Soggy and Pretentious.

[tobacco]

The May 2004 issue of Britain's "Mercedes Enthusiast" magazine certainly flatters the Pagoda by voting it third among the "20 Most Desirable Mercedes of All Time", ahead of the SSK, 600, 300 S, and every other SL but the Gullwing.

But things start to break down on closer inspection.  It appears the voting "experts" managed to award this high ranking to the 230/250 SL which "remain admirably proportioned and judiciously balanced cars that are a pleasure to the eyes and fingertips" -- but not to the "soggy and pretentious" 280 SL which was mis-designed in 1968 by "the market (or was it the marketing department?)"

Such nonsense was evidently the result of someone confusing the W113 280 SL with the R107 280 SL, but the sloppiness peaked in one other laughable detail: the lovely blue Pagoda they feature to illustrate the third most desirable Mercedes-Benz ever is none other than a W113 . . . 280 SL!

Really, if such poor reporting persists, I fear for the Empire.


Bill Greffin
Chicago
#22375

[Cees Klumper]

Oh well, people usually only remember the headlines and this one is good, however they arrived at it.

Cees Klumper in Amsterdam
'69 white 280 SL automatic

[n/a]

Bill

This is not the first time that car reviewers and magazine writers have referred to the handling differences between the 230/250 SLs and the 280 SLs. Naturally, I read anything I can get on the 113 series and have seen several comments made on this very topic. In essence they are saying that the earlier 230/250 SLs with their king pin front suspension had more precise 'sports car like' handling as compared to the later 280 SLs which were 'softened' for the American market. I have not driven a 280 SL (Pagoda) so I can't comment on the differences. I have driven a few 107s and I'm inclined to agree about the softness of the suspension. What do other people think?

Mark Ravagnani

1965 230 SL light blue, auto, RHD

[Ben]

I read the article, and in fact in the previous month there was a Pagoda feature which was blatently untrue !!  I wrote a letter to them offering my opinion, they probably wont print it !

Yes it does seem that this suspension "difference" is always refered to negatively as far as the 280SL is concerned. I had always assumed that all the suspenion components were the same and it was probably just spring and damper rates that were altered. Also usually in the same breadth they mention extra weight of the 280SL's and again I see this in the books but had assumed it was purely down to the options of a specific vehicle, e.g power steering, A/C etc...

Anyone know where any other weight is found or what exactly IS different on the suspension......?

Regards,
Ben in Ireland.
'64 230SL 4sp.
'03 CLK Kompressor

[George Davis]

Some weight and spring info from the Tabellenbuch:

The "first version" 230 SLs used front and rear springs with  different part numbers from all the rest.  "Second version" 230 SLs, and all 250 and 280 SLs use the same part number front and rear springs, and these are also the replacement springs for first version 230 SLs.  The break point between first and second version 230 SLs isn't given.  The compensating springs are all the same part number.  Spring rates are not listed, unfortunately.  

I believe the 230 SLs have a 28 mm front anti-sway bar, and the 250 and 280 SLs have a 26 mm bar.

Weights (unladen but ready to drive) are listed as follows:
230 SL
Roadster - 1295 kg
Roadster with hardtop - 1340 kg

250 and 280 SL
Roadster - 1360 kg
Roadster with hardtop - 1405 kg

Some of the weight gains, if I recall correctly, were from alterations to the body work (probably mainly the larger fuel tank in the 250 and 280 SLs, as well as some strengthening of the body).  The disk brake rear axle is heavier, and the engines got progressively heavier.  It's possible that the 230 SL weight is without power steering and the 250 and 280 SL weights are with power steering, but that's a guess.

Thoughts and opinions: the 230 SLs are the lightest, have a larger anti-sway bar and should have an advantage in handling over the 250 and 280 SLs; but for comparably equipped cars I'm guessing the difference is not huge.  If the early 230 SL springs are stiffer, the difference might be more noticable.  Comparably equipped 250 and 280 SLs should be equal.

Compare a 230 SL without power steering or other options to a 280 SL with power steering, a/c and an automatic to get the maximum weight difference, and I'll bet the difference is noticable and the 280 SL might seem "soggier" by comparison, but that's not really a fair comparison.  Still, I'll bet these writers are making exactly that kind of comparison.  I've also concluded over the past several years that there are damn few good automotive writers any more.


George Davis
'69 280 SL Euro manual

[J. Huber]

Hey George. Very nice and thorough detective work. Your theory seems to make a lot of sense (even to me!)

Of course, the only way to really compare the handling of a feisty vintage 230SL (with no powersteering & A/C) to a spunky well-heeled 280SL (with A/C & PS) is to drive them both yourself!  



James
63 230SL

[n/a]

Tastes great ... Less filling.

Shawn Rock
Philly, PA USA
1968 280 SL 4 speed

[Cees Klumper]

I recall reading somewhere that the 280 SL's rubber components in the suspension is softer than at least the 230-ies so that, if true, could account for some differences. What I did on my '69 280 SL was order front and rear suspension replacement parts from Cox Racing in the US, made from polyuretyane to replace the rubber. This is very tough material.
I installed most bits except I did not fit the large 'hockey-puck' shaped discs that go where the rear suspension trailing arms attach to the chassis. These magnified small vibrations too much and made things too uncomfortable. At lunchtime today I took the car for a spin with a colleague who has a Testarossa and he was duly impressed!
Although I am pretty satisfied with the ride, I still may have to go for progressive-rate springs as offered by e.g. John Olson. They reduce body-lean and nose-diving on heavy braking and generally improve the handling and ride. There is a separate topic on the effectiveness of these springs. I drove Tom Sargeant's car that has them and the ride was excellent.

Cees Klumper in Amsterdam
'69 white 280 SL automatic

[Tom]

Group,

On the subject of handling and suspension, Cees notes the benefits of the progressive rate springs. I had a fellow Pagodite over last weekend with his 1970 stock car. He was complaining that he did not feel like he was in control of the car-big steering wheel, sloppy steering, excessive lean in turns, excessive front end dive on braking, etc. For the purist, this is blasphemy, as this is what these cars were designed to be-somewhat sporty but comfortable going straight down the road.

My Tunis Beige 280sl has progressive rate springs, a Nardi wheel and all new suspension bushings, etc. My fellow Pagodite drove the car as did Cees. He now wants the handling of the Tunis Beige car provided by the springs and Nardi wheel.

I have not recently posted on the benefits of these springs but want to again mention them as I continue to believe this was the single best mechanical enhancement I have made to the car. I was reminded of this after driving the stock car last week. The substantially reduced (but not eliminated) front end dive on braking is also a nice benefit.

*However*, I would not suggest getting all 5 springs-I would continue to use the stock compensating spring at the rear axle. The replacement spring is too stiff and resulted in positive camber on my car that could not be resolved with replacement rubber pads or even slightly shorter springs.

Best,

Tom


____________________________________

1971 280sl Tunis Beige Metallic (restored & enhanced)
1971 280sl Tobacco Brown (low mileage stock)
____________________________________

[Ben]

My car is an early 230SL and the suspension is quite stiff, i.e its hard to press down any corner. It hold the road like a leach and it really surprises me how it clings one even when provolking it. Its really hard to get it to step out and the front will push its nose out progressively if your really trying !

The nose dive under braking is really the only thing IMO that marks it out from modern cars, and obviously the large steering wheel. Having said that I would never change that beautiful ivory wheel but when handling it quickly from left to right and back you can see how slow the ratio is !

Regards,
Ben in Ireland.
'64 230SL 4sp.
'03 CLK Kompressor

[George Davis]

James and Ben,

although I don't know it for a fact, my guess is that the early 230 SLs are a bit stiffer than the later cars.  Hopefully James and I will soon be able to compare!



George Davis
'69 280 SL Euro manual

[Albert-230SL]

quote:Originally posted by George Davis

... I believe the 230 SLs have a 28 mm front anti-sway bar, and the 250 and 280 SLs have a 26 mm bar.

Weights (unladen but ready to drive) are listed as follows:
230 SL
Roadster - 1295 kg
Roadster with hardtop - 1340 kg

250 and 280 SL
Roadster - 1360 kg
Roadster with hardtop - 1405 kg

It's possible that the 230 SL weight is without power steering and the 250 and 280 SL weights are with power steering, but that's a guess...

Hi friends, just a comment on the interesting George's post:

All the sources I have (books, magazines) also inform that 230 SL was the Pagoda with more sporty feeling and handling: less weight (1295 kg) than 250 and 280 (1360 kg), firmer front anti-roll bar than 280 SL, firmer (although with grease fittings) suspension parts instead of rubber in 280 SL...

As power steering was an original factory option for all W113 (from 230 SL* to 280 SL), I understand that these weights are for cars without power steering, so -with same equipment- there is a difference of 65 kg between 230 SL and 250/280 SL.
*(My 230 SL fortunately has power steering, because it's much faster -only three turns- than the standard steering, and great in twisty roads [:p])

The only major change I have found -in my sources- about the W113 basic suspension components is: "The front anti-roll bar diameter decreased from 22 to 20 mm in 250 SL from VIN 005164 (and for all 280 SL)" , so most of 250 SL had the same 230 SL's anti-roll bar.

Regards,

Albert de la Torre Chavalera
Barcelona (Catalunya/Spain)
Feb.'64 230 SL Euro 113042-10-002432

[rwmastel]

quote:Originally posted by Albert-230SL

quote:Originally posted by George Davis

... I believe the 230 SLs have a 28 mm front anti-sway bar, and the 250 and 280 SLs have a 26 mm bar.

The only major change I have found -in my sources- about the W113 basic suspension components is: "The front anti-roll bar diameter decreased from 22 to 20 mm in 250 SL from VIN 005164 (and for all 280 SL)" , so most of 250 SL had the same 230 SL's anti-roll bar.

Albert,
So was it 22/20 or 28/26?

Rodd
Powell, Ohio, USA
1966 230SL, Euro, Auto, Leather, both  tops
1994 E420

[hands_aus]

Hi,

My early 250SL has the 22mm sway bar.

Bob (Brisbane,Australia)
RHD,1967 early 250 SL, auto

[George Davis]

Yes, I think I was wrong on the 26/28, Albert is right on the 20/22 measurement.  Memory... failing...

Thanks for the correction, Albert!

George Davis
'69 280 SL Euro manual

[Albert-230SL]

quote:Originally posted by George Davis

Yes, I think I was wrong on the 26/28, Albert is right on the 20/22 measurement.  Memory... failing...

Thanks for the correction, Albert!

You're welcome!   ... In fact, we should thank it to Frank Mallory, because I found this information in one of his texts about production changes... I think this issue is also listed in the Gunter Engelen's book.

Regards,

Albert de la Torre Chavalera
Barcelona (Catalunya/Spain)
Feb.'64 230 SL Euro 113042-10-002432