SL/R230: Looking SL500 but not sure R230 or R129
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 69
From: Socal, Chino
E55 2006 / CLS55 / S450 / Jag XKR2011
Looking SL500 but not sure R230 or R129
Hi,
I am looking to get a convertible here in California for week-end as fun car. Not looking for high power and racing, more like cruising.
Come across some 97- 2001 SL500 for $7500 - $8500 80K- 110K miles) and 2005 about $10K 98K-110K miles.
Some say R129 has better build quality but still 7 - 8 years older and can get newer body R230 for about $2k- 3k more.
The differences in price is very small but the down side of R129 is no automatic hardtop.
I realize the R230 has ABC suspension and 722.9 7speed tranny issues to deal but how bad can be compare to R129 in reliability in about the next 5 years owner ship ?
Any suggestions or comments is appreciated.
I am looking to get a convertible here in California for week-end as fun car. Not looking for high power and racing, more like cruising.
Come across some 97- 2001 SL500 for $7500 - $8500 80K- 110K miles) and 2005 about $10K 98K-110K miles.
Some say R129 has better build quality but still 7 - 8 years older and can get newer body R230 for about $2k- 3k more.
The differences in price is very small but the down side of R129 is no automatic hardtop.
I realize the R230 has ABC suspension and 722.9 7speed tranny issues to deal but how bad can be compare to R129 in reliability in about the next 5 years owner ship ?
Any suggestions or comments is appreciated.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
I recall that "some" also said Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction.
If you are going to drive mostly with the top down, depending upon the quality of the roads in your area you may find the R129 has entirely too much cowl shake. If so, then you'd probably much prefer an R230.
If you are going to drive mostly with the top down, depending upon the quality of the roads in your area you may find the R129 has entirely too much cowl shake. If so, then you'd probably much prefer an R230.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 1,442
Likes: 260
From: Netherlands
2005 R 230 SL350 (M112 3.7). Sold the 1966 W113 230SL recently
Your guess is a good as mine. Everything depends on taste, the condition of the car in question and its (maintenance-)history. I think 2005 R230’s SL500 are fitted with 722.6 five gear tranny.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 69
From: Socal, Chino
E55 2006 / CLS55 / S450 / Jag XKR2011
I am sure its the 722.9 7speed. Still studying both cars now just thinking R230 will be more expensive to keep.
Member
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 157
Likes: 33
From: Walpole, MA USA
2004 SL500
The driving dynamics are completely different. The R129 is a very solid vehicle, but you can certainly feel the age of it. The R230 has many complicated systems and brittle plastic parts that the R129 foregoes, so there are maintenance items that you need to be aware of and anticipate.
Here are my thoughts on test driving an R129, R230, vs my old R171. https://www.slkworld.com/off-topic/5...ison-r171.html
Here are my thoughts on test driving an R129, R230, vs my old R171. https://www.slkworld.com/off-topic/5...ison-r171.html
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
The R230 is much easier to maintain, since far more of the electronics are networked and can communicate with a diagnostic computer.
In regard to brittle plastic, R129s are worse, in my experience. Incredibly, the overhead maplight assembly on these vehicles has a propensity to literally fall apart somehow.
In regard to brittle plastic, R129s are worse, in my experience. Incredibly, the overhead maplight assembly on these vehicles has a propensity to literally fall apart somehow.
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2016
Posts: 4,761
Likes: 566
From: Milwaukee, WI
2010 C300 4MATIC........ 2011 C63 AMG.............. 2015 CLS400 4MATIC.....
I would go R230 for experience nonetheless. But I would say it is probably better in nearly every way. 2005 is the 2nd year of the 7 speed so might not be that bad.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 368
Likes: 73
SL600
Hallo.
a matter of taste. Do you like to have some wind in your hair or a "modern" car?
The R129 has a big trunk, the R230 doesnt.
It could be the different between driving a car and waiting for the workshop. I(!) would not buy a R230 older than year 2006 because of improved ABC. If you can repair the basics by yourself, look at the R129.
a matter of taste. Do you like to have some wind in your hair or a "modern" car?
It could be the different between driving a car and waiting for the workshop. I(!) would not buy a R230 older than year 2006 because of improved ABC. If you can repair the basics by yourself, look at the R129.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
The R230 actually has a larger trunk. Of course with the roof open there is less space.
There is nothing to suggest ABC improved in 2006. No technical evidence, no anecdotal evidence. It seems many presume the system was revised to address problems. But since the revised system was obviously considerably cheaper to manufacture, this suggest to me it could be the lone objective for making the change.
I would be wary of purchasing an '07 or early '08 SL550 due to issues with failed engine idler gears.
If you look at old issues of Consumer Reports you will see that the '03 model year compares favorably to '04, '05, and perhaps '06. This happens to be the only year where the M113 engine was mated to the very reliable 722.6 transmission.
I would be wary of purchasing an '07 or early '08 SL550 due to issues with failed engine idler gears.
If you look at old issues of Consumer Reports you will see that the '03 model year compares favorably to '04, '05, and perhaps '06. This happens to be the only year where the M113 engine was mated to the very reliable 722.6 transmission.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 368
Likes: 73
SL600
There is nothing to suggest ABC improved in 2006. No technical evidence, no anecdotal evidence. It seems many presume the system was revised to address problems. But since the revised system was obviously considerably cheaper to manufacture, this suggest to me it could be the lone objective for making the change.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
As I explained in my prior post, ABC was redesigned and manufacturing cost was reduced. I'll explain in detail.
The pressure supply valve block was eliminated, and its pulsation dampener was relocated to the supply pump. Hence, a redesigned pump was necessitated, and a new part number was generated.
The relatively elaborate strut position sensor was eliminated from each of the four struts. In their place a pair of simple pressure transducers were installed in each valve block to sense strut position. Hence, the struts and valve blocks were redesigned and given different part numbers.
In the original ABC system an accumulator was installed to reduce pressure peaks in the return line. This was eliminated.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 368
Likes: 73
SL600
You know that the old plunger sensors are magnetic and abrasion in the system collects there? So yes, say welcome to the simple pressure transducers. But it is OK: I(!) would not buy a R230 older than year 2006.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
No, I am not aware of this. If "abrasion" actually does collect there, anecdotally it apparently is not detrimental to the sensor. In all my years of participating here and on Benzworld I can recall just one or two instances of one of these failing, and I therefore conclude the plunger travel sensors are extremely reliable.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 368
Likes: 73
SL600
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
No, but I have heard of camshaft oiling tubes failing.
The early M119 engine which powers the 500SL (R129) has 16 little metal tubes which are part of its lubrication system. If you look in the Mercedes Electronic Parts Catalog (EPC), I believe you will see where these were revised and given a new part number. The revised part is made of plastic and notorious for failure. It just goes to illustrate that engineering changes are sometimes made solely to reduce manufacturing cost.
Then there is the R129's electro-hydraulic roof and roll bar system.
In the mid-90s the system was revised twice. A valve block was eliminated, and the number of solenoids was reduced from 10 to 7. Then the roll bar automatic deployment module was eliminated and integrated with the roof controller. So like the R230's revised ABC, manufacturing cost was reduced.
You might presume this last revision improved upon the original in some way (lots of new part numbers); if so, you'd be mistaken. All versions of the roof are comparable in reliability, but there are some issues with the later one.
The early M119 engine which powers the 500SL (R129) has 16 little metal tubes which are part of its lubrication system. If you look in the Mercedes Electronic Parts Catalog (EPC), I believe you will see where these were revised and given a new part number. The revised part is made of plastic and notorious for failure. It just goes to illustrate that engineering changes are sometimes made solely to reduce manufacturing cost.
Then there is the R129's electro-hydraulic roof and roll bar system.
In the mid-90s the system was revised twice. A valve block was eliminated, and the number of solenoids was reduced from 10 to 7. Then the roll bar automatic deployment module was eliminated and integrated with the roof controller. So like the R230's revised ABC, manufacturing cost was reduced.
You might presume this last revision improved upon the original in some way (lots of new part numbers); if so, you'd be mistaken. All versions of the roof are comparable in reliability, but there are some issues with the later one.
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2017
Posts: 368
Likes: 73
SL600
Certainly new is not automatically better. A nice example is the M113, which is a big step back in comparison to its predecessor M119 which only save costs. But some things becomes better, the change from the two switches to the integrated system for the roll bar is a good example. Or a second airbag instead of a glove box.
Changing the sensors from plunger to pressure related is the better, reliable solution. The last SBC pump is better than the first ones. And i(!) want to have the later components with 221 instead of 220 part numbers. I dont own an old R230 so i dont have to prefer what i accidently bought. One workshop is enough to burn all the saved money, especially at this kind of car. If i have the choise to have a heart surgery which recall just one or two instances, or the chance of a better one, i would choose the second one.
Changing the sensors from plunger to pressure related is the better, reliable solution. The last SBC pump is better than the first ones. And i(!) want to have the later components with 221 instead of 220 part numbers. I dont own an old R230 so i dont have to prefer what i accidently bought. One workshop is enough to burn all the saved money, especially at this kind of car. If i have the choise to have a heart surgery which recall just one or two instances, or the chance of a better one, i would choose the second one.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
I presently own two M119-powered cars and one M113-powered car. I prefer the M113 engine for its livelier throttle response at low speeds, and to me, it is a small improvement over the M119.
There is no data or conclusive evidence to support this. At any rate, there is anecdotal evidence that the plunger travel sensors are extremely reliable, so unquestionably your point is moot.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,411
Likes: 69
From: Socal, Chino
E55 2006 / CLS55 / S450 / Jag XKR2011
Thanks all the replies. I am toward R230 now since the price range is only around $3K.
I saw many R129 from 97 to 2001 and they all need paint job or some other things that will cost about $2K to start.
The R230 will be more expensive to repair but will have about $2K budget for that. Now I have to decide 2005 SL500 or SL55.
I like the SL500 gas mileage but don't want to deal with 7speed tranny issue so the 55 with 5speed might be my choice.
I saw many R129 from 97 to 2001 and they all need paint job or some other things that will cost about $2K to start.
The R230 will be more expensive to repair but will have about $2K budget for that. Now I have to decide 2005 SL500 or SL55.
I like the SL500 gas mileage but don't want to deal with 7speed tranny issue so the 55 with 5speed might be my choice.
Super Member
Joined: Aug 2017
Posts: 520
Likes: 203
From: Scottsdale AZ
2015 SL550 & 2012 S550 4matic
I was in your shoes for 2+ years, evaluating and ultimately decided on the r230, 2007 SL550. I liked the updated Engine, Tranny and body parts over the earlier R230 models. My research on this and other forums (thank you Rudeny), I gathered the "safe after XYZ numbers" on Tranny and Engine issues. You can get the details the r230 build by entering VIN at https://www.datamb.com/ and see the serial numbers on Engine and Tranny. Rudeny quotes on safe engines are below. He has posted somewhere about "safe 722.9" trannys occuring in MY2007 and later.
Anyhow, it seems that MBZ cannot track which bad parts went into which engine, but they know that the problem was caught and corrected after M272 engine #30-468993, and M273 engine #30-088611. So, anything before that could have a bad part, but the ones after that do not. beyond the range for balance shaft (or in this case timing idler sprocket) failure.
There is one other problem with early version of these engines. They got a bad supply of magnets for the camshaft sensors. This affects engines up to 30-759427 for the M272 and 30-193592 for the M273. Luckily, this is a very easy (even DIY) and fairly inexpensive (about $150 in parts) repair job.
The trunk is bigger than you might think. I can get my golf clubs and overnight bag in the trunk with top down.
You will like the driving experience and ease of top up/down on R230. Good luck.
Anyhow, it seems that MBZ cannot track which bad parts went into which engine, but they know that the problem was caught and corrected after M272 engine #30-468993, and M273 engine #30-088611. So, anything before that could have a bad part, but the ones after that do not. beyond the range for balance shaft (or in this case timing idler sprocket) failure.
There is one other problem with early version of these engines. They got a bad supply of magnets for the camshaft sensors. This affects engines up to 30-759427 for the M272 and 30-193592 for the M273. Luckily, this is a very easy (even DIY) and fairly inexpensive (about $150 in parts) repair job.
The trunk is bigger than you might think. I can get my golf clubs and overnight bag in the trunk with top down.
You will like the driving experience and ease of top up/down on R230. Good luck.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,982
Likes: 393
From: Atlanta, unfortunately
'09 S600, (2) R129 300SLs, '03 SL500, '03 SL55
I don't believe any of us know when the 722.9 became "safe" or if there are any years which are unsafe.
MAVA on another forum once wrote something suggesting that '06 is a little better than '04 and '05, and Rodney has speculated that some issues were corrected c. 2009. A couple of years ago a Mercedes tech on another forum wrote that he had just completed a class on the 722.9 in which they were taught there are still issues with that tranny for which Mercedes has no solution.
MAVA on another forum once wrote something suggesting that '06 is a little better than '04 and '05, and Rodney has speculated that some issues were corrected c. 2009. A couple of years ago a Mercedes tech on another forum wrote that he had just completed a class on the 722.9 in which they were taught there are still issues with that tranny for which Mercedes has no solution.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 8,882
Likes: 1,212
From: In my garage
E55, GLS450, GL63, GLE350
I have a 2007 MB that has the 722.9 with around 250k miles. No problems with the tranny to date other than the valve body/turbine speed sensor early on covered under warranty.
