(UPDATED FROM 7/17/2024)
A few years ago I came across a 1975 Mercedes-Benz SL. In all honesty, I wasn’t nearly as enthused as when I photographed a previous-generation W113 model, with its iconic “pagoda” roof. The R107 models, which were built from 1971-89, had the highest production of the SLs, with output of more than 230,000 roadsters (Pattni, 2024). However, this generation arguably suffered from a lower-quality design than its predecessor.
Part of the problem was that the SL’s body was designed to be shared with a longer-wheelbase 2+2 coupe called the SLC. In theory that made sense because there was a potentially larger market for four-seaters, but the resulting design was so compromised that neither car came off very well.
The SL was truncated while the SLC had a stretched-toffee look. That appears to have been the result of trying to share too many components. The SLC was essentially an SL with a fixed roof and almost 14 inches added to the wheelbase behind the B-pillar (Spencer, 2011).
,_front_right.jpg)
Bigger on the outside, smaller on the inside
To my eyes the proportions of the SL look off balance, partly due to doors that are overly long for the 97-inch wheelbase. Meanwhile, the SLC’s rear-quarter area looks awkward because of an overly flat deck, thick C-pillars and doors too short for the car’s 111-inch wheelbase.
The SL’s styling was somewhat more cohesive than the SLC’s, but the taut lines of the W113 were replaced with a ponderous assemblage of early-70s Mercedes styling cues. Those included huge, wrap-around ribbed taillights.
The R107 looks like a much bigger car so I was surprised to find that the exterior dimensions were fairly close to the W113’s. The new design was three inches longer, one inch wider and had a wheelbase that was stretched 2.5 inches. Height was down half an inch.
Despite the greater heft, shoulder room was reduced by an inch and trunk space by three cubic feet. Track was narrower by at least an inch, which helps explain why the wheels don’t have the athletic stance of the W113. Even the drag coefficient increased from .42 to .45.
Weight grew by upwards of 500 pounds, but that partly reflected the switch in U.S. models from an inline six to a V8 engine. Prices jumped from the mid-to-high $7,000s in 1971 to over $10,000 in 1972, the first full year of R107 sales in the United States.
The featured car, a 1975 model, listed for almost $18,000. This was only slightly below the entry-level large Mercedes sedan, the 450 SE.
An interesting car, but a long way from iconic
The SL had a few interesting design touches, such as the ribbed rocker panels. Note how the Mercedes had considerably less lower-body curvature than American sporty coupes of that time period. This presumably reduced mud splattering from the wheels.
The removable roof hinted at the the W113’s downward curving shape. The quarter windows included an upkick at their base that gave the R107 an unfinished look. Raising the beltline at the C-pillar would have looked better — and helped the SLC even more.
I shouldn’t be too hard on the R107. It was a considerably more interesting design than what Detroit was pumping out in the early-70s. And following in the footsteps of the iconic W113 was a tough assignment. Even so, my main reaction when photographing this 1975 model was a sense of disappointment.
The car looks ponderous rather than lithe — and that can’t be blamed just on the federally mandated bumpers. Mercedes design had taken a turn toward a lumpier, tank-like aesthetic.
NOTES:
This story was originally posted on July 17, 2024 and updated on July 14, 2026. Specifications were drawn from Automobile Catalog (2024), Flamming (1992) and Wikipedia (2024).
RE:SOURCES
- Automobile Catalog; 2024. “Search Automobile Catalog.” Accessed July 17.
- Flammang, James M.; 1992. Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, 1946-1990. First Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Pattni, Vijay; 2024. “Here’s every generation of the Mercedes SL.” BBC Top Gear. Accessed July 17.
- Spencer, Roy; 2011. “Classic Mercedes experience or a pittance — making a case for the SLC.” Mercedes Heritage. Posted June 30 (page no longer available).
- Wikipedia; 2024. “Mercedes-Benz SL-Class.” Page last edited July 15.
PHOTOGRAPHY:
- 1977 Mercedes-Benz 450SLC photo by Mr. Choppers via Wikipedia Creative Commons 3.0. Image was slightly lighted.
The ’73, with the smaller bumpers does look a lot sleeker though.
The 230-250-280 six-cylinder SLs of the previous generation were truly jewel-like. My morning air personality at 1070 / WIBC-AM moved up from his Cadillacs to a 1980 450 SL in the same color as above and with the optional hardtop for the Indiana winters. I rode in his SL only a couple of times, but it was not like the test ride I took in a 1969 250 SL in the summer of 1969. The 450 SL was decidedly “Americanized”, still a Mercedes-Benz, but with more “elbow room”. The morning guy bragged that his 4.5-litre V-8 could go a minimum of 500,000-miles before it might need an overhaul, quoting his dealer with German-roots, the late Horst Winckler. Whether the sheet metal could survive the solutions they put on Indiana roads back then is another matter entirely. For my money a well-restored W113-series SL is the car I would select over any R107.b
Yes,the prior design was a lithe beauty. But the successor became the face of the Mercedes juggernaut that established the brand’s appeal and superiority to American consumers. The design stayed in production for so long that it made an imprint on several generations. That makes it iconic. I wonder if the design had an appeal for buyers that had once wanted a two seat Thunderbird in their youth.
We own one of each. Certainly the 280 sl is prettier, cleaner, more elegant. It’s worth too much to just drive any old time. It’s a Saturday morning fair weather car where we can park in just the right spot. It will go 60 on the freeway but after that, it’s not at its sweet spot. The AC is the dealer installed under dash unit, and it’s not that efficient. It definitely feels small when you’re in with all those big modern cars.
The 560 sl is 1989, last year, so it has an airbag. It keeps up with modern traffic and 78 mph is its sweet spot. AC runs cold. It still feels similar to the older car. In particular, the seats are springy and they act as part of the suspension. We’re not afraid to drive it, and though it’s all original in great shape, it’s not so rare or precious, so we drive it more.
Definitely the 560 has the DNA of the 280, but the 280 is a work of art.
Liking Indie Auto very much so far. Love the thoughtful outsider concept and free exchange of ideas!
Nope, Steve, you maybe shouldn’t be so hard on the R107. To the extent that this Feature is critiquing styling alone, it might be best to consider this car’s form and details in a more pure version — as intended by its designers — than the compromised “federalized” version, with its protruding, ill-fitting battering rams, and sealed-beam headlamps framed by fussy plastic faux lenses. It’s easy to become jaded to this car’s intrinsic, understated elegance, being that they are still a common sight on the road, with a great proportion of them having long since becoming somewhat dog-eared, sad and unremarkable looking. Just check out photos of the same car as marketed to the rest of the world ; the same shape, same car, with beautifully integrated headlamps (unique to this model) and simple blade bumpers of rational design. It was a clean shape with subtle intricate detailing, managing (in its “correct” form) to look uncluttered. Perhaps this models long history of ubiquitous familiarity has caused it to lose its visual impact.
As undeniably pretty as the earlier W113 was, is, and always will be, i would suggest that its most outstanding styling features would be the very glassy, elegant hardtop, its fantastic composite lamps up front, and the perfectly shaped grille. What’s left is nice, classically tasteful, but hardly exciting. For the 70s, its familar shape, no matter how breathtaking, would have been out of touch. While the later car gives an impression of being bulkier, the earler car could be accused of looking a little “slab sided” — this is just one way that shows these were designs of different eras. The original R107 (have a look at photos from the cars debut) was a dramatic, more modern update of everything intrinsically right about the older car’s basic package and its mission as a two-seat “sport light” (SL) roadster. The R107 introduced the best of emerging 70s styling themes along with a touch of aggression to its lines. I would say its sharp profile, with just a hint of wedge, was the very definition of “taut” styling! It introduced a dramatically sharper rake to the windshield, as compared to the older car’s very upright one (which, admittedly, works really well with the “pagoda” top). With a subtle concavity across its trunk lid (it is not flat), the R107’s rear perspective was a modern resolution to the W113’s somewhat busier form, complete with its small vestigial fins left over from another age. The R107’s rear is completed beautifully and cleanly with the perfectly integrated tail lights it shared with the S-Class sedan (in a way that makes them appear they could have been designed to fit the roadster first). These tail lamps were very much “of their time” ; big, clear, safety-minded. (Incidentally, in regards the the ribbed design, i recall that Mercedes-Benz purported that they would stay cleaner and clearer on wintery roads, though obviously this theory did not endure).
Your comments on the door length puzzle me a bit. They had never struck me as being proportionally “off”, and your impressions made me consider this very closely. They appear to me to fit into the profile in almost exactly the same way on both cars, cutting in from just a few inches in front of the rear wheel arch, and extending in length to the furthest reach of the base of the windshield. To my eye, both look equally well executed in terms of a pleasing fit into the overall design, and in terms providing a generous door cut through which to swing one’s legs and feet upon entry and exit.
I do entirely agree that something went wrong with the newer car’s hardtop design. While the earlier car’s hardtop looks aesthetically “perfect”, and was indeed the defining styling feature of the car, the re-design just failed. It’s tough to guess why they went with the awkward side window shape. Was it meant to introduce a memorable “personality” trait, adding a signature to an otherwise very clean design? Was it intended to enhance the suggestion of a rake in the profile? Did it provide the top itself with more torsional stiffness, for a better, tighter fit and more refinement? Did they just think it looked great? It’s hard to imagine today that the designers all looked at that feature, slapped each other on the back, and said, “Jah! Nailed it!” Surely there is some accurately recorded historical perspective out there on this.
The C107 SLC, i would submit, has always been a misunderstood car, but one that i think was rather ingenious. Being the much rarer car, and therefore seldom seen, it unfortunately gives a first impression of being an ungainly stretched afterthought version of the two-seat roadster. In this sense, the designers failed, and in your Feature (which judges styling alone), i must agree with that overall assessment. However, looked at more completely, this was a very special car. In an age when a low center of gravity was still a fundamental necessity for achieving optimal roadholding and handling, so called “GT cars” of the era prevailed gloriously in both their functional essence and the side benefit of evocative aesthetics manifested within their low, sleek shapes. The reviled SLC was functionally an amazing all-around luxury/performance car, offering effortless autobahn cruising with safe and secure “sporting” road manners, wrapped around a roomy, luxurious and comfortable cocoon for the driver and up to three passengers. The SLC was the Mercedes-Benz flagship of its day, costing considerably more than either the two-seat SL or the plutocratic S-Class sedans.
As a design, a funny thing happens if one studies the SLC as a long, low, sinewy 4-seat luxury GT coupe version of the sedan, rather than as an elongated roadster. The picture changes quite a bit if approached in a form-follows-function way. It can begin to look more like the sophisticated and very capable GT car it was — perhaps the best of its time in some ways. As far as detailing, those ornate rear side windows that look so overtly overdone, their shape is actually quite clever and perfectly functional. The front portion of the glass rolls completely down, yielding a pillarless hardtop look in the bargain. The fixed louvered portion behind may look awkward nowadays, but at the time it was a very original design solution that, A) provided a unique styling signature ; B) enhanced driver visibility ; C) provided some sun shading for the large greenhouse area without reducing visibility ; and D) added perhaps a touch of mystery (just who is riding back there?). It may have come across as a touch gauche, but the alternatives would have been (choose one) fixed windows, reduced visibility through a diminished window and huge C-pillar, or a rather strange looking double pillar. They opted for a clever and audacious styling risk with the louvers. Did it “work”? One could assert it was copied by both Pontiac and Renault in short order. Did it age well? Matter of opinion. Perhaps Mercedes could have (should have!) done better work overall on the SLC, but the car is not without its unique charms. The fact that it failed was surely due in large part to misjudged styling.
All that said, i am not a zealot for any of these models mentioned, nor a “Mercedes Guy” in general. Just some reactions provoked by your commentary, and meant only to propel the conversation.
I agree that the 5-mph bumpers throw the car’s styling off — and would have in the previous generation as well. I suspect that the SLC’s proportions would have been at least somewhat better if Mercedes had adopted a more dramatic wedge shape. Beyond that, this may be one of those situations where aesthetic tastes differ — which is inevitable. However, I might have been better able to express what I was trying to say by including a fake design that illustrates my points. That’s not always technically possible, but it would be worth exploring the next time I update this article.