K-A

I agree with that. I wish M-B wasn't as "mass" these days, with so many entry-models coming out. Would be nice if it were like the "old days" when they focused on a more select variety of Premium Models. In this day and age in the automotive climate, I'm sure they wouldn't survive well enough to be able to stand alone (i.e not be bought out by a larger more mass manufacturer) though.

park423

No such thing anymore, look at Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Bentley, Aston Martin, Lamborghini, Maserati - the cream of the crop yet all owned by a mass market big brother for at least a decade or so now and with the upcoming min. MPG regulations in the US, it would impossible to buy a Ferrari or Lambo without being part of a larger auto conglomerate. But what is luxury/premium these days, I say at least 100K or more. 50K to 70K cars are common cars now.

dlakeman55

I just test drove a 2011 E350 BlueTec Sport Package. I told the dealer no thanks. Compared to my 2008 E320CDI the ride was terrible even down the Interstate. I told the dealer to get me a Luxury Package.

K-A

That shows the power of Leasing to front like people have more than they literally do, and our societies desperate attempt to do so.

$50-$70k is far more than the average American makes a year. Statistics would show that in order for the vastly average income to afford such a thing, it would take someone decades to put enough money away to do so. And we wonder why our Economy and creditors tank.

It's so area specific. If you're in a nice neighborhood, all of a sudden E and S Classes, Panamera's, etc., are so common place. Then in average and especially poorer areas, an E-Class stands out like a sore thumb.

How nice the world would be if Leasing didn't exist! Force people to actually afford their Luxuries.

ImInPA

I am very pleased with the Luxury package ride on my Bluetec.

ngerstman

I agree with most of your points, but leasing a $70,000 car only means that you are "renting" the most expensive part of the depreciation schedule, there is no free lunch. It is up to the individual to decide where to spend his after tax disposable income and/or how much to save for his/her retirement. There is no question that most Americans don't save anywhere near enough and consume way beyond their means, thinking that those who save enough or achieve enough will pay for their retirements and health care, but that is a whole other discussion! Regards. Ned.

BenzE350

Seriously?

Maybe we should do away with mortgages and force people to actually afford their new houses?

Maybe do away with student loans and force people to actually afford their higher education?

220S

Yeah, I think people don't really think this through and it's a typical knee-jerk reactionary statement.

Credit is what makes the economy run, like it or not. If MB couldn't move cars (via financing) then there would be a lot of people out of work who, in turn, couldn't afford to buy anything. And then others down the chain would be out of work, etc., etc..

Taking too much credit and living beyond your means is another story. But credit to move product, and credit to produce product, is absolutely necessary.

K-A

It wan't as necessary in the 80's, etc., when M-B charged at MSRP or over, with little to no Leasing. Understandably this is a different era, but the past proves that car manufacturers were profitable, and were able to exist, in a non or low Lease era. Leasing is completely a societal want, rather than a societal necessity (like education, a place to live, etc.). As there are plenty of cars that are cheap enough for someone to afford, if they can afford a Lease on something.

Leasing is nice and all, as some of us get to live and show beyond our means, and others of us get to use it as a way to make our money work for us, or save money in the long run, etc. etc. But make no mistake about it, it isn't a societal necessity, it's a societal want.

Also, credit is necessary to move product, etc. But if people can't afford it, massive debt builds up. I dunno, maybe if Leasing, and Credit oriented things like it didn't exist, we'd all be Amish and living lives of boredom, and I'd be singing to a different tune.

alsyli

Charged at MSRP or over? In the 80s? My mom had to pay full price for her 380SL in 1985 but the dealer was supposedly willing to go for thousands under MSRP for a 380SE. We also go a few thousand off our 190E and the dealer dropped $10,000 off MSRP of the 300E (which had just been refreshed that year) with only a little push. If you were interested in a late model S-class from that time, you didn't have to haggle at all to get a $10,000-$15,000 discount.

During that era, MB increased their MSPRs every year to protect resale values, but anyone who was familiar w/ MB sales tactics was able to negotiate at least a couple thousand off. Things changed in the mid-1990s (at least for us), when the dealers started asking for full MSRP for bread-and-butter sedans like the E320.

Say what you will about MB's decision to cut options in the US (and honestly, the only "standard" options their cars had in the 1980s were the sunroofs), but that's probably a large part of the reason why a new, lightly optioned E350 is "only" about $15,000 more than what you would've paid for a 300E from more 20 yrs ago.... ::shrug::

K-A

I guess I meant the 90's then. I've heard many people claim about a time (post 70's) when M-B would charge strictly at, or "try" for over MSRP.

Also, I think people are confusing "Leasing" with "Financing".

I think a world with no Leasing = Good, and a world with no *Financing* (which is the proper comparison to the Student Loans and Mortgages) = Bad.

MBNUT1

What you are saying is that Capitalism can't function without credit.

BenzE350

Care to explain why?

K-A

As a car enthusiast, I feel that Leasing (or "Rent and throw away", as it really is), isn't very respectful toward cars, or the long term value of them. I'm an advocate of people taking care of, and being responsible for their cars, having a vested interest in them, as owners. Right now, our Leasing society usually could care less about the car, and could care less about what negligence of theirs might cause for the next owner.

On another level, I feel that Leasing doesn't teach people the basic values of "owning" a car, and again, having a responsibility in regards to how they care for it.

And finally, on a social level, I find it to sometimes be a tool for the desperate, who are willing to blow the money that they don't have (i.e, just make ends meet) for braggart reasons. Not to mention, the obvious economic repercussions behind that. It also can kind of "ruin it" for those who actually responsibly and technically afford their cars.

Of course, this is focusing on the negative sample of Leasers, and obviously there's a whole other side to it as well. My opinions about Leasing are mainly personal and subjective (and hey, I am a Leaser as well ), but that's the way I feel about it. I know in reality, in the world we live in, there's no actual way that Leasing is going anywhere.

BenzE350

Well, at least you said one thing in regards to leasing that makes sense.

K-A

I think it all makes sense. Although it's a very subjective and focused-on-one-(large)side viewpoint of it.

ImInPA

I think that in the US, we see MB a bit differently than they are seen around the globe. Mercedes is not that much different than GM in the world market in that they make everything from off-road earth-moving equipment, to 18 wheelers, cars, vans, trucks, etc. They are now and always will be a mass-market and multi-market company. In the US, MB originally and traditionally only had a presence with higher-end automotive products. The US infatuation with SUV's forced MB and others to dilute their product line with vehicles that literally "broke the mold" and "blurred" their image in the market place. The rest of the world already viewed MB as the diverse global mass-market corporate conglomerate they are and have been. I had the opportunity to work in Belgium in the 80's and our corporate fleet was pretty much comprised of very low end BMW 3's, E's and Opel's I am talking manual windows, rubber carpet, manual seats, AM/FM radios with single speakers in the dash, etc. In other words, the Chevy Cavalier of the BMW, MB, and Opel lines. I can remember telling folks about that when I returned to the US and people just looking back at me in disbelief. As sad as it may be, the truth is that, today, the exclusivity and prestige once commanded by MB, BMW, and Audi has moved up to the Bently, Maybach, Rolls Royce arena. Just my two cents.

220S

+1

People need to be a bit more realistic about owning a Mercedes. Or anything for that matter, since they're all just commodities at different price levels. If one buys for prestige then it might be simpler to just buy a T-shirt with your bank statement printed on it.

Hopefully the majority of people buy these cars because they offer the function and performance they are looking for, and for no other reason.

El Cid

Majority of people purchase M-B, BMW, Lexus, etc. because of the "prestige" of owning them. You can buy a Hyundai for half the price that performs as well and has as many functions.
"That's a fact, Jack!"

golfster

Even when I was a boy, I understood M-B's cost more than American luxury cars, but never thought of M-B as prestigious. In fact, they were viewed as rather plain, not overly featured and perhaps a bit dated in design by our standards back then. It was always assumed the cost was high simply because the car had the reputation of being durable enough to be driven over 100,000 miles. That mileage is nothing in today's world, but back then, the American vehicles seemed "old" at 45,000 miles. In essence, we thought those who paid more did so just to be able to drive the cars a lot longer, and wondered why they would want to. We certainly did not think of the owners as having achieved status, nor did we think of the cars as prestigious, luxurious or as marks of achievement. I still don't today.

220S

fwiw, I've driven a Hyundai and I don't think it performs as well. But I wouldn't be embarrassed having one in my garage.

The irony of it all is that a lot of people laugh at MB owners for being such flaming fools concerned about their status in life, which in itself is all based on what other people think about them (a double irony )

Golfster: I saw them in the same light. Kind of like a German Volvo.....

golfster

German Volvo is exactly what we thought as well. My dad would take me to the dealerships, both Volvo and M-B, and we would scratch our heads, except for when looking at the P1800 and SL's...we thought those were cool in an odd way.

MBNUT1

+1000

My dad bought his first 1 yo '59 Mercedes 180 because they would go 100000 miles without an engine overhaul. He paid $4000 for that car. Our brand new house sold for $21000 so that would make his car cost about 40000 in todays dollars.

He bought it after our Plymouth station wagon blew up it's engine at less than 50000 miles and the replacement engine burned oil such that we kidded that it broke the smoke barrier.

Prestige was not the driving factor. My dad was an engineer's engineer who was extremely ethocentric about his German heritage. He bought the car simply because Mercedes truly lived up to the motto "the best or nothing at all

BenzE350

Why such hyberbole and sweeping generalizations?

The comparable Hyundai will be less expensive, however, it will not be half the price and will generally not perform as well.

BenzE350

While I certainly agree that all cars are commodities at different price points, I'm not sure what you mean by saying that people need to be a bit more realistic about owning a Mercedes?

The point of this thread was that the E350 does not handle well over bad roads. That would be true if the E350 cost $30K or $60K. Bad is bad.