Potential SL owner

[ML Dude]

Hey Fellas,

Need some input on my decision to purchase an SL or CLK. All I know at this point is that I want a convertible. My budget doesn't allow for me to buy a new one of either model, but I'd like to stretch and get one with some factory warranty.
I should point out that I want the eight cylinder version of either, my question is regarding which model year SL to look at buying.

In S. Cal, there are many 98 and 99's available right now and I took a test drive in a 99 sport with 40K mi on it. Frankly the car did not feel tight. A 2000 CLK430 I test drove felt much more solid and stable.
What do you guys think, did I have a bad example of an SL? Do I have to go back a couple of years to get better build quality? In other forums the MB build quality has been criticized for recent year models, specifically late 90's models. Did the SL500 get the two plug/cylinder engine in 98?

Any input is welcomed, thanks!

[Arju]

Looks like you may have had a bad example. The SL is very solid. I got a 1997 so its kind of out of your range (warrenty?) unless you buy from a dealer with a signature class warrenty.

The car does have rattles, mainly from the soft top, although once in a while. The car is very reliable you just might want to watch the electronic systems.

Good Luck! If you can get into the club, the SL is an amazing car. (At least to me!)

- Arju

I'd have a hard time guessing whether you had a bad example or if your expectations are unrealistic. If you are accustomed to very rigid sedans, any roadster is apt to seem loose to you; however, I've been a roadster nut all of my life---mostly Corvettes---and am amazed at how tight my SL is (also a 97.) Keep in mind that there is no top structure to eliminate any twisting in the chassis.

I _can_ tell you that after 50 Corvettes, including a ZR-1 and an L88, 4 Porsches, 2 Panteras, and a couple of other semi-interesting cars, you couldn't run me out of my SL with a bucket of, uh, stuff and a stick; I just plain love it. It doesn't squeak or rattle or disappoint me in any way. Superb air conditioner and heater, the fully automatic top is great, handles and stops nice, and it scoots pretty good too. What more could you want?

The prices have really dropped on these in the last year; if you've been wanting one, you couldn't have picked a better time.

Quit trying to mind-diddle it and just get one; you won't be sorry.

Travis

[DALE DORIA]

Could not have said it better......This is an EXCELLENT vehicle.....If you are looking to drive.......then this is the car.

[elau]

Totally agree!! I just got back from taking mine out for a Sunday drive, and I still have the grin on my face. The SL is a much better car to buy than the CLK. The SL comes with the timeliness design, whereas the CLK is already due a face lift. In addition, the SL being a two seater, you have all the excuse not to take more than one other person with you for those long pleasurable drives. You may have to deal with "back seat driver" symptom in a CLK.

[ML Dude]

Travis,

I can relate to what you're saying and the construction of the chassis is the reason only german convertibles are on my list!

I didn't mention the Boxster S, which I love! Trouble is the manual shifting on LA roads is thing of the past. I been thinking that I needed a larger engine for having an automatic tranny so I'm looking at the SL500.

What are you guys saying about Model year? Any significant differences which should weigh in my decision?

Rgds, Ed

I've just gone through the exaxt same process and after driving several SLs (and having previously owned a 98) I ended up with a 2000 that was absolutely in showroom condition. I love it.
Like any car, there are good and bad SLs depending on who owned it before you. I would go for a 2000 and be willing to pay in the low 60's for one that's in good shape. The 2000 has a better radio (compatible with integrated, voice activated phone), and has a few other appearance enhancements that makes it look a bit more current than, say the 98. The 2002 is not appreciably different, so there's no sense in going "newer" especially when you consider that a new model is coming out.
As far as quality goes, that problem has been pretty much focused on the more recent introductions that were rushed to market. The CLK may be one of those. These problems were freauently about electronics as MB tried to catch up with all the new whiz bang stuff that's coming out - also assembly problems MB engines have been pretty solid.
The SL, having been arounf since 1989, is totally "ripe" and is solid as a rock. You won't have any quality problems with this car, provided you don't get one that's been abused.
Hope that helps.

[G-Benz]

I think you will do well with any model year you find, as most changes over the years were cosmetic...dash layout, body kit, wheels, lenses, etc. Mileage and wear are more the deciding factor.

The xenon beams came in 97 (I think), and if you so desire, you can retrofit some '00 and '01 components to make yours look like a fresher model.

Keep in mind that the depreciation curve on the SLs is steep...so unless you have a lot of "up-front" cash on hand, plan on making your choice a "keeper".

[elau]

You really should not compare the Boxster wtih the SL. Boxster is a dynamic car, but since its inceptions, it is now dime a dozen. Nothing bugs me more than seeing my own car at every stop light. Whereas a SL is a little rare, at least in my part of the country.
As for the engine size, don't be fooled by the V8 in SL 500 vs I6 in SL 320. There are plenty of articles out there supporting my argument. The best money for the car is still the SL 320. The V8 is rather heavy. With the weight of the car, the SL 500 is not necessarily that much faster SL 320. Bear in mind that the SL is more of a Grand Tourer than a pure breed sport car (that's a different story for the 2003 model), so even the SL 500 is not going to perform like a P-car without modifications. The SL 600 is even heavier and since only a small number is produced, it makes the SL 600 a collector's item. Consider the price of gas where you live as well. The big V8 is going to drink more, and the price of gas is not coming back down.

Yeah, but....

Let's don't try to get TOO practical here. If you're going to spring for an SL, don't worry about economy. My SL600 does around 15 to 16 mpg in town and about 21 or 22 on the road. Sure, there are lots of more economical cars, but that's not bad and, as the Curtis Mathes guy used to say, "Darn well worth it..."

Also, a six isn't an option if he wants a car under warranty---'97 was the last year for the 320.

Frankly, for the difference in what you'll have to pay, I don't think you need to worry too much about a warranty; these cars are essentially bullet-proof. They are a mature design using, for the most part, components that had been well designed and refined in the S Class line.

And the xenon lights came out in '96, FWIW. After having 'em, they're on my "gotta have" list.

MLDude, if you look at all the replies you got and combine them, I think you'll realize that us 129 pilots are generally satisfied. There isn't a thing wrong with any of them. Get a '90 300SL or an '02 SL600 or anything in between----you'll love it. But if you buy a new or near new one, as was mentioned earlier, plan to keep it---you're gonna have a firm grip on it!

Best,

Travis

[ML Dude]

Thanks to all for the replies, but not too many SL owners chimed in positive responses, can I assume most are neutral about their rides?

Was there any engine change in MY 98 to the two plug/cyl engine???

[elau]

ML Dude,
I think we are telling you the way we SL owners feel about the car. As for ride and all, I have to say its is a very solid car, with all the comfort creatures. As far as the two plug cyclinder/engine question that you have, I have to admit I have no knowledge. BTW, what do you mean by that? As far as I know, all SLs come with the 104 engine which is a solid piece of engineering.

[ML Dude]

elau,

I was only referring to the fact that just a few SL owners took the time to answer. I know that I provide feedback when I can on the ML or Diesel forums so I assumed many SL owners might express an opinion...

As far as the engine, all the other MB model lines; C, E and S used a new engine in 1998 with two plugs per cylinder and three valves per cylinder. The main feature of this engine for me was improved fuel economy and improved power output, a nice feat.

Comments so far are that the SL changes have been largely cosmetic throughout the nineties, true??

[elau]

ML Dude,
There a a new post in Tech Help section in reference of the 119 motor for a late model SL. I think that must be the one you are referring to. My is a MY95 and has a 104 motor so I do not know much about the newer engine.

The SL line has pretty much stay the same cosmetically since it came out in '89. The earlier models have two tones. But the major changes were made in MY96, i.e. seats, inside door panels, alloy wheels, bumper, rocker panels, AC control panel and steering wheel. The HID headlights were added in MY98. These are the changes that I know of, I am sure there are a few more here and there. The 320 was discontinued in the US market in '98 when they rolled out the SLK, while the production continues for the European and Asian markets.

I am not sure how many SL owners in this forum. Maybe not that many and thus low input to your post.

[G-Benz]

MLDude:

We haven't done a roll call in awhile, but I would suffice to say that a good portion of the SL membership would be owners of the early-generation SLs...I too one day hope to join that group!

From experience, I have found the SL forum to have a very light posting rate (as opposed to "Tech Help" and "Open Discussion"). Even the ML, G and Unimog forum eclipses this one pretty soundly on posts.

By that measurement, you have a good proportion of activity on your thread!

Also, folks tend to hop on when they start a thread for a problem they are trying to solve...so the low post rate should speak for itself about the quality and reliability of these cars!