Detroit 2016 Preview: 2017 Mercedes Benz E-Class

It looks like an E-class.  I like that the headlights have 2 light bars and 2 LED squares or whatever they are since the E-class used to have the dual headlight set up, it pays tribute to that.  I wish it looked a little more different than the C and S though, maybe use wider rear tail lights or something.  A+ interior.

I am more curious for the engines because I want the inline six.  The turbo 4 in the C300 will be slow in this car, but CAFE will probably force it in.  The 255 hp diesel six would be nice, but the VW diesel scandal will probably kill that.  

.23 drag coefficient for this car, which is remarkable.  

 The rear is lifted from the 2005 s-class. It's already tired; so tired it's boring. MB needs new designers / anything new.

Maybe the I-6 isn't ready yet.

 The rear is lifted from the 2005 s-class. It's already tired; so tired it's boring. MB needs new designers / anything new.

I was thinking the same thing. Nothing about this car looks extraordinary. People try tog give Caddy a hard time about the Alphas and Omega looking similar. Benz officially has a Small, Medium and Large thing going on with the C, E, and S Class. I won;t even get into the failed attempt by the CLA to steal from the CLS... 

Bottom line.. I keep askin myself.. HOW THE EFF IS THIS A BRAND TO ASPIRE TO?

Nothing fancy here....

The tail lights are actually closer to an 08 C-class, aside from the current cars.  I'd rather have seen them flip the tail light, make it more narrow at the top and wider at the bottom.  Or make it more of a rectangle.  I think the back end looks good as it is, but it also looks like the other 2 sedans.

And to Drew's point they seem to be dragging their feet on the I-6, which makes no sense when it would share parts with the I-4 and have cost savings.  The 3.0 turbo V6 is derived from the 3.5 V6, which dates back to 2010.  

And inline 6s date back to the 1910s.

nothing here to make one moist.

at the same time, nothing changes enough to shock the customer base.

The dash is dumpy looking.  They could have done better there.

agree, on the exterior, we've seen that look before.  The CD is impressive.

YAWN, Talk about a boring car on the outside. The rear is a dated rear as already mentioned and lets talk about the REDNECK lower front bumper with the Big Mouth Billy Bass openings on each side. How is this a luxury auto to aspire to when you have a bland un-motivational look.

I will grant them that the interior dash is nice, much better than the floating nav crap we have seen. Inside I like much nicer than past interiors but just equalling what everyone else is doing now.

Hate to say this but this E-Class reminds me of Cadillac peak just before Fake Leather and rebadging hit it's stride at GM. I wonder just how cheap MB will go next with this product.

The CD is impressive.

MB has been caught (more than once) fudging their .cd numbers downward. 

wouldn't surprise me, this doesn't look like a .23 shape

A well optioned C400 is more my style.

A well optioned C400 is more my style.

A CTS-VSport.. no.. CTS-V is more mine

This is another example of why I've liked MB for awhile now. They do their non-AMG cars with very subtle-ness and high class. Not flashy or offensive in any way, just classy and simple. 

I dig it. I'd drive something like this every day. I'd definitely have to have the largest boosted engine though. I'd want it to seem sleeper-ish while holstering 400ish hp. 

 

A well optioned C400 is more my style.

 

 

A CTS-VSport.. no.. CTS-V is more mine

 

Aren't those different classes of cars? Smaller vs mid size(or something like that).  Couldn't a C400 be more comparable to..nothing Caddy has - yet. 

What could Cadillac throw in the ATS to make a V-Sport? Or is the 335hp in the ATS comparable? Honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. 

YAWN, Talk about a boring car on the outside. The rear is a dated rear as already mentioned and lets talk about the REDNECK lower front bumper with the Big Mouth Billy Bass openings on each side. How is this a luxury auto to aspire to when you have a bland un-motivational look.

 

I will grant them that the interior dash is nice, much better than the floating nav crap we have seen. Inside I like much nicer than past interiors but just equalling what everyone else is doing now.

 

Hate to say this but this E-Class reminds me of Cadillac peak just before Fake Leather and rebadging hit it's stride at GM. I wonder just how cheap MB will go next with this product.

Aren't most truly luxury items relatively bland and subtle for the price you pay for them? 

What about this is cheap in your eyes? The styling? Or have you sat in and gotten a chance to fiddle with the pieces that you actually feel? I guess I'm just confused how it can be cheap *at this stage of the game*. 

They do their non-AMG cars with very subtle-ness and high class. Not flashy or offensive in any way, just classy and simple. 

Allow me to ask for clarification on the above quoted portion.

If the '16 e-class fits these superlatives, in your opinion is this random '16 model below, any different or lesser so?

 

They do their non-AMG cars with very subtle-ness and high class. Not flashy or offensive in any way, just classy and simple. 

Allow me to ask for clarification on the above quoted portion.

 

If the '16 e-class fits these superlatives, in your opinion is this random '16 model below, any different or lesser so?

 

 

The hard angles and lines around the grill appear more aggressive, to me.  Also, chrome around the fog lights, and grill are asking for attention. The body lines on the MB are much softer and "rounder". Whereas the above are more straight lines coming to sharper points and less bends. Neither is right or wrong, but in my opinions I find the MB to be classier looking and more subtle with the body lines, less chrome, less angles, and even the head lights are much more aggressive on the above car(which I think looks sharp BTW).

To me, the best way to "clean up" the above car is just to ditch the tacky chrome around the fog lights and lower grill. I think that would make a huuuuge difference on that car. Make it body color or black.. but I think body color would look best. 

Also, in all fairness, I cannot tell from the pictures if the MB has chrome in the grill or if that is brushed/matte. It looks matte or brushed but, if I'm being honesty, it's difficult to tell. 

 

YAWN, Talk about a boring car on the outside. The rear is a dated rear as already mentioned and lets talk about the REDNECK lower front bumper with the Big Mouth Billy Bass openings on each side. How is this a luxury auto to aspire to when you have a bland un-motivational look.

 

I will grant them that the interior dash is nice, much better than the floating nav crap we have seen. Inside I like much nicer than past interiors but just equalling what everyone else is doing now.

 

Hate to say this but this E-Class reminds me of Cadillac peak just before Fake Leather and rebadging hit it's stride at GM. I wonder just how cheap MB will go next with this product.

Aren't most truly luxury items relatively bland and subtle for the price you pay for them? 

 

What about this is cheap in your eyes? The styling? Or have you sat in and gotten a chance to fiddle with the pieces that you actually feel? I guess I'm just confused how it can be cheap *at this stage of the game*. 

 

The point I am making is that Cadillac hit their ultimate stride of top quality materials and then they started to cheapen things up internally and externally. I am seeing MB do this as they expand their product line and once you grow too a certain point it seems executives then look for ways to cheapen up the auto to increase profits. The models they had at the Seattle Auto Show in Nov 2015 made me shake my head, as much as they did things right they also clearly went cheap in other areas.

 

 

YAWN, Talk about a boring car on the outside. The rear is a dated rear as already mentioned and lets talk about the REDNECK lower front bumper with the Big Mouth Billy Bass openings on each side. How is this a luxury auto to aspire to when you have a bland un-motivational look.

 

I will grant them that the interior dash is nice, much better than the floating nav crap we have seen. Inside I like much nicer than past interiors but just equalling what everyone else is doing now.

 

Hate to say this but this E-Class reminds me of Cadillac peak just before Fake Leather and rebadging hit it's stride at GM. I wonder just how cheap MB will go next with this product.

Aren't most truly luxury items relatively bland and subtle for the price you pay for them? 

 

What about this is cheap in your eyes? The styling? Or have you sat in and gotten a chance to fiddle with the pieces that you actually feel? I guess I'm just confused how it can be cheap *at this stage of the game*. 

 

 

The point I am making is that Cadillac hit their ultimate stride of top quality materials and then they started to cheapen things up internally and externally. I am seeing MB do this as they expand their product line and once you grow too a certain point it seems executives then look for ways to cheapen up the auto to increase profits. The models they had at the Seattle Auto Show in Nov 2015 made me shake my head, as much as they did things right they also clearly went cheap in other areas.

 

Alright, I understand what you're talking about with the cheapening. I cannot agree nor disagree as I haven't been in one in person(any of the new gen E-Classes). 

What about the "bland un-motivational look" part? (not trying to be a prick and start and argument, I'm genuinely curious about your opinion on that aspect of the car.)

The S-class has a .23 CD, so apparently this is an aerodynamic shape. I imagine the AMG sport package will liven it up a bit, but the E-class was never a flashy looking car.

I think this car looks better than the current car and the interior is light years ahead. The W212 interior I think is boring, it is well made, but not interesting.

This car is definitely not cheap when you look at all the color and trim choices, aluminum switches, the auto pilot features, self parking, the optional 1,350 watt stereo, etc.

 

 

A well optioned C400 is more my style.

 

 

A CTS-VSport.. no.. CTS-V is more mine

 

Aren't those different classes of cars? Smaller vs mid size(or something like that).  Couldn't a C400 be more comparable to..nothing Caddy has - yet. 

 

What could Cadillac throw in the ATS to make a V-Sport? Or is the 335hp in the ATS comparable? Honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. 

 

Yup.. He did say "C." I was somehow still thinking we were in "E" segment.. my bad. Then I should have said ATS 3.6L or ATS-V... 

 

 

 

A well optioned C400 is more my style.

 

 

A CTS-VSport.. no.. CTS-V is more mine

 

Aren't those different classes of cars? Smaller vs mid size(or something like that).  Couldn't a C400 be more comparable to..nothing Caddy has - yet. 

 

What could Cadillac throw in the ATS to make a V-Sport? Or is the 335hp in the ATS comparable? Honestly, I don't know. That's why I'm asking. 

 

 

 

Yup.. He did say "C." I was somehow still thinking we were in "E" segment.. my bad. Then I should have said ATS 3.6L or ATS-V... 

 

Ahhh gotcha gotcha.. Understandable, as this is about the E Class.  That ATS-V that you looked at a little while back that was a matte pearl white.. I'd do naughty things for that car. 

The S-class has a .23 CD, so apparently this is an aerodynamic shape. I imagine the AMG sport package will liven it up a bit, but the E-class was never a flashy looking car.

I think this car looks better than the current car and the interior is light years ahead. The W212 interior I think is boring, it is well made, but not interesting.

This car is definitely not cheap when you look at all the color and trim choices, aluminum switches, the auto pilot features, self parking, the optional 1,350 watt stereo, etc.

Choices does not make a car's built and feel quality higher. 

Extreme example: You could offer a million colors of interiors and exterior colors(even materials) on a Geo Metro, but that doesn't make it a car that is built any better than the $h!bucket that it is. Unless, when you say "not cheap" you're referring to the purchase price in which you are spot on. A Mercedes E Class is not a cheap car to purchase. 

 

 

 

YAWN, Talk about a boring car on the outside. The rear is a dated rear as already mentioned and lets talk about the REDNECK lower front bumper with the Big Mouth Billy Bass openings on each side. How is this a luxury auto to aspire to when you have a bland un-motivational look.

 

I will grant them that the interior dash is nice, much better than the floating nav crap we have seen. Inside I like much nicer than past interiors but just equalling what everyone else is doing now.

 

Hate to say this but this E-Class reminds me of Cadillac peak just before Fake Leather and rebadging hit it's stride at GM. I wonder just how cheap MB will go next with this product.

Aren't most truly luxury items relatively bland and subtle for the price you pay for them? 

 

What about this is cheap in your eyes? The styling? Or have you sat in and gotten a chance to fiddle with the pieces that you actually feel? I guess I'm just confused how it can be cheap *at this stage of the game*. 

 

 

The point I am making is that Cadillac hit their ultimate stride of top quality materials and then they started to cheapen things up internally and externally. I am seeing MB do this as they expand their product line and once you grow too a certain point it seems executives then look for ways to cheapen up the auto to increase profits. The models they had at the Seattle Auto Show in Nov 2015 made me shake my head, as much as they did things right they also clearly went cheap in other areas.

 

Alright, I understand what you're talking about with the cheapening. I cannot agree nor disagree as I haven't been in one in person(any of the new gen E-Classes). 

 

What about the "bland un-motivational look" part? (not trying to be a prick and start and argument, I'm genuinely curious about your opinion on that aspect of the car.)

 

The bland un-motivational look is just that, many have pointed out the dated look of the tail lights, over all body shape and the big mouth billy bass front end. If you are to be the luxury leader that is elegant and understated but stands out, then you need to be that and not just a knock off of your older S series or other more generic jelly bean shapes. MB and BMW both have gotten very bland in their design language. Nothing inspirational here.

The S-class has a .23 CD, so apparently this is an aerodynamic shape. I imagine the AMG sport package will liven it up a bit, but the E-class was never a flashy looking car.

I think this car looks better than the current car and the interior is light years ahead. The W212 interior I think is boring, it is well made, but not interesting.

This car is definitely not cheap when you look at all the color and trim choices, aluminum switches, the auto pilot features, self parking, the optional 1,350 watt stereo, etc.

Maybe if you start with the flow on top of the windshield and flow over the super raked windshield you get .23 CD. But looking at that blunt nose, there is no way this auto is a .23 CD.

 

Alright, I understand what you're talking about with the cheapening. I cannot agree nor disagree as I haven't been in one in person(any of the new gen E-Classes). 

 

 

 

 

The point I am making is that Cadillac hit their ultimate stride of top quality materials and then they started to cheapen things up internally and externally. I am seeing MB do this as they expand their product line and once you grow too a certain point it seems executives then look for ways to cheapen up the auto to increase profits. The models they had at the Seattle Auto Show in Nov 2015 made me shake my head, as much as they did things right they also clearly went cheap in other areas.

 

 

What about the "bland un-motivational look" part? (not trying to be a prick and start and argument, I'm genuinely curious about your opinion on that aspect of the car.)

 

 

The bland un-motivational look is just that, many have pointed out the dated look of the tail lights, over all body shape and the big mouth billy bass front end. If you are to be the luxury leader that is elegant and understated but stands out, then you need to be that and not just a knock off of your older S series or other more generic jelly bean shapes. MB and BMW both have gotten very bland in their design language. Nothing inspirational here.

The S-class has a .23 CD, so apparently this is an aerodynamic shape. I imagine the AMG sport package will liven it up a bit, but the E-class was never a flashy looking car.

I think this car looks better than the current car and the interior is light years ahead. The W212 interior I think is boring, it is well made, but not interesting.

This car is definitely not cheap when you look at all the color and trim choices, aluminum switches, the auto pilot features, self parking, the optional 1,350 watt stereo, etc.

 

Maybe if you start with the flow on top of the windshield and flow over the super raked windshield you get .23 CD. But looking at that blunt nose, there is no way this auto is a .23 CD.

 

I gotcha I gotcha. I like the designs of BMW and MB but I could see how people wouldn't like the "one design fits all" type of thing. 

With just exterior pictures we don't know where or how the air is traveling over, under, and through the car. The upright grill looks terrible but for all we know the air is cleanly directed through the hood to either under the car or out the back side of the hood. Airflow is a weird thing and what makes something high or low drag. I'm no aerospace engineer but for all we/I know that upright grill and the way things are around it, it might not be as detrimental to a low cd as we think or as it looks to an untrained eye. 

There is definitely NO WAY to tell a car's .cd from visual appearances. 

That said, MB has rendered their credibility thin WRT .cd claims.

Ahhh gotcha gotcha.. Understandable, as this is about the E Class.  That ATS-V that you looked at a little while back that was a matte pearl white.. I'd do naughty things for that car. 

 

 

Please.. that POS. It backseat is slightly smaller than the M3 despite the rest of it being superior in every imaginable way. I won't touch it until its backseat ca accommodate a line-backer, or at the very least.. a loser of a friend who has to ride in the back because they can't buy their own ride.

 

Ahhh gotcha gotcha.. Understandable, as this is about the E Class.  That ATS-V that you looked at a little while back that was a matte pearl white.. I'd do naughty things for that car. 

 

 

 

 

 

Please.. that POS. It backseat is slightly smaller than the M3 despite the rest of it being superior in every imaginable way. I won't touch it until its backseat ca accommodate a line-backer, or at the very least.. a loser of a friend who has to ride in the back because they can't buy their own ride.

 

Lol ..I feel like I've read that before.. 

Well luckily I'm short enough and I sit close enough even a linebacker could fit behind me, even if he's only in middle school.. A linebacker is a linebacker, RIGHT?!?

This new E-Class has not made a friend out of me...

That is all I have to say.

Maybe one other thing.

I hope they dont fudge the next generation CLS...

The exterior... same sausage, different lengths. Very underwhelming in terms of style, because we all expected as much. 

Alright, well the tech is going to be way out there in front of everything else, I am sure. And it's that kind of techno-futurist intangible brownie points that a lot of luxury makes are trying to harness. Case in point: BMW's new bipolar 7 Series.

I think they'll sell a whole lot of these just like the last one, and the product overall should not be anything less than very competent, given how this strategy of trickle-down and trickle-up tech is the basis of MB's latest strategy. We've seen the C-Class dominate its class in recent instrumented tests. The product has the potential to be a class leader just like the recent C-class, or already dominant S-Class. Munificent money-maker. 

Genuine reaction overall:

If I ever bought this, I would always think why did I cheapen out and just not get the original version of this (S-Class).

Think of it this way. The distinction between the new Mercedes sedans is less of actual distinct model differences and more akin to just an increase/decrease in length of wheelbase and width.

And that's something... I feel this very strongly that this is the future of automobiles, already these seeds have been sown in other automakers too. Same sausage, different lengths.

But I just didn't expect (bounded rationality) that Mercedes would make it so... this is the only word I can think of, but I'm not even sure if it's even that powerful as I intend it to be - approachable. I think the target buyer for these sedans will turn a blind eye to this scalable product styling. It's efficient for the automaker, and this will surely be a wake-up call to others.

I hate to say this, but I respect this car. Everything looks like Mercedes has done this vehicle right - subjective preferences thrown out the window.

Hard to say buying an E-class would make you feel like you cheapened out since you didn't get an S-class.   For one, the S-class is 13 inches longer than the 2017 E-class, the S-class is a really long car, some people just don't want a car that big.  Secondly, there is about a $45,000 price difference between them, that is a lot.

I do agree that it will sell like crazy though.  The current car still sells well despite being in it's 7th model year, the A6 has looked the same for 10 years, the GS is ugly, and the Infiniti M-Q70-L is older than dirt with lots of name changes to cover up that fact.    The E-class could take over this segment just like the S-class did the top.

Hard to say buying an E-class would make you feel like you cheapened out since you didn't get an S-class.   For one, the S-class is 13 inches longer than the 2017 E-class, the S-class is a really long car, some people just don't want a car that big.  Secondly, there is about a $45,000 price difference between them, that is a lot.

 

I do agree that it will sell like crazy though.  The current car still sells well despite being in it's 7th model year, the A6 has looked the same for 10 years, the GS is ugly, and the Infiniti M-Q70-L is older than dirt with lots of name changes to cover up that fact.    The E-class could take over this segment just like the S-class did the top.

Is that $45k before or after the giant discounts on the S-Class?

Car and Driver just did an article about the average transaction price of a car vs the base model price.   The S-class has an ATP of $118,312, 24% over base price.

Ya, but with s-class base MSRPs ranging from $95.6K to $224.6K….. $118K still bears the question : how big are the total incentives on the model??

ATPs are a weighted average...

You'd have to look at the distribution of price in intervals to get a better idea.

Is it skewed? Bi-modal? Uniform(totally unlikely here)? Approximating a normal?

But there is a common practice in the industry to have actually quite generous incentives on flagship sedans - just that they are at times paltry as a percentage of the MSRP.

Well other cars in that class don't have that high of an ATP.  The S-class has $23k in options on average, only the Porsche 911, Cayman, Panamera, Audi A8 and Range Rover are sold at a greater dollar amount over the base model.   And we know Porsche's have outrageous options lists and trim levels.  

So then how come such a huge price drop between new to 1 or 2 years old or even older.?

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/Mercedes-Benz/S-Class/Seattle+WA-98133?endYear=2017&firstRecord=0&makeCode1=MB&mmt=%5BMB%5B%5D%5BS_CLASS%5B%5D%5D%5D&modelCode1=S_CLASS&searchRadius=25&showcaseOwnerId=571416&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&startYear=1981&Log=0

Brand New 2016 S550 $125K asking price, New 2015 S550 asking $108K and then you get your 2013 S550 with 22K miles and asking $61K and the prices just dump from there. It is amazing to find how big and fast the S series prices dump after 2 years. More than 50% price dump.

The E-Class used to have a unique look.  The C and S-Classes always looked similar.  Now they all look the same, with that worn bar of soap look.  I liked the 2003 to 2009 E-Class a lot, except for the weak V-6 engine.  The outgoing E-Class did nothing for me.  Benzes no longer have any appeal to me, except for maybe the Metris van.

So then how come such a huge price drop between new to 1 or 2 years old or even older.?

 

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/Mercedes-Benz/S-Class/Seattle+WA-98133?endYear=2017&firstRecord=0&makeCode1=MB&mmt=%5BMB%5B%5D%5BS_CLASS%5B%5D%5D%5D&modelCode1=S_CLASS&searchRadius=25&showcaseOwnerId=571416&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&startYear=1981&Log=0

 

Brand New 2016 S550 $125K asking price, New 2015 S550 asking $108K and then you get your 2013 S550 with 22K miles and asking $61K and the prices just dump from there. It is amazing to find how big and fast the S series prices dump after 2 years. More than 50% price dump.

^^^ This. I've thrown this out at him before but he always shrugs it off like its no big deal. Its a prime reason why U see later model S-Class daily.. used dealers are selling a 2-3 year old model for the same price that one could buy a new E-Class or comparable segment mate for. I think that is part of the reason why Cadillac went the route they are with the CT6. They are quite possibly trying to tackle a great deal of fish on the market.. including used flagship pricing alternatives.

Buying an S-Class (but most lease anyway), you lose an entire E-Class in depreciation in the first two years. Even if a brand new Lincoln Continental had 100% depreciation in 2 years, you'd still lose less money. 

But that's why nearly all S-Classes are leased. MB eats the depreciation with relatively cheap leases compared to the price of the car.  It's a back end subsidy that lets transaction prices look much higher.

Buying an S-Class (but most lease anyway), you lose an entire E-Class in depreciation in the first two years. Even if a brand new Lincoln Continental had 100% depreciation in 2 years, you'd still lose less money. 

 

But that's why nearly all S-Classes are leased. MB eats the depreciation with relatively cheap leases compared to the price of the car.  It's a back end subsidy that lets transaction prices look much higher.

Does this not come back to bite a company in the books when they have to take the hit or write off?

 

Buying an S-Class (but most lease anyway), you lose an entire E-Class in depreciation in the first two years. Even if a brand new Lincoln Continental had 100% depreciation in 2 years, you'd still lose less money. 

 

But that's why nearly all S-Classes are leased. MB eats the depreciation with relatively cheap leases compared to the price of the car.  It's a back end subsidy that lets transaction prices look much higher.

 

Does this not come back to bite a company in the books when they have to take the hit or write off?

 

I'm sure they still make a profit on the cars.  But keeping the prices high gives the appearance of being expensive.  SMK: "Oh, I just leased a new S-Class, it cost $118k"... Me:"Yeah, but you're only paying $1,500 a month for 24 months with $7k down on a car worth $55k when the lease is up, you didn't really pay for a $118k car"....  SMK: "But I have an S-Class" ..... me: "Whatever makes you happy"

In the luxury classes, things that are priced expensive are just profit centers, they don't usually cost the manufacturer anywhere near what they charge. The S-Class Sport Package is priced at $5,900... but there is no way it costs MB anywhere close to that for a different front plastic bumper and an upgrade from 19"s to 20"s. 

Car and Driver just did an article about the average transaction price of a car vs the base model price.   The S-class has an ATP of $118,312, 24% over base price.

Real easy to skew those numbers due to the high number of leases out there. Not impressed.

Full size sedans lose value the fastest from any brand. I went to cars.com and looked up the ALG residual value on an S550 4matic and it is 43% after 36 months. The Cadillac CTS and XTS are both 39-41% for most trim levels. Lots of luxury cars lose value fast. The C300 holds 51% of value by comparison, small cars hold better than big ones.

As a brand Mercedes won the ALG award for highest residual values for a luxury maker in 2014, Land Rover won 2015.

So then how come such a huge price drop between new to 1 or 2 years old or even older.?

 

http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/Mercedes-Benz/S-Class/Seattle+WA-98133?endYear=2017&firstRecord=0&makeCode1=MB&mmt=%5BMB%5B%5D%5BS_CLASS%5B%5D%5D%5D&modelCode1=S_CLASS&searchRadius=25&showcaseOwnerId=571416&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&startYear=1981&Log=0

 

Brand New 2016 S550 $125K asking price, New 2015 S550 asking $108K and then you get your 2013 S550 with 22K miles and asking $61K and the prices just dump from there. It is amazing to find how big and fast the S series prices dump after 2 years. More than 50% price dump.

Don't a lot of high end luxury vehicles do that though? I thought a 50% drop in only a few years wasn't uncommon when the owner actually puts a few miles on it(22k in this case). Like Range Rovers, Audis, Porsches, anything that could fetch 150k. 

Here's an example.. 2 years old(okay, 3 now that it's 2016) 22k miles S8(starting price is about 115k) listed for 74k. Definitely not 50% but that is a MASSIVE drop off. Plus, we can all cherry pick autotrader cars for what we're looking for all day long.  http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=62249&endYear=2015&modelCode1=S8&showcaseOwnerId=69754049&startYear=2013&makeCode1=AUDI&firstRecord=0&searchRadius=0&mmt=%5BAUDI%5BS8%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=413918297&Log=0

2014 RR Supercharged. STARTS at 103k and I had to find a VIN decoder to find the winder sticker, and 26,730 in options = ~130k. Listed for...$72,180 and only 17,550 miles on it. http://www.autotrader.com/cars-for-sale/vehicledetails.xhtml?zip=98133&endYear=2015&modelCode1=RANGE&sortBy=derivedpriceASC&showcaseOwnerId=10617495&startYear=2013&makeCode1=ROV&firstRecord=0&searchRadius=0&showcaseListingId=417096181&mmt=%5BROV%5BRANGE%5B%5D%5D%5B%5D%5D&listingId=412665993&Log=0

Also, to all

Why does anybody give a crap about how much a dealer marks a car down as a push against said company? Let's just be honest here, in the S Class's sake, it's by far and away the best vehicle in its respective class of car and if the dealer mark downs is the largest gripe about the car I'd say it is extremely successful. If the company is making money off the car and not closing the doors.. then they must be doing something right by offering the dealer markdowns. It's always been one argument I've never understood and there are a handful of people I've been on forums with that LOVE to push the "incentive" argument as if it makes the car/truck and less of a vehicle. Yeah I guess an S Class is all of a sudden some peasant car now that it is makred for from 118k to 108k... 

Full size sedans lose value the fastest from any brand. I went to cars.com and looked up the ALG residual value on an S550 4matic and it is 43% after 36 months. The Cadillac CTS and XTS are both 39-41% for most trim levels. Lots of luxury cars lose value fast. The C300 holds 51% of value by comparison, small cars hold better than big ones.

As a brand Mercedes won the ALG award for highest residual values for a luxury maker in 2014, Land Rover won 2015.

And yet, you're still losing more in absolute dollars.  Again, the XTS could devalue to ZERO and you would still lose less money than 2 years in an S-Class.   Here is a 2013 S550 4matic with night vision and surround view. It was probably around $115k new and it is being offered for $62,995 used... which means the buyout was in the high to mid-$50k range. It's only got 22k miles and is certified, so it's a screaming deal against a brand new S-Class.   But that also means that some combined group of people (buyer, dealer, MB Finance) ate about $57k in depreciation over 2 years.... will a 2 year old $57k CTS V6 with 22,000 miles be worth more than zero dollars you think?

Depreciation doesn't seem to stop the S-class from selling.   It outsells it's 3 closest competitors combined, and has for 30 or so years.  Acura, Cadillac, Infiniti, and Volvo won't even put a car against it, and BMW, Audi, Jaguar and Lexus put cars with a base price $20,000 lower against it because they know they can't go against it head on.  The S-class is so much better than the competition, buyers are willing to take a $50k depreciation hit over 3 years.   Then the secondary question is why buy a CT6, Equus, LS460, etc, when you can get a used S-class for $62,000 and it still has more tech and performance than those cars, and with the certified warranty is covered to 6 years of age, and and all Mercedes have lifetime roadside assistance. 

2015 residual values after 3 years:

S550 4matic  43%

A8 4.0 quattro  42%

750iL xDrive  40%

XJL supercharged 42%

LS460L awd 48%

They are all living in the same neighborhood.

See, that's the core of argument I'm trying to present.

Why get the E-Class when I can do myself a favour and coddle me some more with a barely used S-Class?

Prestige and panache, at a lower price.

See, that's the core of argument I'm trying to present.

 

Why get the E-Class when I can do myself a favour and coddle me some more with a barely used S-Class?

 

Prestige and panache, at a lower price.

Or why buy a new instead of CPO S-Class when I would lose an entire E-Class in the process?