r107 Mercedes SL

lomb

I test drove a 1985 sl500 last week and was sorely dissapointed. Maybe it wasnt the best example but the engineering compared to my modern 2002 TT was rubbish. One example was the petrol cap recess behind the flap was sloped downwards with no drain and was full of water. The TT has a nice drain in it. When I floored it I felt like I was going to die to the dodgy handling. Power is supposedly 240 bhp yet it felt less poweful than my 75bhp golf.

It drove badly to the point I thought I wanted to kill myself. I had a terrible headache for 2 hours after due to the smell of unleaded. The indicators didnt work although supposedly passed an MOT last week and tin worm was appearing on top and underneath. It had failed its MOT on rust according to the receipt in the glovebox which the seller does not mention. Persumably he had it welded to pass so would know full well this.

What is the attraction of classics or was this a bad example? It was this one http://cars.donedeal.ie/cars-for-sale/1985-mercedes-benz-500-sl-r107/5352573
This was supposedly Mercs best car in the mid eighties! So what does that say about other classics? Just sorely disappointing as was a dream car in theory.

hi5

Oh dear, I don't think you'd like my Mustang either;).

Red Kev

I think you've answered your own question, the car is quite obviously uncared for and a bit of a dog. TBH the pic where the hard top is just on the ground with nothing underneath it would put me off looking at that car. The fact that it failed the MOT just shows how bad it is.

If the car has rust it's been neglected, which means that neglect has probably been carried over to other parts of the car and therefore the dodgy handling could be down to worn suspension components and the sluggish performance is probably down to the engine being in need of a service.

Having said that they are cruisers, definitely not sports cars, no matter what the SL moniker stands for.

A well kept one drives very well and will have more than adequate performance, and while your modern 2002 TT might be fine I've no doubt that there are plenty of neglected '02 TT's around that are dogs as well.

type85

hello op, so you thought a car first sold in 1971(so designed in 1966-7?) would drive as good / better than your "modern 2002 TT ! you ask "what is the attraction of classics" and then go on to say it "was a dream car" i'm sorry but i don't understand what you expected? the way i see it is people are attracted to older vehicles through nostalgia, maybe Daddy had one or thinking they were expensive new so must of been good drivers. whereas the reality of older vehicles is that compared to modern ones they have -
poor brakes, spongy softly dampened suspension, heavy steering(no pas) or lots of loose joints (steering box, drag links etc), under powered engines(V's capacity) with fueling systems straight from the dark ages and no cats in the exhaust to take care of the excesses. gear boxes with a lack of ratios (manual and auto) along with slippy auto boxes. and corrosion which could set in from year 1.
now thats just the mechanical stuff, if you move onto the creature comforts with maybe 2 speed wipers, sluggish electric windows, interior heater which struggle to clear the windscreen let alone heat the entire cabin or evaporate the damp from the carpet. then we get the wind noise from around the door rubbers and A-pillars.
all these problems were present when the cars were new and now that they are 25/30/30/50+ years old they have not just disappeared. in the same way as people deteriorate with old age so do cars and no matter how much buttering up you do with body filler, botox , colouring and bling an old car is still an old car and will behave as such.
so don't get caught up in the hype of cheap tax or god that car looks nice. because owning one is one thing but, running, driving and driving a classic on a daily? basis takes a bit of commitment and sacrifice.
alot of the stuff there may/may not make sense and there is exceptions where a car has been heavily modified but in the case of fairly standard cars i think its true.

lomb

type85 wrote: »

hello op, so you thought a car first sold in 1971(so designed in 1966-7?) would drive as good / better than your "modern 2002 TT ! you ask "what is the attraction of classics" and then go on to say it "was a dream car" i'm sorry but i don't understand what you expected? the way i see it is people are attracted to older vehicles through nostalgia, maybe Daddy had one or thinking they were expensive new so must of been good drivers. whereas the reality of older vehicles is that compared to modern ones they have -
poor brakes, spongy softly dampened suspension, heavy steering(no pas) or lots of loose joints (steering box, drag links etc), under powered engines(V's capacity) with fueling systems straight from the dark ages and no cats in the exhaust to take care of the excesses. gear boxes with a lack of ratios (manual and auto) along with slippy auto boxes. and corrosion which could set in from year 1.
now thats just the mechanical stuff, if you move onto the creature comforts with maybe 2 speed wipers, sluggish electric windows, interior heater which struggle to clear the windscreen let alone heat the entire cabin or evaporate the damp from the carpet. then we get the wind noise from around the door rubbers and A-pillars.
all these problems were present when the cars were new and now that they are 25/30/30/50+ years old they have not just disappeared. in the same way as people deteriorate with old age so do cars and no matter how much buttering up you do with body filler, botox , colouring and bling an old car is still an old car and will behave as such.
so don't get caught up in the hype of cheap tax or god that car looks nice. because owning one is one thing but, running, driving and driving a classic on a daily? basis takes a bit of commitment and sacrifice.
alot of the stuff there may/may not make sense and there is exceptions where a car has been heavily modified but in the case of fairly standard cars i think its true.

Some good points. Yes I was attracted to the classic tax in a year, no depreciation, fantastic looks and large engine capacity . I knew there would be sacrifices but that was ridiculous. That was Mercs best car in the mid eighties , if that was the best then that doesnt say much about any classic (obviously Im allowing for wear and tear and engine issues etc). Even the two speed wipers were a joke quite honestly.
I can understand the nostalgia element but I can see why people own them to look at only more or less.

Bigus

lomb wrote: »

Some good points. Yes I was attracted to the classic tax in a year, no depreciation, fantastic looks and large engine capacity . I knew there would be sacrifices but that was ridiculous. That was Mercs best car in the mid eighties , if that was the best then that doesnt say much about any classic (obviously Im allowing for wear and tear and engine issues etc). Even the two speed wipers were a joke quite honestly.
I can understand the nostalgia element but I can see why people own them to look at only more or less.

Try out a British car from that era, the Mercs are light years ahead,

Anyway it wasn't the best merc you could get in 1985 , that would have been a w126 and they do drive like a modern car , but a bit, boaty, but great overspeed bumps and rough roads.

Red Kev

lomb wrote: »

Some good points. Yes I was attracted to the classic tax in a year, no depreciation, fantastic looks and large engine capacity . I knew there would be sacrifices but that was ridiculous. That was Mercs best car in the mid eighties , if that was the best then that doesnt say much about any classic (obviously Im allowing for wear and tear and engine issues etc). Even the two speed wipers were a joke quite honestly.
I can understand the nostalgia element but I can see why people own them to look at only more or less.

Lomb, that car is a badly maintained one, there are R107's out there that comfortwise would put most new cars to shame, but they cost money. That one there isn't worth near what the seller is looking for. If you want a good R107 then be prepared to spend €8-10,000 on one. A 1986 on 300SL is an excellent compromise between decent running costs and adequate performance (like I said they are cruisers, not performance or sports cars).

Forget the cheap tax for a couple of years and aim for a revamped post-1985 one. I've driven a 1982 500SL for a weekend that has been looked after like a baby and it was a joy to drive. Like I said in an earlier post I could get a 2002 TT that has been badly kept and it would be a heap of crap to drive. Keep looking, increase the budget and you'll get a car that you can keep for life.

lomb

Yes my TT roadster has all its life and continues to have money no object care costing 1k+ a year.
It drives as good as a new one and several people who have driven it have surpisingly come away saying its the nicest 10 year old car they have ever driven. It still pulls like a train, feels unworn despite its age and is very reliable. However one has to remember it is a 14 year old design. The Sl was sold and persumably competed well enough to sell well in 1985 yet it was horrible only 14 years in the difference. The final nail was it beginning to drizzle and me putting on the wipers with one wiper moving more than the other very annoyingly asymmetrically (persumably a design feature).

The only thing that impressed me was the looks still modern, the chrome looked amazing on it and engineering wise was having 2 seperate fan belts in case one broke. A very clever touch.
I will hold you to it and test drive a good one in the weeks to come and report back.

lomb

Bigus wrote: »

Try out a British car from that era, the Mercs are light years ahead,

Anyway it wasn't the best merc you could get in 1985 , that would have been a w126 and they do drive like a modern car , but a bit, boaty, but great overspeed bumps and rough roads.

I might just do that, I might test drive an eighties Roller or Bentley in the coming weeks also to compare to something modern, Il report back on that too. They are getting surprisingly cheap these days. W126 look the part but only in Coupe. Il check out a 500 or 560 in the next while also.

Bigus

lomb wrote: »

I might just do that, I might test drive an eighties Roller or Bentley in the coming weeks also to compare to something modern, Il report back on that too. They are getting surprisingly cheap these days. W126 look the part but only in Coupe. Il check out a 500 or 560 in the next while also.

They're cheap for a reason RRs and Bentley s of that era are scrap .

JP 1800

The R107 is a fantastic car, I own a 1975 450 SLC and it is light years ahead of anything else from that era, the car you drove sounds like a lemon and I would suggest that the sloppy handling is down to worn out sub-frame mounts and suspension, the engines are big and lazy but not under powered, the 450 has 225 horses and comes with enough torque but due to emissions they had to trim back the power slightly for later years. As with any classic the big thing is rust and when you see rust on a 107 you are in for some expensive repairs, the cars are so well made that rust takes some time to show its self and can be in there deep. Buying a classic like a Mercedes for the cheap tax is not the right attitude to have, the fuel will be your biggest expense followed by servicing, remember these cars cost as much as a house when new and the parts are still expensive in true Mercedes fashion. As suggested the W126 is a more refined machine and is a joy to drive with all the creature comforts of a more modern car.

Do-more

Sounds like this is what you want OP!

WDB123

Drive a decent one !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

w124man

A simple message to the OP

With your attitude and expectations of what classic cars should be I suggest you wait about 30 years and buy an Audi TT.

I cannot believe that there are people out there who think that a sixties designed and engineered car should be like a modern car! :eek::(

WDB123

edit edit

irshmerc

Hang on to the TT for another 20 years, then you'll have your perfect classic car.
Apples and oranges come to mind here.

Good luck

lomb

I would expect something that feels safe, has a smooth power delivery and has no rust. If the manufacturer says it outputs 240bhp I would expect it to have 90% of that. I have zero intention of driving a rust bucket that is crumbling away with a badly worn engine with low compression and worn interior.
The mk1 TT is just an example of a very well engineered car (regardless of what reviews state) -6 speed short shift gearbox, 225bhp, all wheel drive, stylish and hard wearing interior, classic good looks, electric roof, good fuel economy but its a bit common and the tax/insurance bothers me enough to think a classic was an option.
I wouldnt mind buying a classic to look at it as such if I liked it enough but thats the point if you read my original post.

w124man

lomb wrote: »

I would expect something that feels safe, has a smooth power delivery and has no rust. If the manufacturer says it outputs 240bhp I would expect it to have 90% of that. I have zero intention of driving a rust bucket that is crumbling away with a badly worn engine with low compression and worn interior.
The mk1 TT is just an example of a very well engineered car (regardless of what reviews state) -6 speed short shift gearbox, 225bhp, all wheel drive, stylish and hard wearing interior, classic good looks, electric roof, good fuel economy but its a bit common and the tax/insurance bothers me enough to think a classic was an option.
I wouldnt mind buying a classic to look at it as such if I liked it enough but thats the point if you read my original post.

.

I've seen TT's that are buckets! You need to re adjust your thinking on classics or you will be eternally disappointed.

If you want an R107 that a good one look at this one, its got less than 20,000 miles on the clock ...

lomb

I would happily make allowances for a manual roof, gearboxs that arent as slick as modern ones , lack of climate control but I wouldnt accept something that was crumbling. I would see the car depreciating into the ground if rust was taking hold. Therby negating any tax/depreciation gain. It would also not be safe to crash a rust bucket accepting the fact an old car isnt going to be as safe anyway. But if its corroding its a potential death trap. I also wouldnt accept a 1985 5 liter v8 Mercedes roadster being slower than a 1.4l 75bhp golf. Maybe Im asking too much:pac:
I shall test out a good Sl in the coming weeks and get back.

MercMad

A bad 107 is possibly the worst car in the world and a good one is something super, classy and refined. Try a good one before judging but don't forget is a heavy soft car with steering that is designed to REMOVE you from road imperfections. That 240bhp was serious 30 years ago and the power delivery should be urgent always, at any RPM but not as responsive as a modern turbo car with similar power.

kyote00

Regarding crashes, you really don't ever want to be in a crash in any sort of old/classic car --- even one that is totally rust free.

Any modern car will crush any classic it is in collision with - crush it like a beer can.


People walk away from 30-40mph crashes today - giving out that the airbags went off....

lomb

MercMad wrote: »

A bad 107 is possibly the worst car in the world and a good one is something super, classy and refined. Try a good one before judging but don't forget is a heavy soft car with steering that is designed to REMOVE you from road imperfections. That 240bhp was serious 30 years ago and the power delivery should be urgent always, at any RPM but not as responsive as a modern turbo car with similar power.

If you have/know of a good one for sale feel free to PM me and Il check it out. The one I drove definately didnt feel urgent. I felt like telling the seller that 200 of the horses were out to pasture when he said I had 250 horses (240 really) Thx

ianobrien

OP, unfortunately there are a few things wrong here.

Firstly, it appears that you drove a very poor example of one. Drive a good example before you condem them all. When I was looking for the Escort, I saw some terrible ones and the drive of some was dangerous with steering racks moving about the front of the car....

Secondly, You are comparing apples and oranges, a GT cruiser of a Merc against a Sports car in the TT. Drive an Austin Healy 3000 if you want a hairy chested sports car.

Thirdly, there may be a small bit of the "rose tinted glasses". A good friend's sister always wanted a "Herbie" Beetle. After driving a very good example for two or three minutes, she hated it and couldn't understand that her "dream car" was so much work to drive.

Also, there may be specific models in the range that can't be compared. As most here know, I've a Mk2 Escort Ghia, kept as close to standard as possible. I drove a buddy's Escort RS2000 that was fitted with 7" minilights with sticky rubber, group 1 suspension with roller top mounts and a "proper" engine. Thanks to the suspension/steering/weight of a Pinto engine/sticky wide rubber, it was a pig to drive around town, where mine was a joy. Show them an open road and mine was happy cruising at 50 to 60mph, where as the RS just wanted to "go". Then the buddy didn't like to drive mine as it was "too soft"....

lomb

The Merc might be a GT but it had 240bhp and was the cream of the cream in 1985. Il drive a good post 1986 500 if I can find one and report back in a bit on thread.
What are old 30 y old 911 Porsches like? Are the engines strong and do they rust?

type85

lots of torque,but your TT is probably faster for out and out usable pace, they can rust and badly especially front wings, kidney bowls and front cross members but the older you go you've more chance of finding a bad one.

Anan1

lomb wrote: »

What are old 30 y old 911 Porsches like? Are the engines strong and do they rust?

I had a 1986 3.2 for a couple of years. I loved it, but they are nothing like a modern sports car to drive. They're a heavy, physical drive - fast, but in an even, broad-chested sort of a way. I'd almost describe it as vintage in character.

MercMad

lomb wrote: »

The Merc might be a GT but it had 240bhp and was the cream of the cream in 1985. Il drive a good post 1986 500 if I can find one and report back in a bit on thread.
What are old 30 y old 911 Porsches like? Are the engines strong and do they rust?

.......I agree with what Anan says, and I think he would agree with the following since he has experience of both. If you drive a W113 Pagoda SL (the R107's predecessor) you are driving a car with a 50's interior but up to date 60's mechanicals. In automatic form its not a sports car but an open top cruiser. The 911 IS a sports car, you dont so much cruise as DRIVE it. Heavy clutch, heavy steering, slightly cramped footwells, dark colours possibly making it a bit clausterphobic. However you will love driving it if its a weekend fun car, as everyday, whilst possible, and I would do it, its a bit tough.

The R107 is a slightly modern version of the Pagoda, its essentially a well built open top Mercedes 2 seater saloon, and in no way a sports car.

Get a good one and you will love it. Unfortunately most I have seen are in terrible shape, despite what owners think. Only buy one that is original and perfect or has documented restoration by a marque expert........every single other example will have significant rust somewhere.

lomb

Classics seem poor value to me by and large. I wouldnt even consider something thats rusting. Since little was known about rust and expectations werent great back then then it seems everything rusts other than to some extent Porsche which galvanised their cars since 1975. Sure whats to stop a newly restored classic costing 50k to restore starting rusting away in 5 years?

68deville

lomb wrote: »

Classics seem poor value to me by and large. I wouldnt even consider something thats rusting. Since little was known about rust and expectations werent great back then then it seems everything rusts other than to some extent Porsche which galvanised their cars since 1975. Sure whats to stop a newly restored classic costing 50k to restore starting rusting away in 5 years?

stick with your TT like a good lad!;)

If you want a good sl be prepared ta shell out 15K+,rust free etc,etc
or find a respectable one and carry out the work and you are left in
no doubt then,problem solved

unkel

lomb wrote: »

Classics seem poor value to me

Classic cars are very good value for money at the moment, particularly in this country as supply is high and demand is low

@OP - you will not save money by using a cheap to tax, zero deprecation, cheap to insure classic car as your daily driver

WDB123

:mad: Enough R107 vs TT

Bobby Ewing was no fool or hairdresser

lomb

WDB123 wrote: »

:mad: Enough R107 vs TT

Bobby Ewing was no fool or hairdresser

If Bobby was around these days Id say hed jump at the TT tbh. He might just have changed jobs after driving one:pac:

hi5

When I had my r107, it was 'Heart To Heart' that kept being mentioned:)

hi5

Altabani

I always think of Dallas when Pam crashes into a fuel tanker then Ewing 4 explodes:( When I think of R107's.

Anan1

lomb wrote: »

Classics seem poor value to me by and large. I wouldnt even consider something thats rusting. Since little was known about rust and expectations werent great back then then it seems everything rusts other than to some extent Porsche which galvanised their cars since 1975. Sure whats to stop a newly restored classic costing 50k to restore starting rusting away in 5 years?

You're looking at it in terms of a cost-effective means of transport. This is to completely miss the point of classic car ownership.

Dades

I had an SL that looked identical to that one on DoneDeal - only mine was 1972!

They are cruisers. Big fast, floaty couches perfect for long drives. Forget flinging it around the Sally Gap at weekends - that's now what they do. Mine had a 4.5 ltr SE engine in it and went like a rocket. With a wind-deflector I could (and did) cruise doing 100 mph with the roof down.

You one you tested was obviously compromised.

But the SL is everything a TT is not. And a bad one is everything to avoid in a classic.

WDB123

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/autos/article917182.ece

Dades

WDB123 wrote: »

http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/autos/article917182.ece

It's funny though, once he did this it kinda seems that a lot of what make it the Dallas car was gone for me:

Halt spent an additional $12,000 stripping the vehicle to the metal, repainting it and replacing the leather seats.

The seats Patrick Duffy sat on were replaced!

lomb

Dades wrote: »

I had an SL that looked identical to that one on DoneDeal - only mine was 1972!

They are cruisers. Big fast, floaty couches perfect for long drives. Forget flinging it around the Sally Gap at weekends - that's now what they do. Mine had a 4.5 ltr SE engine in it and went like a rocket. With a wind-deflector I could (and did) cruise doing 100 mph with the roof down.

You one you tested was obviously compromised.

But the SL is everything a TT is not. And a bad one is everything to avoid in a classic.

How much did you sell yours for? Was there any rust underneath or in the arches?

w124man

I have to say lomb, that if you actually do get to drive a good one and 'report back', I dont think anyone would listen because you wouldnt know a good one if it bit you in the ass!

lomb

w124man wrote: »

I have to say lomb, that if you actually do get to drive a good one and 'report back', I dont think anyone would listen because you wouldnt know a good one if it bit you in the ass!

If you say so. Id say I know more about cars/ engineering in general than you do. I can spot something well built a mile off and have done alot of work on cars/ machines. The point of this thread is my surprise that an old Merc was poorly built from new. I can account for wear tear and that example wasnt the best with a blown headgasket etc but it wasnt the worst either and the chassis appeared original. Another example was paint was thin in floorpans/ boot leading to surface rust etc. Engineers running the place was marketing blurb.

Dades

lomb wrote: »

How much did you sell yours for? Was there any rust underneath or in the arches?

I sold mine about 4 years ago for circa €7,200 (I bought it 2 years previously for €7k). I miss her a lot, but I had no garage or driveway and didn't want to see her fall to ruin.

Rust wasn't an issue, but there was one rust area patched inside the front passenger side wheel area that went into the bulkhead. The wheel arches were fine - I removed nasty chrome arch covers without finding anything dodgy underneath. Structurally and mechanically sound.

This is she, in Dingle on an 800 mile road trip:

hi5

The bulkhead is where most of them rot, look for wet footwells.

This will give you an idea.
http://www.classiccarworkshop.ie/MercSL.html

ianobrien

lomb wrote: »

..... I can spot something well built a mile off.....

And you drove an obvious poor example of a Merc and then you come on ranting that "Every" one must be bad?

w124man

lomb wrote: »

Id say I know more about cars/ engineering in general than you do.

Really?

Pistols at dawn methinks!

I have a degree in Mechanical Engineering attained at Birmingham University. I worked as a Prototype Vehicle Build and Development Engineer for both British Leyland and Ford. I currently have 5 Mercedes and two VWs in my collection.

Your turn ......

lomb

I have no intention of getting into a pissing contest especially one I wont win. However the fact remains Mercedes always was a business. The nature of any business is to sell a product for more than it costs. Ie spend as little as possible to make it and make as much as possible for it with the best marketing even if total lies(engineered like no other car, engineers running the place etc ..). Porsche were able to galvanize their cars long before Mercedes why?
The petrol flap recess being full of water was funny. Any decent engineer would have thought to install a drain or make it water tight with a rubber seal. The bonnet was difficult to open, the soft top required some odd ball tool. Youd think they would have installed a built in tool etc. The wiper sweep were assymetric for no good reason as far as I could see. The paint thickness wasn't there at all. They had some great stylists however all said.
I wont be commenting further on this thread, will start a new one when I test drive further.

MercMad

lomb wrote: »

I have no intention of getting into a pissing contest especially one I wont win. However the fact remains Mercedes always was a business. The nature of any business is to sell a product for more than it costs. Ie spend as little as possible to make it and make as much as possible for it with the best marketing even if total lies(engineered like no other car, engineers running the place etc ..). Porsche were able to galvanize their cars long before Mercedes why?
The petrol flap recess being full of water was funny. Any decent engineer would have thought to install a drain or make it water tight with a rubber seal. The bonnet was difficult to open, the soft top required some odd ball tool. Youd think they would have installed a built in tool etc. The wiper sweep were assymetric for no good reason as far as I could see. The paint thickness wasn't there at all. They had some great stylists however all said.
I wont be commenting further on this thread, will start a new one when I test drive further.

......I wont get into any personal slagging matches here but I would like to point of some things I have experienced with these cars. The W107 was launched in 1972 and designed in the early-mid 60's. The engineering was unsurpassed, the car was built to the highest standard and then the profit margin applied. No budgets. Building a car from high quality metal, structurally stronger and thicker than almost any other car, then undersealing it and painting it was pretty much as good as you could get back then and was as good as it got. These cars were called Der Panzerwagon for a good reason. If you keep the car clean and use it regularly as intended it will not rot.
Unfortunately a lot of the SL's over the years and nowdays are kept in less than ideal storage and dampness causes them to rot. Folk say they rot from the inside out, most cars do and little was known about cavity protection back then. Due to their construction they can be difficult to repair properly and most therefore are not.

There IS a drain in the fuel filler area.

The predecessor, the W113 Pagoda, had fixed handles up to late '68 when ther were replaced by removable versions, the heavy chrome headrest hinges were changed to plastic and the mirror was changed to plastic. All of these changes were due to results of crash testing, and if you saw the early car you'd appreciate that.

The paint in the boot is a dark grey/matt black as it is on current Mercs and if kept dry it does not rust. The floor has a proper colour coat, without lacquer as on current cars, again it wont rust if kept dry.

Make no mistake, these are high maintenance cars in certain areas but because they are mechanically durable a lot of folk didn't concern themselves with treating them properly. Most cars barely lasted ten years from new back then, dont forget that.

They had a production run of 18 years, practically unchanged, and sold more in the last 2 years than ever before, with long waiting lists. That speaks for itself, BUT its not everyones cup of tea.

Simple as.........

lomb

You must be mad about mercs MercMad. Please take a picture of a r107 with the tank flap open and drain visible. Not that I dont believe you unless the SL I saw for some reason had none. The panzerwagon description was just marketing nonsense to extract a few years average wage for a car that could have been built alot better ie galvanised for a start.

Seweryn

lomb wrote: »

The panzerwagon description was just marketing nonsense to extract a few years average wage for a car that could have been built alot better ie galvanised for a start.

One of important service procedures on Panzerwagens was actually maintenance of the cavity protection, say once a year. How many owners did ever do anything like that? I guess here in Ireland probably nobody. If this was maintained, as per factory requirements, the life span of these cars would increase by a good number of years.

w124man

lomb wrote: »

The panzerwagon description was just marketing nonsense to extract a few years average wage for a car that could have been built alot better ie galvanised for a start.

Galvanizing cars was new tech back in the day and Mercedes didnt need a marketing department. One day you will realise that Mercedes cars have led the way in build and design - you might not accept that fact (who cares anyway) but the motor industry has.