22nd Jun 2009, 13:11

"Buying a Mercedes is like buying a Blue Chip stock. It may seem like the rest of the equities, but those in the know, can appreciate why it comes at a premium. It's the same when considering any high end purchase for long-term ownership pleasure."

Interesting. Most Mercedes models are rated as "average" or below in reliability. The resale values (based on initial purchase price) are less than a Ford or Chevy. The Pontiac G8 offers far better performance than most Mercedes models, and USA Today's auto reviewer referred to the Mercedes ML320 as having a herky-jerky transmission, harsh ride, awful mileage and seats like concrete. They recommended the Dodge Durango over it. Even the Hyundai Genesis offers more amenities and more performance at half the cost. This doesn't equate to "long-term ownership pleasure" for me. My company deals with multi-millionaires on a daily basis. One of the things I've noted is that the very richest of the lot will drive into our parking lot in a Ford or a GM vehicle. Money is made by using common sense. I can only assume that is why some of the richest drive less expensive, but more reliable vehicles. My boss is a millionaire several times over. He drives a Ford Fusion.

23rd Jun 2009, 22:52

"The resale values (based on initial purchase price) are less than a Ford or Chevy."

That is precisely why they make a great investment. Consider it an in-the-money option that is well worth exercising. I can buy a lightly used Benz that will cost the same as a new Ford or Chevy. Buying used is wise money management, because there is much more intrinsic value in the Mercedes than the domestics. A $100k when new car, selling used at 20% of new price after 7 - 8 yrs. In 7 yrs the Fords and Chevs will be busted and tired looking!

Armani or Affliction? Your choice.

A Harvard ride... for community college cash! I'll take some of that. Thank you very much!

As for the rich farmers. Well they have to buy 'practical' vehicles, don't they? It wouldn't be sensible to chase livestock or harvest crops and haul hay in the SL, would it?

Although the G-Wagen would do just fine.)

Your boss' choice to drive a Fusion has absolutely no bearing on the quality of a Mercedes-Benz. It is his money to do with what he likes, and my money is to do what I want. Right?

When it comes to money and life's pleasures, everyone should know...

(Sing it...)


SO YOU MIGHT AS WELL PARTY... in a Benz! lol.

25th Jun 2009, 16:32

"Your boss' choice to drive a Fusion has absolutely no bearing on the quality of a Mercedes-Benz"

Actually it DOES. My boss is fully aware that the Ford Fusion is rated two levels HIGHER in reliability than most models of Mercedes. Just what is "quality" if not good build quality and reliability? Methinks we are talking not about ANYTHING remotely tangible, but rather a desire to impress others. My family has owned 2 C-class Mercs. Were they good cars? Yes. Were they reliable? Not as much as our Fords. Would I buy another one just to impress my neighbors? Definitely not. As for lasting so long, you should see my family's 1955 Pontiac, 1967 Dodge Charger R/T and 1970 Dodge Challenger. The Challenger cost less than $5000 new and is now worth more than a new CL-500.

5th Jul 2009, 11:55

Mercedes was making quality luxury cars from the outset. That is why they are considered 'tangible' assets and why they have a higher value than many other marques.

Ford and others it seems have only recently caught up to them because the big 3 had to do something better in order to survive.

What is the point in comparing rare collector cars and brand new cars to decade old Benzes anyway?

6th Jul 2009, 16:34

A 1950s Mercedes-Benz SL with Gullwing doors costs about $3k new and is worth more than a brand new Ferrari, Lambo and Rolls Royce combined today! LOL.

16th Oct 2009, 09:18

Judging by the disheartening Durango reviews on this site, 'Methinks'... LOL... USA Today's auto reviewer doesn't know what they are talking about.

Pontiac no longer makes the G8, and Forbes has found that the Durango is one of the absolute worst cars for resale value, because they are worth less than 18% of their new price in 5 years time. Ouch!

29th Oct 2009, 10:36

I thought Mercedes galvanized their steel panels, going on over a decade now? Are these reports of rust, actual rust? Brown rusting steel? Or are they seeing bubbling paint on aluminium? Some sort of chemical reaction with the paint that isn't actually steel rusting?

Either way, it's unacceptable, but more so if it's steel rusting.

Mercedes builds exciting cars, but the quality is in the crapper since the early 90's.

Maybe with less paper millionaires in the world, we will see a return to quality over quantity as they are no longer looking to be greedy and make as many cars as possible.

2nd Mar 2010, 08:17

Interesting comments.

I note that some contributors are stating that it should be obvious to expect a car of fifteen or sixteen years old to rust, and that anyone buying an MB should expect high running costs. However, I have to disagree. For the last seven years I have been running an MB A124 (an E-class cabriolet) from 1994. I have been running it all over Europe, on business. It has been exposed to winters of -20 degrees Celsius and summers of nearly +40, and has been routinely used on some pretty rough roads in Eastern Europe with next to no asphalt on them. There was a period some three years ago when it was even left outside during a precipitous British winter, undriven for four months. And you know what? It has been 100% reliable and no rust whatsoever.

By some margin it has been the best car I have ever owned - bullet proof construction, entirely dependable, and with a good clean and polish it looks like it came new out of the showroom only three months ago.

The only work I have ever had done to it is routine servicing and one new battery; its running costs are actually peanuts.

In light of its age, I have been thinking about replacing it with a CL600 from 2000 onwards. Given their depreciation, they seem like real bargains at the moment. But having read the comments posted here, it seems obvious that MB cars that were designed after the Chrysler takeover are simply not the same machines - German badge, but US cost-cutting build quality.

In light of this, I'll probably just stick with what I have. On the basis of past experience, I'm pretty confident that it'll still be chugging along nicely in another sixteen years.

7th Jun 2010, 13:52

A lot of Mercedes banging going on here. I have a CLS 06 and it's pretty much perfect, and not a spec of rust on it. Then again, I look after it a lot. Wash it every weekend, polish it with the best polish, wax it to seal in the goodness. Work on your car, protect it and stop complaining.

3rd Jan 2011, 11:17

I am an owner of a 1990 300CE and a 2001 E55 AMG, and there is a world of difference between the two cars. The W124 was the very last real Mercedes, everything since then is susceptible to major repairs and rust.

Want a good Merc, buy before 1995.

I keep the W210 AMG in the garage, don't drive it in the rain or snow and it still will develop rust. There are horror stories of the front springs falling our from rust and looking at the design, I can believe it.

As I say, the W124s were designed and built by the Post WWII Generation (Boomers) while the W210s were designed and built by the X Generation and that about sums it up!