Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi. I am considering purchasing a used SL - looking in the 91-93 range as I have seen them for sale quite often for under $20K.

Assuming the car has all the service records and has mileage less then 100K, what can I expect to go wrong within the next 50K miles? What is the worse case?

I can jusify buying a 20K car without a problem. Any new car would cerftainly ocst more. But, I am concerned that the hidden costs of repairs might break my bank.

... it is my dream car!!!

Thanks!

Brian
 

·
Registered
1994 SL320, '76 240D
Joined
·
153 Posts
I just bought my 1994 SL320 about 6 months ago. The car has been great only one problem so...

I just bought my 1994 SL320 about 6 months ago. The car has been great only one problem so far - the wiper relay went and was causing the wiper to stop in the middle of the windsheild. That was only about $200 with install (most of the cost) and shouldn't go bad for a long long time. By the way the car has 77,xxx miles.

I strongly recomend getting the SL320 ('94-up) or 300SL (89-94) instead of the 500 (V8) or 600 (V12) as the 320 has an awesome motor with plenty of torque and massive acceleration! I belive the horsepower/tq. numbers are modest because this car hauls! The repair costs on the 320 are much more resonable than on the 500 and especially the 600. I am extremely happy with the car. It makes you feel like a king! The car is so soild and well built - you can feel it in everything you touch and feel. If you have never driven one, well just try it! Anyways good luck!

P.S.> Try to find one with a Hard top - really nice looking and great for the winter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Thanks!

A dealer in FL talked me out of the 300 series saying " anyone who gets a 30...


Thanks!

A dealer in FL talked me out of the 300 series saying " anyone who gets a 300 ultimately wishes they had sprung for the 500." I'm not so sure, though.

Does anyone have acceleration data and mileage data (MPG) for the 300, 320 and 500 for comparison?

I see that the 300/320's are typically about $2K less than the 500s. Are they tougher to resell down the road?
 

·
Registered
1994 SL320, '76 240D
Joined
·
153 Posts
Natrualy he would say that - he wants to make more on the 500, not only in the sale itself...

Natrualy he would say that - he wants to make more on the 500, not only in the sale itself but in matenience down the road.

Now I am not saying that the 300/320 is any more or less reliable than the 500 - I personally don't know about that. But I do know that when it comes time to repair, the 320 is a good deal eaiser (read:cheaper) to work on then the 500 most of the time.

The 300SL ('89-'94) is pretty slow: 0-60 in 9sec, 1/4 mile in 17sec. However, the 320 is a good deal faster having a .2 liter advantage, but more important - Variable Valve timing. I am not sure on the HP of the 300SL, but the 320 has 231hp and 233ft.lbs of torque.

If I were you I would drive both. Also if you can, get a post-'94 model. They updated the engines, interior and minor styling changes.
 

·
Registered
CLK55/G500/E55/ML55/etc.
Joined
·
1,242 Posts
Re: I just bought my 1994 SL320 about 6 months ago. The car has been great only one problem so

I strongly recomend getting the SL320 ('94-up) or 300SL (89-94) instead of the 500 (V8) or 600 (V12) as the 320 has an awesome motor with plenty of torque and massive acceleration! I belive the horsepower/tq. numbers are modest because this car hauls! The repair costs on the 320 are much more resonable than on the 500 and especially the 600. I am extremely happy with the car. It makes you feel like a king! The car is so soild and well built - you can feel it in everything you touch and feel. If you have never driven one, well just try it! Anyways good luck!

P.S.> Try to find one with a Hard top - really nice looking and great for the winter.
Of course you think the SL320 hauls... all your other cars are diesels! :)

Actually, the 0-60 time of the SL320, at around 8.1 seconds, is in line with that of a 1986 Volvo 760 wagon. The SL500 is under 6.5 seconds, giving a much better driving experience for those that expect a little power.

I highly recommend the V8 R129s over the I6 R129s.

Potential buyers should probably drive both and decide for themselves how important it is.

In terms of maintenance, I think the high-ticket repairs are going to be electronically oriented, and both the SL320 and SL500 share most of these issues.

-s-
 

·
Registered
1994 SL320, '76 240D
Joined
·
153 Posts
[quote]Of course you think the SL320 hauls... all your other cars are diesels! :)[/quote]...

Of course you think the SL320 hauls... all your other cars are diesels! :)
I figured someone would bring this up, however those are my other Mercedes - not all my other cars. Up untill recently I had a 1996 Porsche 993 Twin Turbo - that was a pretty fast car (0-60 in about 4 sec, mid 12's 1/4 mile). But seriously - the numbers on paper don't do the car justice! If any of you have owned certian cars you will know what I am talking about. And 0-60 really isn't all that important in an MB is it? I prefer to look at numbers like 60-80, 80-100 and the like. But again as I said earilier the numbers don't do the car justice.

The best thing to do is to drive both. And ask yourself if you really need the extra power. My answer usually is "yes" but after driving the 320 and my mechanic's advice I decided to go with the I6 (320).
 

·
Registered
SL500
Joined
·
56 Posts
I went through the same decision process when I bought mine. I drove both, and once I drov...

I went through the same decision process when I bought mine. I drove both, and once I drove the SL500 I was sold. In addition, I was concerned about wear and tear on the engine. Both engines are pretty bullet-proof, but I think it's gotta be pretty hard on the 300/320 engine pushing out 4000+ lbs. Shaving off 2 secs on 0-60 really does make a difference. If you're only interested in impressing people, the SL300/320 might be a better run for the money.
 

·
Registered
S430,190E 2.6,SL500
Joined
·
194 Posts
The 500 engine was designed to be the standard engine for the SL R129. In other words, the...

The 500 engine was designed to be the standard engine for the SL R129. In other words, the SL was designed for the 500, the 500 was designed for the SL. However, the SL280/320 was developed for those who may not care much about reduced performance or are a bit tight on their budget but still want an SL. For those who have money to burn or want the ultimate performance, there's the SL600. The majority of SL sales are 500's. Who wouldn't want a 500 if they could choose? In terms of reliabilty and repair costs, I don't think there will be much of a difference. If you want to know the fuel economy, go to www.fueleconomy.gov. If you simply appreciate the SL for what it is, the SL320 is a good choice.
 

·
Registered
'91 300SL
Joined
·
28 Posts
Re: Natrualy he would say that - he wants to make more on the 500, not only in the sale itself

The 300SL ('89-'94) is pretty slow: 0-60 in 9sec, 1/4 mile in 17sec. However, the 320 is a good deal faster having a .2 liter advantage, but more important - Variable Valve timing.


I hate to correct people but the 300sL and the 320 are both 3.2 liter. Look in the manual and you'll see.
 

·
Registered
92 300E
Joined
·
78 Posts
Yikes!! I drove a SL300 before I bought my SL500. It was a nice, solid car, but it was f...

Yikes!! I drove a SL300 before I bought my SL500. It was a nice, solid car, but it was frustratingly gutless. Slower than my old 300E - similar engine in a 4,800LB car. I'm sure it got better mileage, but if you're gonna' get a roadster, get at least the SL500. BTW, I don't even think that the SL500's are all that fast (my last toy was a supercharged 500HP Mustang GT), but the nice thing about the SL500 is not when accelerating hard, but how effortlessly the car glides off the line under normal acceleration that makes it just such a pleasure to drive. BTW, mileage-wise, I get about 17 MPG around town and low-mid 20's on the highway, so it's not THAT much of a pig.
 

·
Registered
SL500
Joined
·
56 Posts
Getting back to the reliability of the car... I own a '94 SL500 and haven't had one ounce ...

Getting back to the reliability of the car... I own a '94 SL500 and haven't had one ounce of problems with the engine. (In fact the power train is rock solid.) Most of the problems I've had have been annoying little things like window regulators going bad ($500), and a door strap stop squeeking and needing to be replacd ($500). If you ever have a problem with the climate control, you're in for a big bill. This car costs more to maintain, but engine and drivetrain problems are the least of your problems. It's such a drema car that I have gotten over any of these problems within minutes of driving the car out of the shop after paying the bill.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top