250 SL

[Fernando]

The 250 had a very small production. Is its engine worse than 230 or 280? What about its price ?

regards

Fernando

Fernando
.....................
G500(06),300GE CAB(91),300D(83)Turbo

[114015]

Hello Fernando,

Yes, that's true because the 5,196 250ies were only built within a timespan of roughly 13 months and not for 3-4 years like the others, respectively.
Basically the M129 (250's engine) were known for high oil and gas consumption in comparison to 230 & 280 in the sixties. That's why their value is still under"value"d even today.
I don't know whether that is really still justified today, most of today's 250 SL (and SE) owners are happy with their car & engine - basically not more or less than 230 & 280 owners.

Please read also the buyer's advice on this homepage and several of the threads (search mode).

Good luck !

Achim
(Magdeburg, Germany)

[Fernando]

I will do that.Thanks

Fernando
.....................
G500(06),300GE CAB(91),300D(83)Turbo

[Chad]

I did not know that the M129 was thought of as using more oil and fuel.
Being that the engine character is somewhat different between these similar models the question of differences between the engines will always be a bit amplified.  Many say the performance overall is pretty similar for cars of the same transmission type.

If you are looking for a 250, note that there are roughly two general types of 250 - an early and a later.  The early with trim similar to the 230 and the later with trim similar to the 280.  Also I believe there were a number of 250 that were not fitted with the softtop and frame/well.  Hardly 2+2 vehicles, these are not as highly valued as the normal flavor of 250 because major body work is needed to give these convertibles a softtop properly.



1967 230SL