Best years for the R129 and other questions

[frosty]

Now that I've been bitten by the SL bug, I've been entertaining the idea of owning one--not anytime soon though, but at least the dream is actually realistic from a purchasing standpoint.

I've always liked the R129, and if I were to get one I'll gor for the 300SL or SL320 rather than the 8-cylinder models. My budget would probably limit my model year to 1994, '95 or later if I I'm lucky. I prefer at least a '94, as I understand there were some minor cosmetic changes, and I believe that's when M-B redid their nomenclature, so that would be the first year of the SL320. What were some of these changes? I know the last years of the R129 the changes were slightly noticeable; for one, the lower wide-body side moldings look a lot sleeker and more blended in with the body of the car.

From an ownership standpoint, is the R129 affordable to own? Or is this a silly question because the answer is obviously a NO? If I can do my own oil changes, that would be a plus to justify my purchasing decision. Eh, I'm talking as if I can buy one now. If I'm really irresponsible and foolish, I can dump some money and buy an early model one (seems the avg price for early 90s is in the 10k range). Funny, I see a lot of 500 models, and they seem quite affordable, relatively speaking. Must be the gas crunch. That's the thing, I don't want a 500SL even though they are top of the line and probably worth more. Ah, I'll wait, do my research, access my finances, have a reality check before I commit. This waiting is a plus since prices might or will drop. Any pointers on what to buy and what to look for is WELCOMED!

Btw, I've noticed that the R107 (?) seems to hold their value here in California. They still command a pretty good price considering their years.

[iwrock]

Originally Posted by frosty

Now that I've been bitten by the SL bug, I've been entertaining the idea of owning one--not anytime soon though, but at least the dream is actually realistic from a purchasing standpoint.

I've always liked the R129, and if I were to get one I'll gor for the 300SL or SL320 rather than the 8-cylinder models. My budget would probably limit my model year to 1994, '95 or later if I I'm lucky. I prefer at least a '94, as I understand there were some minor cosmetic changes, and I believe that's when M-B redid their nomenclature, so that would be the first year of the SL320. What were some of these changes? I know the last years of the R129 the changes were slightly noticeable; for one, the lower wide-body side moldings look a lot sleeker and more blended in with the body of the car.

From an ownership standpoint, is the R129 affordable to own? Or is this a silly question because the answer is obviously a NO? If I can do my own oil changes, that would be a plus to justify my purchasing decision. Eh, I'm talking as if I can buy one now. If I'm really irresponsible and foolish, I can dump some money and buy an early model one (seems the avg price for early 90s is in the 10k range). Funny, I see a lot of 500 models, and they seem quite affordable, relatively speaking. Must be the gas crunch. That's the thing, I don't want a 500SL even though they are top of the line and probably worth more. Ah, I'll wait, do my research, access my finances, have a reality check before I commit. This waiting is a plus since prices might or will drop. Any pointers on what to buy and what to look for is WELCOMED!

Btw, I've noticed that the R107 (?) seems to hold their value here in California. They still command a pretty good price considering their years.

Many say the the 96-97s are the best years. I like the 96, as its got the old world build quality, with the styling updates. They also had a some interior updates on the 129 in like 96. They changed the door panels, and they also redid the seat design a bit. The perforated leather is standard in the later models.


The R129 is bulletproof. Its a Shortened W124 chassis, and the M104 has proven itself to be a good motor in other cars. We have a 1996 SL600, and its been fairly good to us since getting the problems with the hydropneumatic suspension worked out. You dont have to worry about that on the 500s or the 300s.

If you can do a fair amount of maintenance on it, it shouldn't cost more than say an E320.

When shopping for the 129s, make sure that the top is in good shape, and that it functions smooth. Look for fluid in the brow at the top of the windscreen, as at this age, the small lock cylinders tend to go bad. Its a super easy fix, and takes like an hour per side. (Including drinking beer. )


Also, if you are looking at the earlier models, pre 95, look for rust on the bottoms of the doors. The early ones didnt have drains, and water likes to get caught in the doors, leading to some rust.

Listen to the stereo as well... The water in the doors likes to waterlog the speakers, and eventually blow them out.... If this happens, you can get them reconed inexpensively ($40 for the pair last time I had it done), but avoid the dealer... They want like $300 a side for speakers.


There is a few more things, but they are more things to look out for on the 600s.

[deanyel]

If you do your own work they can be downright inexpensive to own. A 94 SL320 would be a nice choice - the first year of the 3.2 104 motor and the only 3.2 without standard traction control, although the ETS system standard in 95 seems to be less troublesome than ASR. The only way to avoid standard ASR on the 500s is the 1990 to 1992 CIS cars.

I think what remains strong on the 107 market is just asking prices, not selling prices. Owners are very proud of their cars but buyers are few and far between. I think it's a market characterized by a very wide buy-sell gap and very little turnover.

[speace]

Originally Posted by deanyel

The only way to avoid standard ASR on the 500s is the 1990 to 1992 CIS cars.

Help me here... My 92 is a CIS engine with ASR. While my ASR is fine now, I have been through several significant problems.

I thought the 90 129 was the only model without ASR, and the 91 and 92 models were ASR & CIS and the 93 models went to Electronic Fuel Injection and a different ASR system. (Sorry, I don't know the term MB calls the EFI...)

[deanyel]

Key word was "standard", but you're right about 92, ASR was standard beginning that year, according to MBUSA site, optional before that. Then 1993 was the first year of LH engine management, which ran through 95, followed by ME in 1996.

[speace]

Originally Posted by deanyel

Key word was "standard", but you're right about 92, ASR was standard beginning that year, according to MBUSA site, optional before that. Then 1993 was the first year of LH engine management, which ran through 95, followed by ME in 1996.

Yes, LH was the term I couldn't think of, but called it EFI for lack of the proper term...

So, ASR was OPTONAL in 91... Interesting. I knew that the ASR service literature I have said it was for the new 91 model...

Now, first gear start is a good feature to look for when selecting an R129. What year did that feature come on board? I sure wish my 92 had it...

I guess, if I were selecting another R129, I would lean towards a 96 model or newer.

[Dee8go]

A 129 is my next acquisition! I was thinking of something between a '96 and a '99.

[iwrock]

The difference between the 6 and 8 cylinder cars in terms of fuel mileage is small.... I would go for the 500 over the 300, as its got more power, and will return almost the same fuel mileage.

[iwrock]

Originally Posted by Dee8go

A 129 is my next acquisition! I was thinking of something between a '96 and a '99.

If your in Sacramento, give me a holler. You can drive my 600.

[bobterry99]

Arguably the best years for the R129 are '90-'92 and '99-'02. Years '93-'95 have problems with disintegrating wiring harnesses, and '96 has problems with the transmission that was new that year (exception: SL320). These problems diminished in the following years and were well-sorted by MY1999.

[ctaylor738]

Here is what Ken Rockwell has to say:


This R129 body style SL500 was made from 1990 through 2002. It was called the 500 SL from 1990 - 1993.

They all have just about the same suspension regardless of year or package. The "sport" packages are just trim and tires, not suspension, engine or drivetrain. Some packages were called "AMG," but lack the engines and real hardware of the 2003 and newer AMG model cars.

From 1990 - 1995 the SL500 used a boring hydraulic 4-speed transmission. It was boring because it didn't usually downshift when punched. A much improved 5-speed electronic transmission was introduced in 1996 and used through today. The 5-speed automatic greatly improves the driving experience because it downshifts instantly, as well as adding a fuel saving overdrive.

The original 1990 - 1995 models also had a remote memory controlled interior rear view mirror and locking side door pockets. These features were skipped as of 1996 in favor of adding side airbags.

The high performance 4-valve quad-cam engine was made from 1990 - 1998. The 1999 - 2006 V8s are only three valve, single overhead cam versions with less power and torque. The simpler, lower performance 1999 - 2006 SL500 engines have two spark plugs per cylinder and have the identical EPA MPG.

Thus the best years for drivers are 1996, 1997 and 1998, which have both the quad-cam engine and the 5-speed transmission. They are the best SL500s ever made and are real Mercedes, not watered down Daimler-Chryslers.

The 1996 is the least expensive as a driver's car. It's only vices are an ugly wart hanging from the rear view mirror for the remote control and it's missing the garage door opener and automatic wipers. The 1997 and newer models fix that but cost more for the same engine and driveline.

The 1997 is just about perfect, which is why I choose it for myself.

The 1998 adds an alphanumeric display to the dashboard and a remote control with more buttons. The 1998 also introduced computer prediction of service intervals. In the 1998 and newer you can go about 12,000 miles between services depending on how the computer thinks you are driving. Many people don't trust the computer and service more often. 1997 and older were on 7,500 mile or 12 month intervals.

Newer SL500s after 1998 just cost more, may be more cheaply made and have the lower performance engine.

[lynns]

Originally Posted by bobterry99

Arguably the best years for the R129 are '90-'92 and '99-'02. Years '93-'95 have problems with disintegrating wiring harnesses, and '96 has problems with the transmission that was new that year (exception: SL320). These problems diminished in the following years and were well-sorted by MY1999.

May I suggest that with such great prices today on a used $90K car why not consider a newer version such as Bob has suggested? When you purchas a MY99-MY00 look for what is know as the SL500 Sport model. This includes the AMG lower body aerodynamic enhancements and 5 spoke staggered monoblook wheels. And keep your eyes open for one that has Xenon front lamps. If you find one it will also have heated sets and a fiber optic CD player located in the trunk. In MY01-MY02 the aerodynamic enhancements and 5 spoke wheels came standard with NO Sport emblem. But again keep your eyes open for the Xenon headlights w/ automatic level control and no headlight washer/wiper.

MY99-MY02 will have all of the final features that where ever available on the R129. FWIW, the 1999-2002 SL500 R129.068 chassis M113.961 engine 722.624 transmission has great performance and is pretty much bullet proof.

[frosty]

Btw, I've been meaning to ask if those side "gills" have a practical, functional purpose. I'd be disappointed if they're just for looks. It looks like my new cut-off year will be '96, as that's the year the R120 got a minor styling change. The higher production for the 500SL explains why I see so many advertised. I just thought it was the result of people wanting to dump what they percieve as a gas guzzler. Yeah, I've read the gas consumption between the 6 and the 8 is negligible. Thanks for that bit of info. Now I can feel less guilty about considering a 8 cylinder. Yet I can't help thinking how wrong it is to buy one in the midst of a gas crisis; it just seems illogical and goes against all reasoning and my sense of good financial common sense.

Color isn't much of a problem since I think any color looks good on an SL (except maybe maroon, least fav car color). However, I prefer black or silver.

[edsl94]

I've owned a 94 sl500 for alitttle over a year now with no issues. i did notice an touch of rust under the doors and as someone said there are no drains, i will look for the low spot and drill a hole. car appears well maintained and has never seen winter, plenty of power and no bad on gas if i stay out of the throttle. 56k miles with a near perfect gut.
I'm enjoying the forum, good source of insight and info.

[Jagdflieger]

You may be surprised to hear that the old R129 can also be a practical daily driver, rather than just fair weather eye candy (as Borat says "where is option lever? show me now where is pussy magnet")

The M119 in my 91 has over 185K mi, runs like it's ready to go 24hrs at Daytona, can get 22mpg at 70+ cruise and burns no oil. As noted, the 4sp AT seems reluctant to downshift without manual override, but has proven itself smooth and rock-solid reliable. This car is also blissfully free of the ASR, hydraulic suspension, crackly wiring harnesses and advanced digital electronics that seem to plague later models.

Your odds of finding a good 500SL are better than a 300, as many more 500s were built. There is really no reason not to buy the 500 SL over the underpowered 300 models with the expensive, iffy transmissions. These cars are solid and not lightweights, but with the M119 they are fast; much like the old small-block corvettes but without the rattles.