Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 7 of 7 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
So far have driven a '92 & a '97. Both not garage queens & little service history on either. The '92 a 2 owner car, owned now 6 yrs. by seller.The '97 has not been in a dealership for half of its life if the service book is accurate. I want to like this series but suspension in both was rough riding. Steering was not loose or vague in either however just heavier than a rack & pinion system which I anticipated. The older had 100k on it & the newer had 68k, not high mileage for their age. Due to the weight of these cars are they especially hard on the suspension? Tyres make a hugh difference but I am sensing there is more here than just tyres. Can anyone shed some light on this? TIA!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
I'm not sure what you're experiencing as far as suspension, but they do tend to ride firm. I'd lean towards the 97 for sure just because of the updates that happened in the 96 and newer cars.
The lower mileage is a plus, but maintenance is essential in these cars whether is was done at a dealer or by an independent shop.
What are they asking for it? Pictures?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Agreed the '96-'98 is the way to go. Here is a link to the '92. 92 Mercedes SL500
It does have the hardtop included, paint is original & good overall. I figure it is a $6k car. Owner has only done oil changes in the last 6 yrs, average of 1k per yr. driving. Needs tyres but drove well other than the ruff ride. Interior v.clean no cracks or damage in seats or dash. Suspension is the same '92 vs '96 right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
Yes, the suspension is essentially the same. I agree, $10K is too much for that car. I paid that for my 98 about 3 months ago, and it had been serviced by the dealer all it's life.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
385 Posts
Absolutely agree that the 97 is preferable to the 92.
Simple job to replace front struts and mounts, rear shocks.
THen go through all the usual fluid changes and see how it goes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
235 Posts
So far have driven a '92 & a '97. Both not garage queens & little service history on either. The '92 a 2 owner car, owned now 6 yrs. by seller.The '97 has not been in a dealership for half of its life if the service book is accurate. I want to like this series but suspension in both was rough riding. Steering was not loose or vague in either however just heavier than a rack & pinion system which I anticipated. The older had 100k on it & the newer had 68k, not high mileage for their age. Due to the weight of these cars are they especially hard on the suspension? Tyres make a hugh difference but I am sensing there is more here than just tyres. Can anyone shed some light on this? TIA!
97 for sure. I had 92 and now have 98. Bought 98 in excellent condition earlier this year for $10k after I totaled 92.
btw. you are not that far from LA (Los Angeles area), you can find some nice sl there for good price. My first one came from LA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
134 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
The '97 I looked at was on a new car lot recently traded in. It was from the LA area until 2002 when it came to AZ w/30k. Car did not appear to have any love given to it in the last 38k miles. Sport mode with the 5 spd. auto is a nice feature. Having driven a variety of Saabs over the last 20k years, these cars are a whole different animal & imho not as lively in the driving experience as the Saabs. I would not consider a Saab a sports car but more a touring car such as these cars are. Tomorrow I will drive an early BMW M Roadster & an early Z-3. Half the fun of buying a car is the search.
 
1 - 7 of 7 Posts
Top