When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Hi there guys !
I'm new member here and register to get some advice about the vehicle I'm looking for. New in Mercedes world, before I owned to BMWs.
I'm in search for SL 500 or 600. What I should avoid and look for ?
Any advice appreciate
Best regards and Merry Christmas to all of you !!
Zajac1
Hi there guys !
I'm new member here and register to get some advice about the vehicle I'm looking for. New in Mercedes world, before I owned to BMWs.
I'm in search for SL 500 or 600. What I should avoid and look for ?
Any advice appreciate
Best regards and Merry Christmas to all of you !!
Zajac1
Welcome. Lots to learn here. I bought a 2000 R129 SL500. It is a great car and it is generally very reliable. One trouble area is the roof hydraulics. The hydraulic power roof cylinders will need new seals all the way around (11 or 12, depending on model year). As long as you are prepared for that fix I would just look for the lowest mileage, best preserved car you can find. I also recommend reading all posts on this board. You'll learn a lot by doing that. Welcome and cheers!
Welcome. Lots to learn here. I bought a 2000 R129 SL500. It is a great car and it is generally very reliable. One trouble area is the roof hydraulics. The hydraulic power roof cylinders will need new seals all the way around (11 or 12, depending on model year). As long as you are prepared for that fix I would just look for the lowest mileage, best preserved car you can find. I also recommend reading all posts on this board. You'll learn a lot by doing that. Welcome and cheers!
Hi, Thanks for replay ! How much cost to to replace these seals ?? It's difficult to do that myself ?? I'm looking for one, but with no rush
No, and it will cost likely cost about $15 or $225 depending upon whether you use common o-rings or actual hydraulic piston seals to fix the leaks.
Piston seals in this application seem to last 12-15 years. If you look at a vehicle and it's roof works and there are no hydraulic leaks, then perhaps most if not all of the seals have already been replaced, and they may need not be of any concern.
In my opinion the '99 and later cars are the creme de la creme of this model series, and that's particularly true with the SL500, since it marries arguably the best engine (M113) with a significantly-improved version of the arguably-best transmission (722.6). But if you are looking for value, I would not overlook other model years in general and the '90-'92 500SL in particular.
Last edited by bobterry99; 12-25-2018 at 07:28 PM.
Thanks for bunch of information. Actually I'm looking only for 99-02 year models. There interior looks even better than older models and last years of production are always the best with less problems.
...last years of production are always the best with less problems.
I strongly disagree, though I believe it is true of the R129 series. When a model line is in production for a dozen odd years, major changes are made along the way, and these can introduce new problems both major and minor!
Actually I'm looking only for 99-02 year models. There interior looks even better than older models and last years of production are always the best with less problems.
I
Compare the leather, 1999 and newer is awful in my opinion. It is closed, you will feel like sitting on a plastic bag after some times. But it looks modern... The M113 is a boring engine compare withe the M119 build 1996 to 1998 with the new 722.6 transmission. By the way: During the last years of production, the manufacturer saved all unnessesary parts and replace everything against cheaper parts. 1999 and newer is not Mercedes any more, it is Daimler Chrysler.
Compare the leather, 1999 and newer is awful in my opinion. It is closed, you will feel like sitting on a plastic bag after some times. But it looks modern... The M113 is a boring engine compare withe the M119 build 1996 to 1998 with the new 722.6 transmission. By the way: During the last years of production, the manufacturer saved all unnessesary parts and replace everything against cheaper parts. 1999 and newer is not Mercedes any more, it is Daimler Chrysler.
Regards
Andreas
what years of production are the best in your opinion ??
The M113 is a boring engine compare withe the M119 build 1996 to 1998 with the new 722.6 transmission.
Nuts.
For a few years I believed the '96-'98 SL500 was the most desirable V8-powered 129, and I purchased a '96 model with brand-new-from-the-factory transmission. (The original tranny had suffered complete failure after just 90K miles, as the early 722.6 was prone to do).
Three years later I had the key to a '99 car that had been acquired by my friend's used-car dealership, and I availed myself of the opportunity for a back-to-back comparison. I accelerated each car from rest to 50 MPH or so: the '99 felt considerably more powerful on account of its considerable torque/horsepower advantage in the range from 2000-3500 RPMs. That experience comports with the 0-60 time figures which M-B had published which cite a 1/2-second advantage for the newer car.
The M119 engine has a torque/horsepower advantage above 4500 RPMs. It is not as dramatic as the M113's advantage at 2500 RPM.
If one were driving on the Autobahn at 120 MPH and needed to accelerate to pass, the M119 would logically be a better performer. Here in the U.S. nobody legally drives that speed, and for typical driving the M113 is a better engine. But don't anyone take my word for it -- in a single day compare cars powered by both engines and draw your own conclusions.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
1999 and newer is not Mercedes any more, it is Daimler Chrysler.
In addition to owning four 129s I also own a nearly 17-year-old R230. It's quality and durability is very much in the Mercedes-Benz tradition, and it yields nothing to the 129 in this regard.
In 2008 my then 17-year-old '91 500SL and 300SL had many broken plastic interior parts, broken headrest drive gears, non-working A/C, climate control displays that were difficult to read, I/R receivers for locking which didn't work cruise control that didn't work, headlamp wipers that didn't work, and broken seatbelt mechanism covers. The list would likely expand if I spent another 10 minutes thinking about it.
Last edited by bobterry99; 12-27-2018 at 07:42 PM.
what years of production are the best in your opinion ??
1997 to 1998, if you prefer a V8. I owned some in the past, M119 LH, M119 ME and M113 ME. The very best was the M119 ME 6.0 as known as SL60. I sold them all in that moment i bought a V12, this is the very best engine you can buy for a R129. But again: Year 1997 or 1998, please look for leather exclusive, the standard interiour is ugly plastic as far as you can see.
I own a R230 V12, too. Here, it is much more important to look at a car with leather exclusive, the standard interiour is a joke. As long as there is all working, the R230 makes everything better than the R129. But it looks ugly, compared to a classic car.
1997 to 1998, if you prefer a V8. I owned some in the past, M119 LH, M119 ME and M113 ME. The very best was the M119 ME 6.0 as known as SL60. I sold them all in that moment i bought a V12, this is the very best engine you can buy for a R129. But again: Year 1997 or 1998, please look for leather exclusive, the standard interiour is ugly plastic as far as you can see.
I own a R230 V12, too. Here, it is much more important to look at a car with leather exclusive, the standard interiour is a joke. As long as there is all working, the R230 makes everything better than the R129. But it looks ugly, compared to a classic car.
Regards
Andreas
You mean is better to jump to SL 600 instead od 500 ?? V12 is definitely more powerful, but what about maintenance ?? Parts are not more expensive than to 500 ??
You mean is better to jump to SL 600 instead od 500 ?? V12 is definitely more powerful, but what about maintenance ?? Parts are not more expensive than to 500 ??
It is a matter of what you want. If you want to drive a cheap car with a big engine, an old, classic car is the wrong decision. All R129 parts become more and more expensive, and you will thank God, as long you will get them. I like those cars, money is not so important. There are no typical V12 parts, and the engine is bullet proof. And you will need a bit more oil but only 12 spark plugs instead of 16 like for the "modern" V8
In other words: If you have two left hands and ten thumbs and have to go to the workshop for every thing, then these cars will eat you. But if you are a car enthusiast, don't drive a V12 for fun, because after that, you will not drive a "boring V8" anymore
I drove an M119 and an M113, anyone who tells you the older ones are superior is either biased in one way or the other... or just trying to appreciate the value of their own car!
Either way, both are great cars don't worry too much about it!
The newer the model, the more improvement goes into it. Less problems and better reliability. The roof, the transmission, the electronics, everything!
Don't listen to anyone, Mercedes Benz is Mercedes Benz, they DO NOT compromise on quality! If you are a true Benz fan, you would appreciate this comment!
I drove an M119 and an M113, anyone who tells you the older ones are superior is either biased in one way or the other... or just trying to appreciate the value of their own car!
Either way, both are great cars don't worry too much about it!
The newer the model, the more improvement goes into it. Less problems and better reliability. The roof, the transmission, the electronics, everything!
Don't listen to anyone, Mercedes Benz is Mercedes Benz, they DO NOT compromise on quality! If you are a true Benz fan, you would appreciate this comment!
Happy shopping my friend!
I never owned Mercedes yet. I had BMWs before and I'm was always dreaming about V12 older/classic body style Mercedes. Usually last 2-3 years of model generations are the best. Same is with BMW's comparing to models I had in past.
I drove an M119 and an M113, anyone who tells you the older ones are superior is either biased in one way or the other... or just trying to appreciate the value of their own car!
Me? As i wrote, i sell all my V8, so i can tell the truth, why should i be biased? Mercedes changed the V8 engine 1999. It was cheaper and easier, has 10% less power, 3 instead of 4 valves per cylinder, only one camshaft instead of 2 per head. There is a reason, why Mercedes does not build such simple engines any more. .
The newer the model, the more improvement goes into it. Less problems and better reliability. The roof, the transmission, the electronics, everything!
The transmission changed 1996, not 1999. Former modells use 12 hydralic cylinder, newer 11. The first modells are equipped with heated doors and lockable flaps in the doors. The inside mirror was electrical adjustable. Later modells use mirrors from the c-class, later ones from the SLK. Cheap cheap cheap, Daimler Chrysler. Even the crappy light inside the armrest was saved, rust prevention as well.
It was cheaper and easier, has 10% less power, 3 instead of 4 valves per cylinder, only one camshaft instead of 2 per head.
Advances in manufacturing techniques and engine management technology allows the M113 to do more than the M119 with less. From the perspective of an engineer who has worked in manufacturing, I call that progress.
When you state that the M113 makes 10% less power than it's predecessor, I presume you are comparing peak horsepower from what you regard as the M119's finest years. Now let's do some elementary math.
A '98 M119 peak horsepower is 315. An engine making 10% less power is making (100-10)(315) = 284 horsepower. But the M113 actually makes 302 horsepower, and that is only 4% less. It seems to me either math is not your forte, or your opinions are corrupted by a strong bias towards M119-powered cars.
At any rate, in comparing two engines with similar power, peak horsepower is meaningless. Consider that an M119 makes its peak power at well over 5000 RPM. But over a broad range of RPMs -- the range in which the engine typically operates in the course of driving U.S. roads -- the M113 makes more power than its immediate predecessor, and zero-to-sixty happens .3 seconds sooner.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
The transmission changed 1996, not 1999.
And it changed again c. 1998 while retaining the designation 722.6.
The early years of the 722.6 were fraught with problems, and this is particularly true among early '96 models. On the peachparts.com forum someone asked when the 722.6 was finally sorted-out. Two Mercedes techs responded: one wrote that it got much better with revisions made c. 6/98, and another wrote that it was "not a great transmission til the '98 modifications".
Advances in manufacturing techniques and engine management technology allows the M113 to do more than the M119 with less. From the perspective of an engineer who has worked in manufacturing, I call that progress.
I call this marketing. The real reason why they do this is saving costs because M112 and M113 are made of the same parts now, the manufacturing is cheaper and Daimler Chrysler can make more money. Actual, Mercedes does not sell such simple engines any more, what could be the reason? OK, silly question, here is the answer: Customers are not as stupid as expected.
A '98 M119 peak horsepower is 315. An engine making 10% less power is making (100-10)(315) = 284 horsepower. But the M113 actually makes 302 horsepower, and that is only 4% less. It seems to me either math is not your forte, or your opinions are corrupted by a strong bias towards M119-powered cars.
A '98 M119 peak horsepower is 320, the M113 is 306. So the M119 is 4,5751633986928% stronger, do you really feel better now? Good. Does it change anything?
Consider that an M119 makes its peak power at well over 5000 RPM.
5600 RPM, exact the same as the M113 does.
But over a broad range of RPMs -- the range in which the engine typically operates in the course of driving U.S. roads -- the M113 makes more power than its immediate predecessor, and zero-to-sixty happens .3 seconds sooner.
Would you please try to show the diagrams of both engines? And where do you get the information, the M113 is 0,3 seconds faster than the M119? And why cars typically operates in the course of driving U.S. roads use engines with more than 50 PS?
And it changed again c. 1998 while retaining the designation 722.6.
Yes, Daimler Chrysler has saved the drain plug so you could not change the transmission oil anymore. Oh, sorry, my failure: You do not need to change the oil anymore, it is a live time filling now. If the transmission fails, life time is over. Do you call that progress, too?
The early years of the 722.6 were fraught with problems, and this is particularly true among early '96 models. On the peachparts.com forum someone asked when the 722.6 was finally sorted-out. Two Mercedes techs responded: one wrote that it got much better with revisions made c. 6/98, and another wrote that it was "not a great transmission til the '98 modifications".
Must be true, it was on an internet forum. Dont ask the billion other owner of this transmission, they are all wrong. We drive two 722.6 year 97, and now i am shure, they are broken. But we dont know it yet. Ok, just kidding. Yes, the first transmission used a bearing that can twist. Do you see it? ...that CAN twist. Not ... that WILL twist.
Actual, Mercedes does not sell such simple engines any more...
Have you compared the complexity of the M113's variable-resonance intake manifold to that of the M119's ordinary one? Or how like many other modern engines the M113 cam actuates its valves via a bearing instead of the simplicity of metal sliding on metal a la the M119?
If one has a bizarre fetish for valves and camshafts, then the M119 is the engine for them. But if performance, reliability, longevity, and cost of ownership are paramount, then the M113 is likely the better engine for that individual.
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
A '98 M119 peak horsepower is 320, the M113 is 306.
Cars delivered to the U.S. market had 315 horsepower in '98 and 302 horsepower in '99. I'll guess that is the case for markets worldwide; if so, then you are misinformed. And if you can't report this fundamental information accurately, then can anything you post be trusted?
Originally Posted by AndreasHannover
Must be true, it was on an internet forum.
Observing the obvious sarcasm, this thread illustrates perfectly why internet forums are generally untrustworthy and on occasion, actually detrimental. A reader must consider the credibility of contributing authors.
Who is Andreas Hanover? MBWorld describes him as a "newbie" with just 14 posts. A Google search turns up nothing. On the other hand, one of the techs I quoted is Steve Brotherton, co-founder of Continental Imports in Gainesville, Florida. Steve worked four decades as an M-B tech, has been published in the automotive press, and was a moderator at Peachparts for a dozen years or so. Again, Steve wrote that the 722.6 did not become a "great" transmission until MY1999, and to know of Steve is to accept that as fact.
There's so much to offer documenting the M113's performance advantage, so I'll dedicate a future post entirely to that subject.
Last edited by bobterry99; 12-30-2018 at 11:58 AM.
Have you compared the complexity of the M113's variable-resonance intake manifold to that of the M119's ordinary one? Or how like many other modern engines the M113 cam actuates its valves via a bearing instead of the simplicity of metal sliding on metal a la the M119?
One camshaft with movable plastic flaps which can break is better than two camshafts with variable timing? Rocker arms are better than... are you serious?
Cars delivered to the U.S. market had 315 horsepower in '98 and 302 horsepower in '99. I'll guess that is the case for markets worldwide; if so, then you are misinformed. And if you can't report this fundamental information accurately, then can anything you post be trusted?
You really do not know how the US measures the power of a car unlike the rest of the world, right? By the way, it changes nothing, but technical facts is not your goal, i guess.
Observing the obvious sarcasm, this thread illustrates perfectly why internet forums are generally untrustworthy and on occasion, actually detrimental. A reader must consider the credibility of contributing authors.
This thread illustrates perfectly, how to argue if you have no argues. Try to discredit the other people, as more, as you have no experience.
Who is Andreas Hanover? MBWorld describes him as a "newbie" with just 14 posts.
You are not the very best example for "a lot of posts = a lot of experience". I can justify my technical objections. Selling technical regression as an innovative achievement is a thing for other people. What's left is: The leather is bad, the machine is cheap with less power. And now applause for the board speaker with his alternative facts.
By the way, this is a tiny example how Daimer Chrysler "save" money. At the later modells, they save a lousy srew inside the back bumper. Do you see the little gap? You can press the bumper by hand and will see, how you can move it to the car. The gap is not equal now, but the controling saved a dollar per car. Crazy, isnt it?
12-23-2018, 01:30 PM
