1996-2000 320 or 500sl? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

anc4 · #1 01-01-2006, 09:33 AM

my wife just drove a 98 500sl w/ 32k miles, sport version and loved it, before i pull the trigger, should i look at a 99? i heard that the engines were modified in 99. also, a 320sl would give here better gas mileage, but at what sacrifice in performance? any imput would greatly be appreciated.
happy new yr to all!!

tecqboy · #2 01-01-2006, 10:04 PM

I don't believe 320's were made after 1995/96. It was reported that the new improved 3 valve V8 500's introduced at the time were just as fuel efficient as the older I6 320's. Anybody else know exactly when the 320's were discontinued?

SteveA · #3 01-02-2006, 05:30 AM

I have a 1999 320! - I think they continued to build them up to about 2001 and then it was replaced with the 350. Depends which country you're in.

page62 · #4 01-02-2006, 08:35 AM

As opposed to being concerned about engine vs. engine, I'd focus primarily on the overall condition of any given vehicle you're looking at. And it sounds like you've found a real sweet one! Only 32K miles is a big plus in my book...and if the car's been kept in a garage and lovingly cared for...these are all much more important. If you love the car, don't worry which powerplant it has!

...as long as the price is right!

deanyel · #5 01-02-2006, 10:30 AM

But there's a lot of great cars out there. Nothing wrong with searching for the one that best suites your needs and driving style. The 99 V8, a 113 motor, isn't really modified, it's completely redone. Performance numbers are similar to the prior 119 motor but they are very different motors. The 113 motor is significantly improved and significantly cheapened. It gets better fuel economy and has lower maintenance. It also doesn't sound as good and probably won't last as long. It has been criticized for not being built to be rebuilt. You just need to drive them both and see if you have a preference. Same is true for the six - there is a performance tradeoff and you just need to drive it. 1997 was the last year of the SL320, with a straight six, never came with a V6 in the U.S. If it was me in the range you have specified I would go for a 96 SL320 - the only way in to avoid a 722.6 transmission in the range you specified.

elau · #6 01-02-2006, 12:12 PM

Deanyel is corect. The last model year in the U.S. for the 320 is '97. MB replaced the 320 with the introduction of the SLK. However, the 320 and 280were continued in other parts of the world.

I would prefer anything pre-1998. It is just that I think the cars were built better prior to the Diamler and Chrysler merger. In addition, I personally can't stand to see the strick plate in the door sill that says DiamlerChrylser on it. I prefer it to read Mercedes Benz. But that's my personal opinion.

If the car has full service history, then it's a gem.

stats007 · #7 01-02-2006, 04:14 PM

The M113 actually sounds alot nicer than an M119 but some of that is down to the changes in exhaust design. It is also a far more reliable engine - nearly all the engine problems posted on forums about V8 R129s are with the M119. The model designation was changed from postfix (500SL) to prefix (SL500) in 1994. The SL320 is, IMO, underpowered for a car weighing almost 2 tonnes.

MB Data

1996 - 1998 SL320 (M104 L6)

0-62.5mph 8.4s
0-100mph 19.3s
Fuel economy 15.4 / 30.7 / 22.6 (mpg- city- extra urban - overall)
CO2 emissions N/A

1998 - 2001 SL320 (M112 V6) ('99 model year)

0-62.5mph 8.4s
0-100mph 19.3s
Fuel economy 19.3 / 33.4 / 26.6 (mpg- city- extra urban - overall)
CO2 emissions 274g / km

1989 - 1998 SL500 (M119 V8)

0-62.5mph 6.5s
0-100mph 14.3s
Fuel economy 12.9 / 28.5 / 19.8
CO2 emissions N/A

1998 - 2001 SL500 (M113 V8) ('99 model year)

0-62.5mph 6.5s
0-100mph 14.0s
Fuel economy 15.8 / 33.5 / 23.7
CO2 emissions 300g / km

bwheitman · #8 01-03-2006, 09:37 PM

The 320's are still made, (350's in R230 chassis) but not imported to the US as they are fearful it will compete with the SLK, that is why they discontinued bringing them here after 97, they introduced the SLK in 98. I think that the 96 320 is the best year domestically. The car has the 5 speed 722.5, not the problematic early 722.6, the single fuel pump, the improved belt tensioner, the individual fuel injectors (not distributor) the 3 coil ignition with no ignition distributor, and doesn't have the harness issues of the 95 or earlier. The 320 also has a different rear ratio giving it higher mileage at 21 combined city/highway, and 25 highway, 28 without the hard top (weighs 75lbs) the car also has ODBII diagnistics which I find is easier to determine where the problem is and correct it. The 96 has upgraded interior, 2 slot vents, upgraded front and rear facia. It also has side impact air bags, improved soft top/hard top controls, and roll bar deployement of the earlier 95 models. The inline 6 is smooth and powerful, I can't even tell it is running at idle, it has 225 hp and a top speed of 150mph. It will not get there as fast as an SL500, but it is just as fast. A great car, easy to work on, the engine bay has lots of room, overall a great car. I researched all models spending almost a year, if you drive yours every day like I do, get the 320. It still gets up and goes, just a bit more economically. Good luck!
Brian

elau · #9 01-03-2006, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bwheitman

The inline 6 is smooth and powerful, I can't even tell it is running at idle, it has 225 hp and a top speed of 150mph. It will not get there as fast as an SL500, but it is just as fast.

Let's not forget the 320 may not have the torque of the 500. But like all MB cars, it can launch you from 60 to 120 mph with ease once the car is in motion. And the power band also seems endless.

stats007 · #10 01-04-2006, 07:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elau

Let's not forget the 320 may not have the torque of the 500. But like all MB cars, it can launch you from 60 to 120 mph with ease once the car is in motion. And the power band also seems endless.

The 500 is so much quicker in any guise. It is electronically limited to 155mph - it will even do that in 4th gear. Derestricted they will reach 170mph with the correct tyres. 0-100mph is over 5secs quicker! I wanted a 320 until I drove a 500!

bwheitman · #11 01-04-2006, 07:55 AM

Yes, When I drove the 500 I wanted it too, but the financial aspect held me back, the increased mpg, and the liklihood of getting speeding tickets! ha ha.
Brian

LeaUK · #12 01-04-2006, 02:27 PM

This has got to be the the most repeated question ever, please feel free to use the search and have a read up.

But, as I often say, if you buy a 320 you'll only ever think 'I wonder what the 500's like'

MPG is the same so forget that argument! 500 can be cheaper due to incorrect public perception of running cost. 500 M119 engine = bullet proof

Lea

elau · #13 01-04-2006, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stats007

The 500 is so much quicker in any guise. It is electronically limited to 155mph - it will even do that in 4th gear. Derestricted they will reach 170mph with the correct tyres. 0-100mph is over 5secs quicker! I wanted a 320 until I drove a 500!

I have no doubt that the 500 is much quicker. All I am saying is that the 320 will do get the job done, and get it done nicely as well

Believe me, I often wonder what it would be like to have the 119 as well. But for now the I-6 will do me just fine.

Pete Geither · #14 01-04-2006, 05:41 PM

Love my 500 but would also love to have a 320 for the wife.

jjrodger · #15 01-05-2006, 04:01 AM

The first rule of buying older used cars says that condition and history are more important than anything else. A good 320 will be a lot better than a bad 500.

Post 06/98 cars have a significantly higher specification, upgrades to the brakes (bigger at the front) and suspension (ever so slightly stiffer), and the latest M112 and M113 3-valve engines.

The M119 and M113 V8s are both great engines. The earlier engine is more expensive to repair and slightly more powerful (but significantly heavier). In both cases, only extreme bad luck or extreme bad maintenance will give rise to repairs. MB has never had to replace either engine under warranty. you are unlikely to notice any difference in performance. The M113 may give better (or less terrible) fuel consumption, but it will be marginal and if you're worried about fuel consumption stay away from the SL altogether.

The 500 is faster than the 320 but that's about the only difference, and that said the 320 is plenty fast; heck there was a 280 in Europe and that was regarded as adequate. Fuel consumption is similar in each case: the car weighs the same and the 320 has to work a lot harder to push it around. No doubt the 320 is easier and cheaper to work on, but you are unlikely to have to work on it unless you are unlucky or it has been neglected.

The 500 can be cheaper to buy because the market is put off by fear of high fuel consumption and high insurance costs. As I have said, the reality is that both are very similar.

It might be said that the 320 is more faithful to the origins and history of the SL: it is a 3 litre (approximately) straight-six, just like the gullwing.

I would worry more about the hood mechanism, the a/c system and the auxilliary electronics: this is where the $$$ repairs will be. Find a good one and buy it and drive it. I haven't regretted it--ever.