MB Convertible qeustion...

I'm tying with the idea of getting an MB convertible, used..oops, pre-owned...
Any advice on models, reliability, etc...
I already have a 98 ML320 and a 97 E320...so I am somewhat aware of what I
am getting myself into!
Thanks for your input!
--
B'Regards,

Vinnie
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I recently acquired a 95 Sl320 and just love the car. Great fuel economy, not a hot rod but adequate power for me. Had an AC Leak that was apparently fixed with a sealer, so far so good. Pete

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A key consideration is number of seats (and budget, of course).
If 4 seats are needed then it's really only the CLK, available with a range of engines. I have had my CLK 320 Cab from new since 2001 (only 17 000 miles) and have had a lot of pleasure and only a couple of minor irritations which were dealt with by the dealer foc or at very low cost.
If the budget allows don't go for the old E-Class convertible. The CLK is more spacious inside and has a more modern roof mechanism.
Otherwise, SL or SLK, of course. However, the latter has VERY little storage space.
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I'm obviously biased, but in my opinion the old iron block W107's *rule!!* By far, the most dependable auto I've ever owned. If seating is an issue as Dori points out, then a two-place car may not be for you. If this is to be a daily driver and you travel an hour or more each way to work, then the 15 mpg (at best) may not appeal to you either. However, if you're looking for a Mercedes that personifies the luxury, pleasure & dependability of the good ol' days of Mercedes manufacture, and enjoy having the wind in your hair, you'll be hard pressed to find more convertible for your dollar.
B'Regards,
Jerry Wolfram '78 450 SL - 212K miles 'n' still purrin'
Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I am somewhat biased against the R107 because of its impossibly cramped interior space. I couldn't even fit in the R107 at all but managed to fit the R203 much better.
Ah, I don't understand why Mercedes-Benz never move the wipers to the passenger side when they do on W116. Those wipers seem to be in the way of view...
Oliver
Jerry Wolfram schrieb:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I mean, R230. Sorry for typo.
Ennui Society schrieb:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If money is an issue, the W124 convertible for sure is worth a look. If you look after pre-owned Mercedes convertibles in very good shape, a W124 costs about as much as an older R107 in mediocre condition. And a cheap buy can become a nightmare if expensive repairs occur all of a sudden. IMHO the W124 has more advantages before a R107: Better mileage, cheaper parts and maintenance, more seat and trunk space, better safety and roughly two decades of technological advancements. The R107 is a classic collector item, while the W124C is an used automobile. There is one more important difference. The W124 is a better choice for countries where running a car costs a fortune, because it was available with smaller engines (200, 220, 300-24, 320), with 5-speed auto and often with a stick shift. Most old R107s have a 3- or 4-speed auto and engines up to 5.6 litres. This is nice in a country like the USA, but rather expensive in countries like Germany or Norway. Most - if not all - advantages of the W124 are also valid for the CLK Convertible, but these cars are newer and therefore usually more expensive to buy.
Frank
--
please replace spam-muelleimer with fk-newsgroups for e-mail contact

Citroen - Made in Trance
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As I mentioned earlier, if the budget is available, the CLK is superior; more modern, more spacious (and doesn't look as if a saloon has had its roof chopped off...but that's a matter of personal taste).
DAS
--
For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
I quite agree, Jerry...I have an '84 380sl w/ 276,000 miles and it too purrs as well as is dependable
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.