R107 - really a sportscar? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

freshairfiend · #16 09-14-2016, 05:23 PM

According to the owner's handbook the automatic 280SL fuel consumption 19.1 mpg imperial - (around 16 US) in the city. Highway consumption at 56mph showed as 28.8 mpg Imperial (approx. 24 US) and at 75mph as 23.5 Imperial (around 19.6 US). The stickshift version is about 10% better. Strangely enough both the Euro 380SL and the 500SL are shown as giving very slightly better economy than the 6 cylinder 280SL. My own experience is around 15-17 mpg per US gallon for mixed driving and around 22-23 mpg on the highway driving at speeds between 60-70mph using 89 octane gas. Considering the kind of car this is I don't think these numbers are too bad. I probably average only about 2,000-2,500 miles per season though so fuel economy is not that important a factor. As C.Doner mentioned the car is reasonably quick off the mark and there is plenty of passing power but it's still a long way from a high performance vehicle. The SL's that followed the 107 have become much quicker and more sporty, however in my opinion the 107 is still the best of the bunch especially when bought as a toy car and viewed as an all round cruiser.

97 SL320 · #17 10-22-2016, 08:13 PM

Another thought as to if the R107 is a sports car. The 1986 - 93 Cadillac Allanté was aimed towards the R107 but I would not call the Allanté a sports car even though it has 2 seats and convertible top, it is more of a luxury touring car

1988-1991 Buick Reatta was also a 2 seat luxury touring car but I'm not sure what it was aimed at.

Diseasel300 · #18 10-22-2016, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freshairfiend

According to the owner's handbook the automatic 280SL fuel consumption 19.1 mpg imperial - (around 16 US) in the city. Highway consumption at 56mph showed as 28.8 mpg Imperial (approx. 24 US) and at 75mph as 23.5 Imperial (around 19.6 US). The stickshift version is about 10% better. Strangely enough both the Euro 380SL and the 500SL are shown as giving very slightly better economy than the 6 cylinder 280SL. My own experience is around 15-17 mpg per US gallon for mixed driving and around 22-23 mpg on the highway driving at speeds between 60-70mph using 89 octane gas.

Very interesting fuel-economy figures for the 6 cylinder. I have no idea what the posted fuel consumption for the 500SL is, but I've been averaging around 18mpg in "mixed" driving in the '83. Highway, I'll average somewhere around 25-26mpg. In-town only I have no idea, I've never driven it in stop/go only before on a single tank of fuel. Curious that the V8's get better economy than the 6 cylinder! I also run "Mid-grade" fuel in mine, never any pinging or predetonation, so I don't feel the need for "Premium"

97 SL320 · #19 10-23-2016, 09:49 AM

One of the reasons a larger engine can get better fuel economy is if the smaller engine is too small for the cars weight / frontal area. If the smaller engine is constantly running in the power portion of the fuel curve ( rich mixtures generally seen over 70% throttle ) so fuel use goes up.

Diseasel300 · #20 10-23-2016, 10:21 AM

Interesting. I'm fine believing that the 3.5 and 3.8L would get better fuel economy than the 2.8, but it just seems like a bit of a stretch that the 5.0L would be so much better. Perhaps the lack of any emissions equipment helps a bit there too.

alabbasi · #21 10-24-2016, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by freshairfiend

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

Without sounding rude, this is the type of question that can be discussed endlessly by people who know absolutely nothing about what they're talking about. Aside from the 300SL which has a racing history, All other SL's are GT cars.

If you're looking for a sports car from the era, you need to look to British or Italian cars.

Comparing them to anything new pointless too. A 1980 Ferrari 308GTSi only made about 215hp which is what most 4 cylinder hatchbacks make today and yes a Ford Focus RS would probably cream just about every exotic car from the 70's and 80's.

freshairfiend · #22 10-24-2016, 12:48 PM

Alabassi is right in much of what he says except that the Pagodas did have some limited competitive history as did the SLC 500, although I believe only a few of the latter were fitted with the high performance engine to enable this. They did quite well until Mercedes once again withdrew from competition. He 's also right in that it is somewhat pointless to compare them to any modern cars and difficult to compare them to any of their contemporaries. They really were - and still are - in a class of their own.

alabbasi · #23 10-24-2016, 02:18 PM

I'd also like to add that these cars were not slouches by any stretch , especially when looking at models marketed outside the US.

The 2.8 liter six made 185hp
The 3.5 V8 made 200hp and red lined to 6000RPM
The 4.5 V8 made 225hp and the later 5.0 made 240hp.

Porche models with similar displacement made similar HP and mostly anything else made by anyone else still had carburetors or live axles or rear drum brakes. The 3 speed automatic was more like a 2nd , 3rd and 4th gear and for this reason, 0-60 times were not fantastic, but they could pass just about anything comfortably at motorway speeds.

These cars are starting to climb in their collectible. Because MB's made so many of them over the 18 or so years of production, it's not likely that they will ever be as collectible.

97 SL320 · #24 10-24-2016, 09:19 PM

Try this:

Comparison Test: 1984 Ferrari 308 GTSi vs. 2007 Kia Sedona

And note the Toyota Rav 4 that was noted farther down the article has the same engine used in the Toyota Sienna van. We have a van at work and it is pretty speedy.

Diseasel300 · #25 10-24-2016, 10:00 PM

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the 107 is a "Sports car". It isn't. It's a fine GT car, but nothing more, nothing less. They were made to have the top dropped, nice sunny day, twisty country road, and having a fine time.

Oh and to make everyone you drive past green with envy...

rwd4evr · #26 10-25-2016, 03:04 AM

the best euro 3.5 was 215 i believe and redlines at 6500 rpm. euro 3.8 is 225 and 6300 redline. its great over 3500.

fonzi · #27 10-26-2016, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rwd4evr

the best euro 3.5 was 215 i believe and redlines at 6500 rpm. euro 3.8 is 225 and 6300 redline. its great over 3500.

Where did you get your numbers? I thought the 3.5 was closer to 200hp and the best 3.8 was the early one, like 1981 with 215hp, but later like the 1983 you drove is closer to 200hp, and that was in the 380se. I'm not sure what was in the r/c107 380sl and 380slc.

Are those numbers not HP?

DieselPaul · #28 10-27-2016, 04:31 PM

Between PS, HP, BHP, KW, Mercedes quoting different numbers different years for different cars, etc. I'd say you're both right.

DieselPaul · #29 10-27-2016, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diseasel300

Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the 107 is a "Sports car". It isn't. It's a fine GT car, but nothing more, nothing less. They were made to have the top dropped, nice sunny day, twisty country road, and having a fine time.

Oh and to make everyone you drive past green with envy...

Agreed totally, 107 is a great car, I have one in the garage, but if you bought it for sporty handling you've got the wrong tool for the job.