Maybe a New MB - 96 SL500?
So I think I found my next car. I currently have a diesel wich I love, but I always wanted a convertible.
I found a 96 SL500 for 16900. It has only 40k miles and appears to be in immaculate condition with everything working. But I do have a few questions: 1. Is it a fair price? 2. Is there something about this car I should be worried about? |
The price is 16900...Mexican Pesos? You buy that car NOW. If it is dollars, then this car is ridiculously overpriced.
1996 was the first year for the electronically controlled transmission, and early ones are prone to early failure. Be sure to have 30000 pesos budgeted for a possible tranny rebuild in the not-distant future. |
What would be a reasonable price for this car?
I am also curious about the trans issues - how would I nail them down and determine if this car is a candidate for failure? |
the seller has offered 15,500 as their best.
Is this still overpriced? I am still a bit worried about the trasmission as well, any ways to test the trans for issues? I have driven the car and did not notice any issues. |
It's not a bad price for an equivalent '97 or '98 SL 500.
If you do pursue it, though, make sure of the soft top condition and operation, that the climate control works perfectly on all functions, no static in the stereo, and that the locking/unlocking works perfectly with both the remote and the key. If the transmission works flawlessly under all conditions and doesn't leak, it's probably OK. You might ask if the seals on the electrical connector have been changed. And you should put $4000 in a money market account just in case. |
are the transmissions really that bad? The dealer (go figure) claims they are the greatest thing since sliced bread.
|
The 96 transmission was so bad that there is a good chance it has already been upgraded. High likely hood of planetary failure. It got really good by the year 2000.
|
Quote:
If you get a '99 or newer model you will have a more robust transmission as Roncallo mentioned as well as a slightly more powerful, possibly less troublesome engine (no oil feed tube failures). |
My full brain dump.
I believe that the 3-valve/cylinder engine introduced in 1999 had less HP (302) than the 1996-98 4-valve (315). Here's an article by Ken Rockwell that discusses the changes from year-to-year. He likes the '98 model. http://www.kenrockwell.com/sl/r129history.htm I like my '96, but the PO had to put a rebuilt transmission in it at 90K miles. My S500 coupe (same engine and trans) had the problem with the electrical connector seal leaking allowing ATF to wick up the wiring and fill the controller. It would then randomly lock up the torque converter at a stop and kill the engine. I am not making this up. At about 110K it started to slip when moving off from a stop when cold. I replaced the oil tubes in the coupe at 100K - one had blown. 1996 was the first year for OBD2 diagnostics. People with Star Diagnostics have told me that they got steadily better over the years and were "pretty good" by 2000. |
Quote:
Ken Rockwell is a guy who isn't particularly knowledgeable about Mercedes but has spent a lot of time making a website. He is responsible for spreading a considerable amount of disinformation about the R129, and this is a pity. |
Huh?
Well, peak horsepower is the commonly accepted measure of power.
And the assertion of better "significantly" better 0-60 times doesn't seem to be supported either. Most sources show the 119 at slightly under 6 seconds, the 113 at slightly over. Example http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.html |
Thanks a bunch!
I think your right and the dealer is trying to rip me off. No way am I paying 16900 for this car. Maybe 12000 is closer to realistic. Also, it worries me that they did not know about the transmission issue. Was there a formal recall? how would I find out about any official action taken by MB? |
Quote:
Quote:
Torque. Mathematically, horsepower is directly proportional to torque. Both the M113 and M119 motors have comparable maximum torque ratings; but while the M113 makes maximum torque between 2700 and 4500 RPMs, the M119 achieves this in a much narrower range from 4000 to 4500 RPM. Quote:
At any rate, the OP or another prospective buyer may not care about performance nuances. But if they do, I suggest they not rely on what Chuck or I have written. Instead, make the back-to-back comparison. |
Quote:
Mercedes does NOT take backwards steps, and the newer engine is better in lots of ways than the previous version. It's now been replaced, too, except for use in a few "55" AMGs still in production. But, as for heritage, the M119 was in a LeMans overall winner, but the M113 is the SLR McLaren engine. |
Well, I am pleased to say I found another 96 SL 500. This one has 84,000 miles on it but is much more in line with what I would expect to pay - 10.5k list.
Apparently all the books and records should be with this car. Aside from the transmission question is there anything else I should concern myself with? |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:39 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2024 Pelican Parts, LLC - Posts may be archived for display on the Peach Parts or Pelican Parts Website