1997 - 1999) and have come across a few that look good but have not taken one for PPI yet.

I have seen some S500's as well that were well maintained (all records, etc.).

What should I know about choosing the 420 over the 500 or vice versa (other than the displacement <grin>)?

Thanks!

SG
 
#2 ·
I'd go with the 500 because it's basically the same engine, but with just more displacement. Both engines share the same advantages and disadvantages, and the same characteristics in daily driveability and reliability. The 500 has a lot of things standard that the 320 and 420 have as optional too, and that's the main selling point for me. And it's the premiere V-8 Mercedes, and for many the premier regular (non V-12) Merc.
 
#3 ·
when i bought my 98 s420 new the price difference between the 420 and the 500 was about 10 or 11k.

i couldn't justify spending the extra money for slightly better performance and a slightly bigger engine.

the 420 has enough power to get it going and passing power is ample. another selling point was the 420 was cheaper to insure over the 500. if i got the 500 i would have to pay a 300 dollar premium every 6 months.

either way, you can't go wrong with the v8's. just don't get the 320 b/c i feel its underpowered.
 
#11 ·
when i bought my 98 s420 new the price difference between the 420 and the 500 was about 10 or 11k.

i couldn't justify spending the extra money for slightly better performance and a slightly bigger engine.

the 420 has enough power to get it going and passing power is ample. another selling point was the 420 was cheaper to insure over the 500. if i got the 500 i would have to pay a 300 dollar premium every 6 months.

either way, you can't go wrong with the v8's. just don't get the 320 b/c i feel its underpowered.

When it comes to "power" you really have to look at your surroundings - for me - a 500 in a Tokyo traffic jam is no more powerful than a 420 or 320.
 
#4 ·
I would go with the S500 but whichever you choose the issue really isn`t the engine size. The real points to consider are the service and maintenance history of the car and the model year. By 1997 Mercedes had probably addressed most of the major gremlins that were a major pain with W140 ownership. However they are complicated cars and they need to be serviced and maintained in accordance with the recommended schedule. This is very expensive if done within the MB franchise but manageable if you use a good indie.

Look for comprehensive service records.

The 500 gives you more BHP and more importantly more torque than the S420 but with very little downside on fuel consumption..less than a mile per gallon in all conditions ie around town, on the freeway and combined.

As has been pointed out by W140FTW the 500s tend to have more kit fitted than standard as well.

By the way the S320 is not underpowered. I have owned one and the 232bhp is more than adequate. Having said that I have been running a 500 for the last two and half years and it is really nice.

If you get a nice one they are all great cars...even the S280 which the US never saw.
 
#24 ·
I would go with the S500 but whichever you choose the issue really isn`t the engine size. The real points to consider are the service and maintenance history of the car and the model year. By 1997 Mercedes had probably addressed most of the major gremlins that were a major pain with W140 ownership. However they are complicated cars and they need to be serviced and maintained in accordance with the recommended schedule. This is very expensive if done within the MB franchise but manageable if you use a good indie.

Look for comprehensive service records.

The 500 gives you more BHP and more importantly more torque than the S420 but with very little downside on fuel consumption..less than a mile per gallon in all conditions ie around town, on the freeway and combined.

As has been pointed out by W140FTW the 500s tend to have more kit fitted than standard as well.

By the way the S320 is not underpowered. I have owned one and the 232bhp is more than adequate. Having said that I have been running a 500 for the last two and half years and it is really nice.

If you get a nice one they are all great cars...even the S280 which the US never saw.
I agree, not underpowered at all.
 
#5 ·
On U.S. spec cars, what I like better on 500s over 420s (besides the slightly higher power and performance figures) is the burled walnut wood interior on the 500 against the zebrano wood finish on the 420.

Although, I rather pick a 420 with excellent maintenance records and low mileage over a 500 with questionable history.
 
#7 ·
Thanks for the GREAT input! I really appreciate it.

As the owner of a '92 Range Rover County and having run through a few Alfa's and MG's in my time...I am fully on-board with the requirement to have excellent records and a thorough PPI.

Best,

SG
 
#8 ·
420

I think all 500s have the special air suspension which would probably need some expensive maintenance at some point. If that just got done on a 500 it would be good. I'd get a 420 over the 320 or diesel. I hear 320 is known to have an engine seal problem after a good bit of mileage. Make sure you are not getting two of everything with the 500. I think that is more of a concern with the 600 (twice the cost on some parts.) In theory, you've got $20,000 more stuff with the 500. If you are a mechanic or close enough, then get the 500 since you can do the labor and I am sure will enjoy the difference.
 
#9 ·
The 500s do have a Hydropneumatic (hydraulic) Self Leveling rear suspension as standard, but I'd imagine a lot of the 320's and 420's have that too. Mine does, and I've had no problems with it. And if something does go bad, it's not the entire suspension, but rather one part that is fairly cheap to remedy. I can't remember what that part is named, but I made a thread about this a week or so ago and my question was answered there.
 
#15 · (Edited)
Yeah, S500 is more powerful, but the hydropneumatic self levelling suspension (SLS) is more complicated and expensive to maintain. It’s similar in some ways to the ABC suspension offered on the W220/C215, though less complicated. Accumulator spheres tend to fail for the suspension, hydraulic struts are expensive and can leak (especially if you keep driving following accumulator failure), SLS tandem pumps can fail if you lose oil by blowing a hose (say due to continued driving following an accumulator failure, or just age), SLS strut top mounts tend to need replacement as cars age, and SLS cars need finicky adjustment of ride height to have proper damping, else the rear suspension doesn’t feel right.

I’ve driven a bunch of W140 S500s and S600s before buying mine, and all had SLS issues of some form. Mine was the least bad of the SLS cars I’ve driven, but I think it’s still not right as the rear still feels substantially louder and harsher going over bumps than a lowly A or C class with ordinary suspension.

I recently changed out the accumulators, which helped a bit but the rear still rides with less grace a Corolla over bumps. I wanted to adjust the ride height setting in case insufficient static pressure in the accumulators is causing what feels like slow rebound, but the linkage adjustment is seized so I’ll need to change the SLS ride height linkage before being able to adjust it to see if this helps. If ride height adjustment doesn’t solve my crude feeling damping issues, I guess I’ll have to try replacing the struts and/or strut top mounts and/or springs, hoping that something fixes it.

The conventional rear suspension standard on the S420 is much simpler, more reliable, and cheaper to fix, while still riding great (certainly much better than the improperly functioning SLS on most used W140 S500s available for sale).

My understanding is that SLS should ride well and be more reliable than the later ABC overall, but I’m just a bit frustrated trying to get my SLS to feel right or even finding a single car for sale with properly functioning SLS in my area.
 
#10 ·
the s500 is quite a bit more powerful than the s420 if that's something you're looking for.

All things being equal i would most definitely pick the S420.
Why? because of one reason .... the SLS suspension fitted sandard to the S500s(in the rear). This suspension is a major pain in the ass to repair and will cost you a small fortune if any of the major components fail(i.e pump, shocks). Depending on mileage and records they might fail sooner rather than later.

If you use your car for hauling 3 people in the back on a regular basis than you might see some benefit from the SLS suspension but otherwise i would stay away from it.

the 500 also offers few extra standard features but it's all up for you to decide what you're going to use and what you won't need anyway.

just my $0.02 worth(i own a s500 btw so take that for what it's worth)

good luck with your purchase and whatever you buy be smart and have it looked at by a mechanic.
 
#13 ·
Just comparing the engine (apart from the power/torque) the sound is the main difference (420 is less "muscular" at higher revs) and possibly you may like the handling of the 420 slightly better than the 500. The marketplace clearly prefers the 500 over the 420.

In Australia almost all W140s had burl walnut (light or dark, almost always dark), 420s were almost exclusively short wheelbase and 500s were almost exclusively long.
 
#19 · (Edited)
Slightly tangential, my 1998 S600 has the SLS ADS etc etc. It rides very nice, but... My 1999 CL500 with standard W140 suspension rides phenomenally. But it has almost all new suspension components at 163k. And now with the new Pirellis Cinturato P7 AS II, I can hardly feel any bumps on the road at all, it is unbelievably good.
 
#20 ·
the original OP was from 2008, but I'll bite...
the bare minimum engine for a heavy 5000lb. W140, is the 5 liters S500, V8
and preferably the V12
the 4.2 liter is severely underpowered considering the heft it has to carry around...
it's a slug with the 4.2
 
#22 ·
Speaking of SLS, I’ll share an update on my S500. The rear suspension on my car was riding harshly even after replacing the spheres, and it felt a bit noisier over bumps than I thought an S class should be. I had some rear lower suspension bushings replaced, and that mostly fixed the noise over bumps, but the car’s damping still felt harsh. I adjusted the SLS ride height linkage to raise the rear roughly one centimetre, and that substantially improved the damping. It feels mostly fine now, but it still isn’t as smooth over big bumps as my old W126 300SE with conventional suspension. My W126 could soak up big potholes and recessed manhole covers with ease, while my W140 still feels like it clomps over larger sharp dips and bumps.

Anyway, getting SLS to ride right can be tricky, and I’d rather have the conventional suspension of an S420 over the SLS of the S500. Probably ADS on an S600 would ride better, but that’s even more complicated and difficult to diagnose issues with.
 
#25 ·
300/320s came with 4 and 5 speed, and I believe the 280 has a different rear ratio.

Comparing the 320/5 with the 500/4 speeds I've owned, I would say it's fundamentally the same car below 60 mph, but the fuel consumption is also almost the same (maybe 5% more for the 500?).

You could also argue the inline 6 has more of the V12's character than the V8 (until pushed over 60).

Just personally I believe the 420 is the best of them all, the smaller volume per cylinder improves the engine note over the 500 and it's the shortest/lightest(?) engine giving the best handling.

Now that they're all roughly the same cost the V12 makes sense, but you'll close to double your fuel costs vs. the others if you daily drive it off the highway.

I suspect the V12's design is about getting a certain HP to place the BMW V12 in its shadow rather than the best real world performance possible for the engine.

It's a "great" engine but for the extra capacity over the 500 it's negligibly better in real life.
 
#27 ·
The figures don't demonstrate that (even comparing 420 to 600 it's only ~1/2 second difference to 100 when tested repeatedly in real life vs the official figure).

It's one of the most curious criticisms of these cars... That they were over-engineered, but the engineers got the power outputs wrong.

You can compare the performance to the W220s power/weights and performance if you need further insight.
 
#29 ·
yep, that's what the S600 V12 was quoted as running bone stock, high 13's at 100mph. pretty damned good for 5000 lbs. that's average American vintage musclecar e.t. and that's not a bad place to be ! because with 1000 lbs. less girth is would be running 13.0's, which is where most old musclecars were with driver, 4000 lbs.
the S420 would be slug-gish in comparison
 
#34 · (Edited)
my W140 handles damned good with radial 235/50/18 tires. better than my vintage past Pontiac GTO, Firebird, and much better than a full size Grand Prix. that's saying a LOT because a Pontiac was the best all around road performance car GM made in many ways during the DeLorean design engineer years 1960-74. the W140 has a better ride, and faster top end than the old Pontiacs. and I really like my old Pontiacs. but they hit 120 mph then level off and slowly climb from there, where the W140 V12 it headed for 160mph+ in a flash, nad definitely corners better than a Pontiac at speed. yet the W140 weighs 1000-1200 lbs. MORE than the Pontiacs with me in it. like I said previous post,high 13's from a car that weighs 5000 lbs. plus, is STUNNING. with a 2.65 rear gear yet, that gets 18mpg highway on a 12 mile trip. you can put it in 3rd for performance back road driving. these cars were and are amazing, just had some quality issues from Benz cheaping out on wiring, and using plastic where they shoulda used METAL, and putting components in places you can't get at them easily. this form of OBD1 is really prototype OBD2 and the only downside is the many large ECM's and special plug in to diagnose/scan them. but it can all be done easily with any old Snap On red brick scanner. and some silly options that were just dumb fluff here and there, like trunk and door soft close, window close. if this Benz was put on a diet for some serious competition, it would drop times even faster. knock 1000 lbs. off and it drops 1 second into the high 12's in the 1/4 mile. here's the kicker, that is with STOCK HEADS, STOCK CAMS, STOCK HEADERS, STOCK MAFS, STOCK INTAKE MANIFOLD/THROTTLE BODIES. amazing. the heads on the V12 flow equal to standard heads on a Pontiac 7 liter 428 or 7.4 liters 455. and only slightly less than the vaunted Pontiac Pontiac Ram Air IV and Ram Air V heads at corresponding valve lift under .500". Keep in mind the Benz still has 2 DISTRIBUTORS for ignition which is ancient tech now !! I flow tested them all. the Benz heads flow quite well for a 6 liter, 4 valve head. Perfect street heads. I'm not easily impressed by European or Japanese cars, unless they're a vintage Lambo, Ferrari, or Maserati pre-1974. but this Benz did impress me, and that's saying a lot believe me...I've bashed these cars for decades as overpriced, overweight POS's but the W140 changed my mind once I ironed out the defects. having said that, take away the cubic inches from 6 liter to 5 liter and below, you lose ALL OF THE ABOVE. a 4.2 in such a heavy car would and must be a heavy snail slug. there's 4 cylinder and V6 Toyotas, Hondas, Chevys, Fords that would eat it alive with only a 4.2 liter. I'm sorry to say the W140 is a V12 or nothing prospect. a V8 car maybe for the wife, but even then only if it was a 5.0 liter. as it is now, when I'm on the highway interstate and anyone wants to mess with me, I drop the hammer and walk away from the big Hemi and LS V8 trucks and SUV's like they're standing still. they are little flies in my rear view mirror pulling back into the slow lane, realizing no way they can mess with me. it would have to be a newer blown Caddy or new blown Challenger, Mustang, or rear engine Vette to really hang with and beat a well tuned W140 V12. even then the W140 would give those cars a run for their money on the open highway. when the speedo gets past 100 it is whipping to the right faster than you can follow it to keep your eye on the road at the same time. you will be at 160 like now man hang on. it's a machine. I grew up on 400-500HP musclecars and there's nothing lost here with the W140. where the musclecars are all done at 120mph the W140 is just getting started, believe me...
 
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