New Mercedes Dilema

New Mercedes Dilema

Author
Discussion

cnjohnson_uk

Original Poster:

9,586 posts

248 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all


>>> Edited by cnjohnson_uk on Sunday 24th April 22:07

mustard

6,992 posts

250 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all
You sure you want a Merc?, the way they drive, they are certainly no Porsche!

bobbins

26,934 posts

250 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all
Go for a longish drive a C - I found the seats gave me lower back pain that I've never had before. I've seen other comments to the same effect.
The car I had (for 3 days) was C220CDI Estate auto. It seemed pretty sluggish in the 30-60 range, but seemed to go from 70-100 in the twinkling of any eye. It was brand new though - had done <300miles when it came to me, so I was pretty gentle with it. I would imagine an E with this engine would be even slower. Diesel consumption was low 30's (again maybe 'cos it was new). On the C Class, the C180K has better performance and cost £3K less, which is a lot of fuel, unless the diesel holds a lot of its value.
The car (a Merc corp demo) was very highly spec'd and did have a nice ambience - my wife (who normally has no interest in cars whatsoever) thought it was wonderful.


>> Edited by bobbins on Saturday 29th January 16:16

cnjohnson_uk

Original Poster:

9,586 posts

248 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all
It will be a long time before the P word is uttered in this house so yes a Merc will be absolutely fine.

Drove a C220CDI demo today and was pleasently suprised at it. I was offered a mint CLK 240, but to be honest a new CLK200 looked better value and the performance difference was neglible (unless I am missing something)

jumjum

347 posts

263 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all
Have just changed my wifes car from a boxster s to a merc (needed the extra comfort ).

Benefit of the C240 is six cylinder is it's supposed to be smoother, but the four cylinders are great anyway.

I'd stay with the faster ones listed



C230k is quickest, practical 4dr saloon

Merc diesels are great, 270 fairly quick, although expensive diesel have a bit better resale than petrols (estates even better).

CLK200 is pretty quick and sexyist, coupes also have slightly better resale than saloon, not as practical as 4dr.

One option to consider would be to buy a 6mth old car, not only do you save a bit on new (maybe move up a model)but you also save on the money for your options (you never really get this money back on resale of new cars)

As an example bought my wife’s car 7 months old 6000 miles not only did save the worst bit of the first three years depreciation but importantly it had 7k of extras on, but cost only £500 quid more than cars with no options and ones with a couple of grands worth.

So it's very unlikely the poor previous owner got any real money back on the huge amounts of options they put on the car when they traded it in.

I’ll change this car when the warranty run’s out (2 years 3 months time) but despite the early change I’ll still have saved quite a lot compared to taking a brand new car for three full years and have the benefit of a mega spec of options for near free .



>> Edited by jumjum on Saturday 29th January 16:53

cnjohnson_uk

Original Poster:

9,586 posts

248 months

Saturday 29th January 2005
quotequote all
Ive just done a bit of research on the CLK 240 Avantgarde.

It looks as though the car is a good buy. It has done 5K miles and is an absolute minter (my porsche has got an endless number of stone chips on it and has covered the same mileage). The leather inside hasn't started to get a shine to it.

The spec is CLK 240 Avantgarde
Silver Metallic
Black Leather
03/53 5K miles
Auto
Parktronic
17" wheels

It is up for £28,850 which is a good £2,000 below the value glass's guide is saying it should be.

The question is, if the cost to change is £4,500 for the used CLK240 or £4,500 for a new CLK200 which would you go for.