SL320 or SL500 - that's the question!

[LeaUK]

Hi all

My heart is set upon a 93-96 (for cost reasons) but which model?

So can you guys help? My head says the 320, but my heart the 500 ;-)

Here's my thoughts on the pros and cons so far:

The 320:

+ much newer engine design
+ more economical (perhaps?)
+ flatter torque profile (due to variable valve timing - which I don't think the 500 has?)
+ cheaper parts (perhaps?)
- not a 500!

The 500:

+ has a V8
+ sounds like a V8 ;-)
+ much faster 0-60
+ more widely available when it comes to making a purchase
- MUCH lower urban economy (I suspect)
- higher priced parts
- lower resale value

So, any thoughts, or perhaps you can list more things I should consider that I haven't yet?

cheers

[suginami]

The U.K. may be different, but in the U.S., 1994 was the first year of the SL320.

The fuel economy of the two models are nearly identical.

17 / 24 mpg for the 320 and 16 / 23 mpg for the 500.

I'm not sure, either, if the 3.2 liter engine is really that much newer than the 5.0 liter. It was first used in 1992 in the W140 chassis S320.

The early M104 3.2 liter engines had problems with bad engine wiring harnesses from 1993-1995, as well as head gaskets that leak oil. The head gaskets were ultimately re-designed with copper inserts to prevent the leaking, but it was surely after 1996.

There really seem to be no similar problems with the 5.0 liter engine, though.

I think both engines are fantastic, but if you buy the 320, try and see if you can verify that the engine wiring harness and head gasket have been replaced.

[CDNC36AMG]

Learoy, to me there is no question. The 500 all the way. I was disappointed with the performance of the 300SL or 320SL's I've driven.

[LeaUK]

Thanks for the replies guys.

'93 in the UK ;-)
well according to one of our Merc mags over here...

Had a look at a 500 today - ooooooh...baby. She hadn't been looked after all that well as the interior was rather scruffy and there were a few noticeable dents, but the engine sounded great. Purred like a baby and she was an old girl of '91 too. Didn't get the chance to take her out though ;-(

Couldn't see any evidence of oils leaks, old or new, and apart from the foam coming adrift from the bonnet (replaced mine on my 190e a few months ago) the bay looked immaculate.

So all I need to do now is give a 320 a good going over, take her and 'an-other' 500 out for a spin of course and compare.

Has anyone got any real life fuel usage guides? I can't understand how these two engines are quoted/measured so similar. Surely the 500 eats nearly twice that of the 320???

Cheers
Lea

[CDNC36AMG]

Gotta remember how hard the 3.2 has to work. The SL is one heavy, solid car.

I have a Buick Reatta with a 3.8 V6 that barely gets better mileage than the 500SL due to the heavy weight of the Reatta. The six's do get better mileage but not to the extent you'd expect.

[elau]

I don't think you can go wrong with either the 320 or the 500. Both are good cars.

I would think the 500 consumes more gas even the 320 may have to work harder. But in the end, the equation is still gas+air =power. Air is free, but I would imagine the gas price in the UK is substanially higher than here in the US. The V-8 is also substanially heavier, thus the overall package must be put into perspective. I have others point out to me that if I can afford a SL, gas price should not be a concern. My point is, if I can squeeze out a few more miles from my gallon of gas for fun, why not?

I think the top end power of the two cars is relatively similar. Once you are at crusing speed the 320 does just as well to deliver power as the 500. The real concern is how much you want to beat someone to the next light. The 500 does that well, but that is not what the SL is built for.

Good luck with your decision, I love my 320.

[Roger65]

Both are great cars, but I would definately go for the 500 all the way.

I get the same mileage from my 500SL that I got from my Porsche 911SC, around 12-13 MPG in town, 20 on the highway. The 911 weighs about 1200 lbs less, at least. It is my lead foot that produces the crappy mileage, more than differences in engine or car specs. I just love acceleration, and I'm willing to pay for it. If I tried to drive for economy, I might save 20 bucks a month in gas, but that really seems insignificant.

As far as engine design, I am pretty sure the 500 has variable valve timing, but am definately sure that the 500 will out torque and out pull the 320 everywhere on the tach. The 500 also has about 60 extra hp up top. The 300 is probably smoother, though.

The only reason I would get a 300 is if I wanted a manual transmission, unavailable on the 500. The classic 300 nameplate is also kind of cool, but I think you will like driving the 500 a lot more.

Roger

[Momo]

Another way of looking at it...

If you buy the 320, you will regret not having bought the 500 for a long time. The other way around will produce no regrets. Strangely, I have never regretted not buying the 600.

Weights of the two are within a few percent. Fuel consumption is about 10% different. (I am sure you can find the stats in the UK CAR magazine, if you have an issue that dates from before the latest model.) Performance is totally different, because the cars weigh about 1800 kg, and the 320 has more difficulty coping. The 500 also had more gadgets as standard, if memory serves, like better air conditioning.

Momo

[jjrodger]

I am a UK resident; I am also very close to buying a 99 SL500 and have looked into it very closely. You will find that the 500 is significantly cheaper on the used market than a similarly aged 300SL-24/SL320. This is because it is perceived as more expensive to run and insure. It is not much more expensive in either regard and will be a much more satisfying vehicle.

The SL320 (up to 98) has about 231bhp; the SL500 (again up to 98) has 326bhp. The difference in torque is even greater. The SL500 is fitted with a higher final drive: only 2,200rpm at 70mph. As another poster has said, the 3.2 litre has to work awfully hard to shift all that car. All this said, the 3.2 is not a slow car; however the 500 is effortless in its performance.

The 4-valve 5.0 litre V8 debuted in the SL in November 1989. It is one of the best engines MB has ever made. Apparently they have never had to replace one of these engines under warranty. The 4-valve 3.0 is somewhat compromised being a 4-valve head fixed to a block designed for 2-valves per cylinder. The 4-valve 3.2 is better but not as good as the V8 (see the previous posts about head gaskets).

Up to about 98 the SL500 also came with a higher spec, with climate control air con in particular (some early 300SLs and 300SL-24s don't even have air co). After 98 the differences are slight (xenon lights is the only major difference that I can think of).

After 98 the 500 is the better choice in all regards: it uses less fuel than the 320 for some reason. The 3-valve V6s are very heavy on fuel in ordinary use.

Finally, whatever you go for, shop around. There are a lot of cars out there and many are duds. These are expensive cars to fix. Mercedes dealers sell the best cars and always with at least a year's warranty and in my experience their cars are cheaper than independent dealers'. This is well-observed in the press; I've no idea why it is, though. You would be mad to buy from anywhere other than a franchised dealer. There are several cars on offer at about GBP15k right now, all low mileage SLs of 8 to 10 years vintage. Try the used car search at www.mercedes-benz.co.uk

I have brochures for the SL going back to 1997 as well as every issue of CAR magazine from 1972; if you'd like precise figures, give me a shout and I'll note them up for you.

Finally, good luck!

[Hans-Ulrich]

I sure like our SL500. Since we mostly dirve it on the weekends, fuel economy really isn't a factor. The power is awesome, and its really easy to get the car going FAST. When the engine is in the upper RPM ranges the sound is similar to that of a late 60s early 70s muscle car. I'm thinking of my cousin's BOSS 302.
I think if you purchase a SL 320 you will always wonder "What if.....? This, of course, is just my opinion. :p

[Eli (NJ)]

Maybe I'm too logical here, but this should be a no brainer. The 500 is much more car and cheaper in the UK than the 320, the performance superior with similar mileage, and the prestige of the rear badge alone is worth getting one. I love the performance of my 500SL and don't have to worry about kids in everyday cars embarassing a $90,000 car at the stoplight run. So, if this is important to you at all, you know what to get. Good luck with either choice.
Eli.

[LeaUK]

Wow - absolutely amazing. I love forums, the best way to research about a car is to talk to real owners. Thanks for all your comments.


I agree with the cost - around 15K and that's exactly my budget, but I'm just concerned with fuel (79p / litre here in the UK!!! - ) and part costs really (oh and insurance) over the 320.

Are the parts significantly dearer compared with the 320, as I know manufactures set the price depending on model?

Having said that, I'm in the lucky position of having a father-in-law who can service her and get all parts (OEM parts too) so that will definitely help ;-)

>>There are a lot of cars out there and many are duds.
Any clues for spotting these? as I've been to a Merc dealer (here down south) and they told me they've just sold a 300 '90 for 20K -it's really put me off Merc dealers!!!


Love to hear any more comments, so again thanks for helping a prospective buyer ;-)

Lea

[G-Benz]

I notice you hail from the UK.

If gas (that's petrol to you guys) prices hurt your wallet, then you may want to consider the 320. Easier on the mileage.

[elau]

Parts is parts as they used to say

I believe the part price stays pretty much the same, whether its is a 320 or 500.

BTW, the 320 was discontinued in the States in '98 when the SLK hit the market on this side of the pond.

If your father-in-law can work on the car for you then price of parts should not be a factor. Most of the service cost is labor. And believe me, shops think you have $$$$ to spent as soon as they see your car is a SL.

As for your choice, go with what your heart desires. You only live once. In my case, the 320 works well, but that doesn't mean every now and then I don't wonder what if .......just like one of the members said. I get the 600 bug every now and then, never the 500 bug though.

[jjrodger]

The 320 and 500 only significantly differ parts-wise in the engine. I'm guessing, but I think the 320 will be cheaper for engine parts than the 500 because the 320 motor was fitted to other vehicles lower down the range (i.e. the E320 and in 2.8 litre form the C280). However you are unlikely to need much in the way of engine parts (obviously there are 8 spark plugs--not cheap these days--and probably a larger oil capacity, these things will affect service costs.

The 500 will use more fuel and cost more to insure but not a lot more, probably about 10-15%.

The 320 is still a great car. In 1996 Car magazine compare a SL320 to the then new Jaguar XK8 convertible and it fared very favourably in all regards, even being competitive on real-world performance terms.

On price, at the moment the cheapest dealership SL I can find is a 1994/M SL280 in black over mushroom (nice) with 69k miles at GBP18k. However I definitely seen several recently at GBP15k to 16k including a 300SL-24 in smoke silver over mushroom (also nice imho). I looked at these quite seriously because I considered getting a cheaper, older SL as a second car and keeping my C-Class, rather than trading the C against a newer SL (I rejected the idea because the extra insurance was heavy and I don't have a garage). There seems to be a much higher turnover of the cheaper cars at the dealers (I've been checking every day for about a month). Also, remember there is room for negotiation on these cars (I've recently seen a 99 SL500 dropped in price by GBP4k from 33k to 29k with only gentle prodding).

I have been looking for a relatively new car. However I suppose the same criteria apply. You should get a full MB or specialist service history. These cars should not be tatty in any way at all, especially inside. Check the paintwork for badly repaired accident damage. A good check is to run your fingers along the bottom edge of each panel where it meets the large plastic trim on the flanks and check for paint joins. Also check the edges and corners of the panels for paint runs. Look for oil leaks in the engine bay. Also look for chassis welds (walk away). Make sure all the electrical components work as these will be expensive (eg air co, electric seats and stuff). You should also check the operation of the hood and the latching of the hard top by removing it and reattaching it, preferably more than once.

There is no need to be embarrassed about taking your time if you're serious about buying. Remember, the seller wants a lot of your hard earned. GBP150 on an inspection might also be money well spent.

There was a buying guide in a recent edition of Mercedes Enthusiast. If I can get my hands on a scanner I will copy it for you. I hope you can find a car. I'm this close (holds thumb and fore finger half an inch apart) to buying a 99 SL500 in smoke silver over java with 49k miles and just need gentle tipping into a decision!