R107 - really a sportscar?

[freshairfiend]

Over the years a lot of posts have mentioned the performance of various iterations of "der panzerwagen". Admittedly the two previous SL models were sports cars and had been relatively successful in competition but when Mercedes produced the R107 they radically changed just about everything that had made the SL marque a success. Perhaps the R107 should not even have been called an SL - it certainly wasn't light as the Gullwings and the Pagodas had been. On the other hand the way they drove was in an entirely different class. I wonder how many people reading this will consider the 107 a sports car and how many will think of it as more of a sporty roadster, a cruiser without peer.
Admittedly none of these cars were slouches but there were many cars that could see them off in the early 1970's when performance became a slave to the EPA, and in today's world many a well tuned four banger has faster acceleration. Even in the late 1980's when the Euro 500SL and the 560SL returned some sparkle to their performance a Grand National or Mustang 5 liter could see them off with ease.
My conclusion is that the R107 (the most popular SL ever) has a blend of luxury, looks and mystique that has not yet been duplicated. Even today, it is an eye catcher. Any comments?

[fonzi]

It started off pretty sporty with a revvy v8 3.5 and a standard stick shift in 1971/72. But the Versions for the US, where most of the cars were sold always performed more like cruisers, and they fit that well. Look at "American Gigolo" or "Heart to Heart". These cars iconified a refined cruiser for the elite, not a race car. People that liked to know there was power under the pedal when needed, but would rarely use it.

The SLC which looks like hell in US big bumper form is more of the race version of the 107 with the 5.0 liter homogated for endurance rally racing, something for which a "panzer wagon" does well, surely contributing to the name.

The sportiest feeling 107 I ever drove was probably my 1981 280slc 4-Speed manual. It may not have been the fastest, but it had the highest revving engine of any 107 I've ever driven, and racing, you keep the revs high.

[97 SL320]

With 2 seats and a convertible top, the R107 does lean towards "sports car" however I'd consider it more of a 2 seat Ford Thunderbird than a Chevy Corvette.

Traditional sports cars are more minimalistic than a R107 so I'd call the R107 a car with sporting intentions / personal luxury car / touring car / the ( probably red ) car in the song "Hotel California". A sports car is more at home on twisting roads than open highway where later SL were more highway cruisers.

To bear that out, the R129 ( 90 - 02 ) is somewhat sporty and ,at 4,100 lb, makes a mockery of light. The car is more of a road car and is rather heavy and ponderous around town, my 97 C280 is much better for buzzing around town in.

It seems as time goes on,the SL is more targeted to those with $ than those that want a sporty car. To that end, have a look at SL pricing from 1970 Vs other models, the SL back then was a relative bargain. Also look at the link for how others view comparable today's models.

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/vintage-mercedes/377456-1970-prices-cars-options.html

POST 4
SL320
I've added to the list, now it is someones turn to post pricing of 2016 equivalent models / pricing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idle
I found this information in a car I was taking parts from.

1970 prices of Mercedes... and in terms of 2016 money



220 $4961 $30,447.75

220d $5067 $31,098.32

280se $6866 $42,139.54

280sl $7417 $45,521.26 seems really low for an SL

280se coupe $11612 $71,267.75

280se convertible $12444 $76,374.09

300sel 6.3 $15122 $92,810.11

600 $24600 $150,980.60

600 7 pass $28120 $172,584.33


Options....

Automatic transmission $368 $2,258.57

Becker stereo $289 $1,773.72

a/c $498 $3,056.44

sliding roof, electrical $257 $1,577.32

tinted glass $72 $441.89

Leather $274 $1,515.94

[freshairfiend]

How disappointing - I had hoped to start a discussion on the points pro and con of these great cars. For instance, they seem to have managed to achieve a reputation as gas guzzlers and I must admit that they're all a bit thirsty around town, but at cruising speed on a longer trip they're really not all that bad.

[ejboyd5]

Ford had a good idea during the mid '50 while engaged in a marketing battle between the two seat Thunderbird and the Corvette. Instead of competing against the "sports car" image and appellation correctly applied to the Corvette, Ford referred to the Thunderbird as a "personal car." Perhaps this terminology is appropriate for the R 107 as well?

[Graham]

Originally Posted by freshairfiend

How disappointing - I had hoped to start a discussion on the points pro and con of these great cars.

There have been many such discussions - starting over 40 years ago You may be a little late to the party 107 was never was intended to be a true sports car (whatever that is). Just inherited the SL designation from the earlier 2 seater models. I think of sports cars as those early British MGs, TRs and others. But really the designation means nothing. I find my GLK250 diesel SUV more sporty to drive than my SL But on a nice sunny day......

[97 SL320]

I'd consider the late 90's and up SLK ( based on the 95 - 00 C class ) more of a sports car. Small, nimble, not a lot of fluff, adequate but not overwhelming power, not very expensive.

Something to consider, a car must be judged against it's era rather than newer cars. My 97 SL 320 has nothing in terms of quietness over nearly any 2016 car, but for it's day, it was very good.

[rwd4evr]

I'll report back on sportiness of my 450slc 4 speed with as much weight as possible removed. It should be great at 2600 pounds instead of 3500. they're just too heavy stock. Even my 17' long monte carlo SS only weighs 3000. The undercoating alone has got to be over 100#.

[karburn]

Well....speaking for my 87 560SL only...it sure as hell does not handle like a sports car. Gets a lot of attention though. That iconic look.

[rwd4evr]

1000lb diet would do wonders!! Stock tires aren't up to it either.

[ericdee]

Originally Posted by freshairfiend

Even in the late 1980's when the Euro 500SL and the 560SL returned some sparkle to their performance a Grand National or Mustang 5 liter could see them off with ease.

Have you ever driven one of those cars? A 107 has it all over those two.

Only Fred Flintstone would love those brakes.

[rwd4evr]

I've never driven a 5.0 mustang besides a Saleen which is a different car really, but my Monte Carlo ss (grand national basically) was horrible stock. But a few proper bolt on suspension bits and it's pretty good. Brakes suck horribly though.

[freshairfiend]

In answer to ericdee, yes, I've driven 5 liter Fox body Mustangs several times and a 1987 Grand National for 3 years and 100,00 miles. Of course both are completely different from any 107 - that was my point. Both were built primarily for performance and the 107 was not. Both the Mustang and the GN were transportation with a lot of performance and some fun added in. The 107 is both classier and slower, and considering its age, more luxurious, however the car in my garage that is babied, cherished and happily driven whenever the sun shines is a 1985 Euro 280SL, not a Mustang or a GN. The daily driver is an Infiniti G35, which is probably a better car than all three, however it will never be a collector.

[fonzi]

Originally Posted by freshairfiend

How disappointing - I had hoped to start a discussion on the points pro and con of these great cars. For instance, they seem to have managed to achieve a reputation as gas guzzlers and I must admit that they're all a bit thirsty around town, but at cruising speed on a longer trip they're really not all that bad.

WTH does mpg have to do with whether it's a sports car or not.

I think there's confusion between muscle car and sports car in this thread. A Porsche or a 3 series BMW is usually a Sportscar, light, nimble, good for the race track. Engine size doesn't make it a sports car, but the engine weight should not throw off the handling.

Muscle car? All about 0-60, drag strip, burning tires, etc.

Unfortunately, the R/C107 is really neither. The m110 engine in your 280sl is the closest MB ever got to a sports car in the 107 chassis IMO. The 500sl/slc is as close as they got to a muscle car in the 107 chassis. The 5.0 was the most suited for racing though despite the higher revving m110. The m110 being available in a stick shift helps it be more of a sports car IMO.

The anti-squat / anti-dive rear end that was standard on: 560sl, 500sl, 450slc 5.0/500slc, euro 450sl, euro 450slc, and possibly the 380 euro cars (not the 350sl/slc or 280sl/slc, or US 450 or 380 though) really helps keep the car balanced though. So my argument about the m110 version gets weaker and really comes down to the lighter feel and higher revving engine, and of course the stick shift.

I think about taking the anti-squat rear end from one of the 560sl parts cars rwd4evr and I co-own and putting it into my 280sl 5-Speed, or my 350sl 4-Speed, but I do a lot more thinking than doing, just like I bought the 350sl 4-Speed with thoughts of putting the manual trans into my 1978 450slc 5.0 custom convertible and the heads into my 1973 280se 4.5.

The 280sl is a great little car to rev and drive like a sports car. Have fun with it!!

And oh... Congrats on having a 107 that gets reasonable MPG. There aren't many IMO.

[C.Doner]

The 280sl auto is not all that bad as far as performance. I have mine tuned to have a first gear start. It goes quickly. I floor it at 65mph and kick down to 3rd and its like a rocket peaking out the rpm. 65-85 is very quick. at 85 that thing is just smooth as can be. Has anyone else tried the glass of water trick? Sitting a glass of water on the valve cover. Rev to 3k rpm. It barely shakes at all. Pretty impressive IMO. 280sl auto folks if you don't get first gear when you get on it, start try adjusting the throttle and kickdown. Ive been roasted on here for suggesting such a thing. I suggest it because the euro SL owners manual says "280sl 1st gear start off. 380sl, 500sl 2nd gear start off". Some say you have to activate the kickdown switch under the pedal. That does do it, but It should not have to. Sufficient throttle should kick down to first giving quite a nice take off. Once again for 280sl only. Not 280se or other 280. The 280Sl auto transmission does not exactly match any other car, as far as I know.