SL/R129: What is the best SL 129. 600 V12? 500 V8?...
03-30-2005, 03:03 AM
#1
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia. Formerly Bristol, UK.
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1998 SL 600 ///AMG. 1997 SL 320. 1999 SLK 230K. 2001 BMW R850.
What is the best SL 129. 600 V12? 500 V8?...
What is the best SL 129. 600 V12? 500 V8?...
What's the general concensus on the best ever SL 129?
I have owned a 1997 SL 320 for 3 years & I was very happy with it until I bought an SL 600, now I never drive the 320... That smooth yet punchy V12 is something else! I can't believe the sound it makes when you "give it the gun" especially if you happen to be in a tunnel with the sound bouncing off the walls...
For me, I think the SL 600 is the king. What do you think?
What's the general concensus on the best ever SL 129?
I have owned a 1997 SL 320 for 3 years & I was very happy with it until I bought an SL 600, now I never drive the 320... That smooth yet punchy V12 is something else! I can't believe the sound it makes when you "give it the gun" especially if you happen to be in a tunnel with the sound bouncing off the walls...
For me, I think the SL 600 is the king. What do you think?
Last edited by Pigzmickey; 03-30-2005 at 03:13 AM. Reason: Grammer
03-30-2005, 05:53 PM
#2
Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Fort Worth, Tx
Posts: 217
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
97 SL500
The SL600 is king in a straight line but the SL500 drives better (handling and feel). It's also my opinion that the SL600 suffers from many more common problems then the 500 but they are both pretty darn reliable if well maintained.
03-30-2005, 08:16 PM
#3
MBWorld Fanatic!
Agree with that; the weight of the SL600's engine is a negative but it's a much faster car than the published figures would suggest. In the UK, the ability to safely overtake, say, a truck on an undivided highway largely dictates progress so you'll always get there sooner in an SL600.
The other thing I liked about the SL600 was the stealth factor, people did not expect it to go that quick.
As for maintenance and reliability, the SL600 is heavier on consumables - fuel, brakes, tyres especially if you drive it to use V12; it also costs more to maintain - takes more oil and had more spark plugs. I had a rash of reliability problems in the end but it's difficult to know how much that was due to it being an SL600 - much of the car was common to both.
The SL60 AMG gave us a fore-taste of what was to come in the R230 and is probably the best of the R129 if you can find one.
The other thing I liked about the SL600 was the stealth factor, people did not expect it to go that quick.
As for maintenance and reliability, the SL600 is heavier on consumables - fuel, brakes, tyres especially if you drive it to use V12; it also costs more to maintain - takes more oil and had more spark plugs. I had a rash of reliability problems in the end but it's difficult to know how much that was due to it being an SL600 - much of the car was common to both.
The SL60 AMG gave us a fore-taste of what was to come in the R230 and is probably the best of the R129 if you can find one.
03-31-2005, 06:00 AM
#4
Almost a Member!
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: London
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1996 SL60 AMG
Originally Posted by blueSL
Agree with that; the weight of the SL600's engine is a negative but it's a much faster car than the published figures would suggest. In the UK, the ability to safely overtake, say, a truck on an undivided highway largely dictates progress so you'll always get there sooner in an SL600.
The other thing I liked about the SL600 was the stealth factor, people did not expect it to go that quick.
As for maintenance and reliability, the SL600 is heavier on consumables - fuel, brakes, tyres especially if you drive it to use V12; it also costs more to maintain - takes more oil and had more spark plugs. I had a rash of reliability problems in the end but it's difficult to know how much that was due to it being an SL600 - much of the car was common to both.
The SL60 AMG gave us a fore-taste of what was to come in the R230 and is probably the best of the R129 if you can find one.
The other thing I liked about the SL600 was the stealth factor, people did not expect it to go that quick.
As for maintenance and reliability, the SL600 is heavier on consumables - fuel, brakes, tyres especially if you drive it to use V12; it also costs more to maintain - takes more oil and had more spark plugs. I had a rash of reliability problems in the end but it's difficult to know how much that was due to it being an SL600 - much of the car was common to both.
The SL60 AMG gave us a fore-taste of what was to come in the R230 and is probably the best of the R129 if you can find one.
03-31-2005, 07:54 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by blueSL
...... The SL60 AMG gave us a fore-taste of what was to come in the R230 and is probably the best of the R129 if you can find one.
/Håkan
Last edited by SL60 ///AMG; 03-31-2005 at 07:58 AM. Reason: Grammer
03-31-2005, 01:55 PM
#6
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia. Formerly Bristol, UK.
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1998 SL 600 ///AMG. 1997 SL 320. 1999 SLK 230K. 2001 BMW R850.
Well I've never driven the SL 60, but my SL 600 has clocked 0 - 100 mph in 7.4 seconds. Yes it's had after market modifications! The V12 is front heavy & is best suited to straight line sprinting, but if you want a street racer the 129 isn't the right car anyway... It's a cruiser first and foremost. I love it though, it's one of the most fun cars I've ever owned!
It is true about the stealth aspect though, it does surprise most...
It is true about the stealth aspect though, it does surprise most...
03-31-2005, 02:33 PM
#7
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by Pigzmickey
.....line sprinting, but if you want a street racer the 129 isn't the right car anyway... It's a ....
As for the 7,4 sec. The SL600 and SL60 is equal to performance. The tuned cars that not comes from the factory, don´t really counts. Everyone can tune ther cars to fantastic performance. I have been blown away against a BMW 320 with a gigantic turbo.
However, quit a outstanding car you have there. Even the mighty SL73 takes around 10 sec to 100 mph. It even beats the Ferrari F40, and the new R230 SL65 with 604 bph and the weight 4494 lb.
or 
?/Håkan
Last edited by SL60 ///AMG; 03-31-2005 at 04:54 PM. Reason: Correct seconds - added SL73, F40, SL65
Trending Topics
04-02-2005, 06:05 AM
#8
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia. Formerly Bristol, UK.
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1998 SL 600 ///AMG. 1997 SL 320. 1999 SLK 230K. 2001 BMW R850.
Originally Posted by SL60 ///AMG
As for the record -I did not say that the V12 is a bad car. If the "SL60" hade been a black SL600, I would have purchase that one. I did´t know what I was buying, and I´m not in for serious racing. I just did a lucky move.
As for the 7,4 sec. The SL600 and SL60 is equal to performance. The tuned cars that not comes from the factory, don´t really counts. Everyone can tune ther cars to fantastic performance. I have been blown away against a BMW 320 with a gigantic turbo.
However, quit a outstanding car you have there. Even the mighty SL73 takes around 10 sec to 100 mph. It even beats the Ferrari F40, and the new R230 SL65 with 604 bph and the weight 4494 lb. or ?
/Håkan
As for the 7,4 sec. The SL600 and SL60 is equal to performance. The tuned cars that not comes from the factory, don´t really counts. Everyone can tune ther cars to fantastic performance. I have been blown away against a BMW 320 with a gigantic turbo.
However, quit a outstanding car you have there. Even the mighty SL73 takes around 10 sec to 100 mph. It even beats the Ferrari F40, and the new R230 SL65 with 604 bph and the weight 4494 lb.
or ?/Håkan
04-02-2005, 09:56 AM
#9
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by Pigzmickey
I guess the previous owner (Jay Kay) spent his £104k wisely then...
04-03-2005, 03:12 PM
#11
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by blueSL
Dont believe it...
As a friend told me -Don´t talk about it, show it!
04-03-2005, 03:34 PM
#12
MBWorld Fanatic!
Well the claim of any R129 doing 0 - 100 in 7.4 seconds is simple bollocks.
An SL600 with driver weighs, let's say, 2000kg. 100 mph is equal to 44.7 m/s; the kinetic energy of the car at that speed is 1.998 MJ; to get the car to do that, the engine must deliver AVERAGE power to the wheels of 270kW or 370 hp and that ignores losses in the drive train, air resistance, rolling resistance. That will increase the power requirements by 50%, so lets say an average of 555 hp. That will equate to a peak power of more than 1000 hp. Bugatti Veyron eat your heart out. As I said, bollocks.
7.4 seconds? You were conned...
An SL600 with driver weighs, let's say, 2000kg. 100 mph is equal to 44.7 m/s; the kinetic energy of the car at that speed is 1.998 MJ; to get the car to do that, the engine must deliver AVERAGE power to the wheels of 270kW or 370 hp and that ignores losses in the drive train, air resistance, rolling resistance. That will increase the power requirements by 50%, so lets say an average of 555 hp. That will equate to a peak power of more than 1000 hp. Bugatti Veyron eat your heart out. As I said, bollocks.
7.4 seconds? You were conned...
Last edited by blueSL; 04-03-2005 at 06:04 PM.
04-04-2005, 01:25 AM
#13
MBWorld Fanatic!
Cross check. The McLaren F1 does 0-100 in 6.9 seconds and to do this, it has 550 bhp per tonne. So, ball park, for the SL600 to do the same, it will need the same power to weight ratio, so more than 1000 bhp for this two tonne monster.
04-04-2005, 03:49 AM
#14
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Adelaide, Australia. Formerly Bristol, UK.
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1998 SL 600 ///AMG. 1997 SL 320. 1999 SLK 230K. 2001 BMW R850.
Originally Posted by blueSL
Cross check. The McLaren F1 does 0-100 in 6.9 seconds and to do this, it has 550 bhp per tonne. So, ball park, for the SL600 to do the same, it will need the same power to weight ratio, so more than 1000 bhp for this two tonne monster.
04-04-2005, 04:34 AM
#15
I don't think blueSL would be jealous. Quite the opposite knowing that I've tasted a fraction of what he knows about MercedesBenz's.
Pigzmickey, why don't you just give it a test? Simple stopwatch test?
Pigzmickey, why don't you just give it a test? Simple stopwatch test?
04-04-2005, 04:54 AM
#16
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by blueSL
Cross check. The McLaren F1 does 0-100 in 6.9 seconds....
04-10-2005, 02:26 PM
#17
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norrtälje, Sweden
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SL60 ///AMG
Originally Posted by blueSL
Dont believe it...
And no, I´m not telling you. Pigzmickey must do that him self. :p
04-14-2005, 08:51 PM
#18
Junior Member
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Hampton roads, VA
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'99 SLK230
Originally Posted by SL60 ///AMG
I do believe him now, when I know why his performance is outstanding. And no, I´m not telling you. Pigzmickey must do that him self. :p
And no, I´m not telling you. Pigzmickey must do that him self. :p
07-12-2011, 12:37 PM
#20
Member
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: London, UK
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS 63 AMG (previously) looking for another AMG
Urgent -Monthly depreciation of SL500 (2008)
Greetings all,
In April this year I purchased a used SL 500 (called SL550 in US) from Mercedes. It was originally registered in Sept 2008 and thus still has the MB 3year warranty. I want to trade it in for a used 2009 CLS 63 AMG that is being sold for almost the same price I bought the SL for.
The question I need urgent help with is how much depreciaition would my SL have undergone in 2. 5 months? Knowing this will help me negotiate the difference that I will need to pay MB to get the CLS.
Your urgent response would be really appreciated!
Many thanks.
In April this year I purchased a used SL 500 (called SL550 in US) from Mercedes. It was originally registered in Sept 2008 and thus still has the MB 3year warranty. I want to trade it in for a used 2009 CLS 63 AMG that is being sold for almost the same price I bought the SL for.
The question I need urgent help with is how much depreciaition would my SL have undergone in 2. 5 months? Knowing this will help me negotiate the difference that I will need to pay MB to get the CLS.
Your urgent response would be really appreciated!
Many thanks.
07-12-2011, 03:33 PM
#21
MBWorld Fanatic!
I think you are posting in the wrong forum. It sounds like you have an R230 (folding metal hardtop) not an R129 (fabric roof, removeable hard top).
I'm not in the US, so difficult to to know about used prices, but here in the UK, used R230 prices are in free-fall. As for your car, everything will depend on mileage and condition but my guess is that you will have lost 20% of what you paid for your car in April given the need for the dealer to make a turn on the buy and sell.
I'm not in the US, so difficult to to know about used prices, but here in the UK, used R230 prices are in free-fall. As for your car, everything will depend on mileage and condition but my guess is that you will have lost 20% of what you paid for your car in April given the need for the dealer to make a turn on the buy and sell.
