OldBenzman5

I was comparing comparable features which I had ordered with the E500 to see how the E320 compared.

Brilliant Silver with Ash leather is $655. for metalic paint and $1440. for the leather upgrade on the E320.

Drive Dynamic seats the same on each $1150

E-2 Sunroof & Harmon Kardon Sound Sys., the same on ea. $1550

E-3 Sport package. on the 320 its $3800 vs $1375 on the 500
due to dual control

4 zone climate control stnd on the 500 $550 on the 320

Motorola v-60 phone the same on each $1595

Factory installed cd changer the same on each $400.

Wood & leather steering wheel the same on each although higher than popsted a couple of weeks ago $705 instead of $500.

The luxury tax on the 320 was $605. and the 500 was $690. Gas guzzler on the 500 $1000.

Brings the E320 $60,065. and the E500 $63,980. a difference of $3915. Would that be worth 302 vs 221 HP and a v-8???

bmms8

yea man.......the msrp is 46,950...and 54,980...i think youre looking at it the wrong way..the closer the e320 gets the better it is to buy a e500....go for the 500 man..you will be happier

karl k

That's a great analysis! Tnx.

I bet if one would follow your methodology and do a similar analysis on the new CLK it might be around $4,000 as well, rather than $6,000 cited in the August R&T review of the new CLK:

" For what might be the best- spent $6000 in the business, you can upgrade from the CLK 320 to the CLK 500 and move up to the 5.0-liter, 306-bhp V-8, 17-in. AMG wheels, the AMG sport package, an aggressive-but-not-pushy appearance and just under 6.0 sec. to 60 mph."

http://www.roadandtrack.com/reviews/...?articleid=251

jamesp

it seems as though it makes sense to go with the 500 as opposed to the optioned out 320. the price difference seems minimal (depending on the options). i had a chance to drive both this weekend and the 500 is noticably more responsive. granted the 500 is no e55, but its definitely a hugh step above my c280!

jhb

I think there is one more important feature that makes the spread even less than $3900. While the design is the same, the wheels on the E500 are 17 inch while the E320 wheels are 16 inch. While I have not seen them side by side, I would think the appearance of the larger wheels would be appreciably better. Perhaps someone who has seen the non-sport version of both the 320 and the 500 can comment.

As to the engine difference, on the "side by side comparison" section of mbusa.com where I compared the 320 and the 500, Mercedes rates the 0-60 for the 320 at 7.1 seconds and for the 500 at 6.2 seconds. That is a pretty hefty difference. (Interestingly, they have not yet rated the 0-60 in the specifications section of the web site and if it is in the "big brochure", I haven't seen it yet).

rayscar

I agree. I did a similar analysis and that is why I went with the the 500. Anytime I can get that much more performance for the kind of money it is an easy choice.

northbenz

Out of fairness, a complete analysis should also include the extra cost of fuel to operate the E500 over the expected duration of its lifetime. Assume an 8 mpg savings by going with the smaller engine and assume 12,000 annual miles. OK - you mathematicians, what is the price differential over 5 years? (Oh, assume gas cost a $1.70 per gallon for premium)

jhb

It is more like 3-4 mpg (16-23 versus 19-27). But just think how much time you'll save getting there faster!!!!

karl k

Minus the additional tire wear, higher insurance...its de minimus compared to the getting there faster - as jhb states - (hopefully without speeding tickets) plus the "prestige, ego satisfaction" of knowing "I've got the power!"

Plus extra power for accident avoidance...a 500 could save your life.

Benefits of owning a 500 are simply overwhelming!