s320 length
09-20-2007, 07:40 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1994 e320 coupe sportline
s320 length
This is an easy question I am sure
What is the difference in a SWB and LWB?
Is all the room in the rear seat area?
any difference in car weight?
Is it noticable driving?
Which are there more of
I am looking to pick up a s320 95 to 99 range
any suggestions on pro or con year
thanks
hal
What is the difference in a SWB and LWB?
Is all the room in the rear seat area?
any difference in car weight?
Is it noticable driving?
Which are there more of
I am looking to pick up a s320 95 to 99 range
any suggestions on pro or con year
thanks
hal
09-20-2007, 07:43 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 2,290
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
1993 300SEL/S320
There are a heap of threads on this use the search function. The difference in length is 10cm all in the back seat, the SWB should handle better but a stock W140 is always going to be a big floating car though.
09-21-2007, 02:02 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
get a 1997-1999 w140. if i were you, id look into an S420. S320 feels underpowered and the S600 is a gas guzzler. ive driven a S420 an it has just enough oompf for the lane changing you need.
SWB means Short Wheel Base. LWB means Long Wheel Base. I wouldnt get a SWB if i were you. they look too goofy, and the legroom is not there for the back seat anymore.
Good luck on your car search!
SWB means Short Wheel Base. LWB means Long Wheel Base. I wouldnt get a SWB if i were you. they look too goofy, and the legroom is not there for the back seat anymore.
Good luck on your car search!
09-24-2007, 11:49 AM
#4
Almost a Member!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 W124 E320 Coupé, 1990 W124 300E twin turbo, 1991 W126 300 SE, 1984 Ford Capri 2.8i
SWB 5113mm, 16' 9.3", turning circle 39' 11", height 1492mm
LWB 5213mm, 17' 1.25", turning circle 41', height 1495mm (although the 600SEL is 1490mm)
Source: MB Technical data for passenger cars, October 1993 edition
LWB 5213mm, 17' 1.25", turning circle 41', height 1495mm (although the 600SEL is 1490mm)
Source: MB Technical data for passenger cars, October 1993 edition
09-24-2007, 09:47 PM
#5
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1999 S320 LWB
Before I bought my LWB, I drove a SWB '98 S320... I didn't like it as much, mainly because of the (relative) lack of rear seat legroom. The SWB S320 has enough legroom, but the LWB has LOADS of legroom. I don't think I've sat in many cars, aside from the newest 7 Series, A8L and S Class that have as much rear legroom as a LWB W140 does. My '92 deVille doesn't, my friends' '90 Cadillac Brougham didn't, all the 90-97 Town Cars I've driven haven't, the '77 Lincoln Continental Town Car I drove didn't (surprising considering the size of that thing!).
The way I saw it is...if you're out to buy an executive class luxury sedan, like the S Class, 7 Series, etc etc, they were designed to offer as much space as possible for all occupants...why not go for the full size version? And I never noticed much difference in the way the LWB and SWB handle or drive. I mean it's only like 3 inches difference overall, and all of that is the wheelbase, in the rear area.
According to my 1999 S Class brochure, the S320 SWB weighs in at 4480, and the LWB is 4500 even. So there's not that much of a weight difference either.
I never drove an S420, just the two S320s and a '95 S500. IMO, the S320s have a little more than adequate power around town (lacking at lower rpms, and by lower I mean less than 2000), but the faster you go, the better they get. At speeds above 70-75, they are surprisingly quick considering they're only 228hp and 232 lb/ft of torque, pushing around 4500+ lbs. At speeds above 80, I'd be willing to bet they'd be neck and neck with a LT1 Powered B or D Body GM (Caprice, Roadmaster, Impala SS, Fleetwood). I've had my S320 up to 130 and she was still pulling!
From what I can remember about driving that '95 S500, it was downright fast. Not so much around town, but I can remember getting onto an onramp and punching it at about 30 and it pinning me into my seat, all the way up to 75! I've got a video of that, I'll post it later.
Hope this helps,
Chad.
The way I saw it is...if you're out to buy an executive class luxury sedan, like the S Class, 7 Series, etc etc, they were designed to offer as much space as possible for all occupants...why not go for the full size version? And I never noticed much difference in the way the LWB and SWB handle or drive. I mean it's only like 3 inches difference overall, and all of that is the wheelbase, in the rear area.
According to my 1999 S Class brochure, the S320 SWB weighs in at 4480, and the LWB is 4500 even. So there's not that much of a weight difference either.
I never drove an S420, just the two S320s and a '95 S500. IMO, the S320s have a little more than adequate power around town (lacking at lower rpms, and by lower I mean less than 2000), but the faster you go, the better they get. At speeds above 70-75, they are surprisingly quick considering they're only 228hp and 232 lb/ft of torque, pushing around 4500+ lbs. At speeds above 80, I'd be willing to bet they'd be neck and neck with a LT1 Powered B or D Body GM (Caprice, Roadmaster, Impala SS, Fleetwood). I've had my S320 up to 130 and she was still pulling!
From what I can remember about driving that '95 S500, it was downright fast. Not so much around town, but I can remember getting onto an onramp and punching it at about 30 and it pinning me into my seat, all the way up to 75! I've got a video of that, I'll post it later.
Hope this helps,
Chad.
