Pagoda SL Group
Off Topic => Other cars => Topic started by: lurtch on May 16, 2021, 05:23:13
-
Hello All - - -
Is this babe sitting in Gullwing or a 190? The smidgen of rear view mirror seen near her right hand suggests 300SL,
but the steering wheel hub looks like its a 190SL. Also the wrap-around seat bolsters look Gullwing-like.
Anybody know for sure?
Larry in CA
-
Hi,
looks like a 300SL, 190SL has different soft top catcher.
...WRe
-
The eyebrow over the wheel is 300SL type
-
You can rule out a Gull Wing since it is an open top car. From too many observed features to repeat, it is most assuredly a 300 SL Roadster.
-
THAT is what caught your attention in this picture? Seek help! :o
-
This is a 190 SL
-
I can't believe she is touching the paint... Just shameful.
-
300 roadster.
Cees’ comment is priceless!
-
300sl. The bucket seats are a dead giveaway.
-
Well, 190SL had them too. I am not sure, however, if they looked the same - maybe that is what you meant.
-
Pawel,
Yes if you look at her arm and how far back into the seat it goes. It’s a deep bucket with the side bolster swooped down from the top.
-
There's no question the first picture is a 300. Not even close to a 190 in many details.
-
Pawel,
Yes if you look at her arm and how far back into the seat it goes. It’s a deep bucket with the side bolster swooped down from the top.
Got you, thank you!
-
Look at Tyler picture above.
I sat in a 300Gullwing many years ago and the real give away is the door opening at the back.
Next to the left of the drivers seat.
That part is very wide.
I remember trying to get out of the gullwing and I had to literally climb out uphill to get out.
At that time many years ago I could have purchased it for , Are you ready for this,$60,000.
I did not know the value of these cars back then , I would have begged or stole the money to purchase that car.
T
-
This is a 190 SL
Where is the 190SL
-
Only the 300SL had the rigid soft top cover.
-
I can't believe she is touching the paint... Just shameful.
Reminds me of an incident when Lady Di sat on the bonnet of Prince Charles’ Aston Martin DB6!?!?! He’s seen checking the car afterwards for damage...
-
Look at Tyler picture above.
I sat in a 300Gullwing many years ago and the real give away is the door opening at the back.
Next to the left of the drivers seat.
That part is very wide.
I remember trying to get out of the gullwing and I had to literally climb out uphill to get out.
At that time many years ago I could have purchased it for , Are you ready for this,$60,000.
I did not know the value of these cars back then , I would have begged or stole the money to purchase that car.
T
The reason for this was the trellis design frame of the 300SL. This caused the high door sill and was the main reason the original had "Gullwing" doors. In order to ease entry and exit, the Gullwing also had a "fold-up" steering wheel.
-
Reminds me of an incident when Lady Di sat on the bonnet of Prince Charles’ Aston Martin DB6!?!?! He’s seen checking the car afterwards for damage...
Cannot blame the guy. It is, say, 65kg on the surface of, say 20x10cm, even though it is not very impressive 0.3kg/cm2, it does represent a load on a fragile surface such as the bonnet (hood).
-
Cannot blame the guy. It is, say, 65kg on the surface of, say 20x10cm, even though it is not very impressive 0.3kg/cm2, it does represent a load on a fragile surface such as the bonnet (hood).
Oh, I don't know. Having princess Di's butt dents on the hood of your car. How much could that be worth today?
-
For you or me. Not sure for Charles those days. He might have preferred somebody else's butt visualization on his hood, actually...
-
For you or me. Not sure for Charles those days. He might have preferred somebody else's butt visualization on his hood, actually...
Probably true, I’m sure he wouldn’t have complained if a certain other ‘lady’s’ ( I’m using the word ‘lady’ in the very widest context as she certainly isn’t!!) butt was sitting on it, as you say.
You enjoying having ex royals over in the States? For a couple who moved there to get away from the press/media, they sure do seem to be having an awful lot of airtime courting them over there! Maybe because they have no ‘court’ here anymore to entertain them! 🤣🤣
-
Not wanting to step on any "Royalist's" toes, but I think for any country in the world to support a "Royal family" is a farce. It should be done away with and probably will in a few decades.
The taxes paid by hard-working people that are going towards that maintenance is a waste.
-
Not wanting to step on any "Royalist's" toes, but I think for any country in the world to support a "Royal family" is a farce. It should be done away with and probably will in a few decades.
The taxes paid by hard-working people that are going towards that maintenance is a waste.
Mike,
I think they operate more as a tourist and TV attraction these days. To me its amazing how many people (here in the US) are following and are concerned about this nonsense.
-
I like this English "twist", actually. We need some fairytale aspect in life. I think most of the English taxpayers do not mind.
-
Don’t think we need go into arguments about the Royals, there are pros and cons on both side. Cost tax payers something like 20p for everyone of working age, unfortunately not all are working in households and prefer to use the taxes of hard working people whilst they sit on their butts for no other reason than benefits pay better than work
-
20p would buy a pagoda group full membership and is far more entertaining. 😆
-
When Elizabeth II goes, so do the Royals.
-
Royals are a relic of the past, when times weren't as good as they are today.
And how did this thread get so off-topic?! :-\
Oh, right, royal bums ...
-
20p would buy a pagoda group full membership and is far more entertaining. 😆
Where did you get your Pagoda group membership for 20 pence? :-\
-
Not wanting to step on any "Royalist's" toes, but I think for any country in the world to support a "Royal family" is a farce. It should be done away with and probably will in a few decades.
The taxes paid by hard-working people that are going towards that maintenance is a waste.
Funny how your address is ‘Royalton’🤣
Think you’d find that the Royals cost lest to taxpayers than those taking money out of the social services because they know how to! At leat queenie and some senior royals actually work very hard and promote UK industry overseas.
-
We have people who abuse the welfare system everywhere in the world. Right now, we have people in the U.S. who do not want to go back to work, because they make more money collecting unemployment/welfare than wages.
Funny thing with these "parasites", be it "Royals" or others is, that you have all kind of statements that say how much it costs, but no hard evidence can be found to support the numbers.
You say it cost the taxpayer 20p. What is this based on? Cost divided by population? Total expenses as part of total tax revenue?
Anybody who wants to twist the numbers so that support their opinion, can do accordingly.
I look at a small number of people living in obscene luxury at the expense of the community and have a hard time agreeing it makes sense in the 21st century.
-
Prefer contributing my 20p per household to have a Royal Family where most are hard working and promote Uk industry overseas, than lazy ineffectual money grabbing people on the social as it’s more cost effective to them than getting a job 😱. Please note, perfectly happy to pay tax to help those who actually need it