E300 deal
Hi, I have been looking at cars for several months now, not in a huge hurry obviously. I was initially interested in the c300/C43, but find the ride and interior of the E300 to be much more luxurious, quiet and smooth. I also like the stereo quality much better.
I am looking at 1 year old cars because I want the newer style interior which I believe is only 2017/2018. Right now I'm trying to make a deal on a '17, white on white with burl dash, ~18K miles, prem 1, sport. They are asking $46K, and I'm trying to get it for low 40's. What is a decent price for this car? KBB has it at mid 40's, but I am aware how fast this car will depreciate and want to get a good deal. I plan on keeping it for 5-7 years and will put down $20k, hoping for a payment around $450/mo. Thoughts? |
Well it's your call, but I'd prefer a 2016. Last year of the W212 with the 302hp v6 3.5 liter engine. Most issues worked out so usually the last year of a model line is more solid than the first year of a new model. Go back and read the old threads, some initial quality problems with the W213, but I suppose most of them were covered under the factory warranty. Plus of course 2017-2018 E300's were just a 240hp turbo 4 cylinder 2 liter engine. And yeah, if you look at the price of a 2016 vs 2017/2018, you'll see the prices falling off a cliff in that range as the 2016 are probably more available now as they come off lease.
|
As a former owner of a 2015 (212) E350 I can attest that it is a fine car. I'll also mention that the 2017+(213) is light years ahead interior wise and I could not go back.
|
The 3.5-liter, V6 that comes in the E350 produces 302 horsepower and can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds. The E300, from the I4 241HP Turbo can accelerate from 0 - 60 in 6.3 seconds (per Mercedes specifications). I'm not sure why the V6 in a 2016 would be preferable? And the interior of the W213's are miles and miles above the outgoing 2016.
|
Originally Posted by rbrylaw
(Post 7578436)
The 3.5-liter, V6 that comes in the E350 produces 302 horsepower and can accelerate from zero to 60 mph in 7 seconds. The E300, from the I4 241HP Turbo can accelerate from 0 - 60 in 6.6 seconds. I'm not sure why the V6 in a 2016 would be preferable? And the interior of the W213's are miles and miles above the outgoing 2016.
Turbo's also have that stigma of not lasting as long as a regular V6. Failure tends to be catastrophic like a blown turbo or head gasket. But they seem to be made better these days so maybe one could last as long a V6. Plus it's been covered before, a turbo 4 doesn't exactly scream luxury although the interior does seem nicer than the W212. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews...ic-test-review |
The best time I've been able to find for the 2016 E350 0 - 60 is 6 seconds. The Turbo I4 in the E has been out for some time now and I've not yet seen or read about the Turbo blowing a gasket. Owning a E300 and a E400, I can attest to the fact the V6 is more powerful and luxurious feeling, but the I4 Turbo has surprising oomph and accelerates under most conditions very well. At the end of the day, it's up to the OP which car he would rather park in his garage. I would opt for the E300 over the E350 personally. The interior alone more than makes up for it. Again, just my humble opinion.
|
I'm definitely going with an E300 over an older model, the interior separates the 2 cars in my mind. I never cared for the keypad in the older Mercedes, looks archaic.
|
Originally Posted by rbrylaw
(Post 7578456)
The best time I've been able to find for the 2016 E350 0 - 60 is 6 seconds. The Turbo I4 in the E has been out for some time now and I've not yet seen or read about the Turbo blowing a gasket. Owning a E300 and a E400, I can attest to the fact the V6 is more powerful and luxurious feeling, but the I4 Turbo has surprising oomph and accelerates under most conditions very well. At the end of the day, it's up to the OP which car he would rather park in his garage. I would opt for the E300 over the E350 personally. The interior alone more than makes up for it. Again, just my humble opinion.
As for the keypad, yes it seems pretty pointless. But I still use it once in a while as when you're on a phone call and you're on some automated system that asks you to press a number, it's much easier to do with a keypad there instead of trying to dig it out on the phone. |
Originally Posted by West_Coaster
(Post 7577876)
Hi, I have been looking at cars for several months now, not in a huge hurry obviously. I was initially interested in the c300/C43, but find the ride and interior of the E300 to be much more luxurious, quiet and smooth. I also like the stereo quality much better.
I am looking at 1 year old cars because I want the newer style interior which I believe is only 2017/2018. Right now I'm trying to make a deal on a '17, white on white with burl dash, ~18K miles, prem 1, sport. They are asking $46K, and I'm trying to get it for low 40's. What is a decent price for this car? KBB has it at mid 40's, but I am aware how fast this car will depreciate and want to get a good deal. I plan on keeping it for 5-7 years and will put down $20k, hoping for a payment around $450/mo. Thoughts? |
Just my $.02:
I use KBB as a guide to determine the value of my car at the end of the lease and whether the residual price is above or below wholesale.. My experience is that the TRADE in value approximates wholesale. The car you are looking at is still under warranty so certification by the dealer is not that expensive, figure no more than $1,000. Everything above KBB trade in value + $1,000 for dealer certification is profit for the dealer. Out of curiosity I went to KBB and used 2017 E300 4matic, 18,000 miles, white with Premium 1 and the trade in value range was $43,450 to $46,400. |
Having owed a W213, I would not recommend it.
V6 slow, handled poorly with a dated interior |
Originally Posted by G3710
(Post 7579943)
Having owed a W213, I would not recommend it.
V6 slow, handled poorly with a dated interior |
+1
|
I've driven turbos since the 1970's and prefer them over normally aspirated vehicles. In today's multi-turbo engines there isn't the lag that single turbo engines had.
|
BS
|
Originally Posted by petee1997
(Post 7580108)
BS
|
Originally Posted by ua549
(Post 7580133)
And you know this how? You must not be very old. General Motors was producing turbocharged sedans in 1962. Mercedes W123 came in a turbo version starting in 1981.
|
I never had trouble with turbos and heat. The closest was my '87 Porsche 944 Turbo. If one didn't flush the cooling system every 6 months the car tended to overheat when the A/C was running.
|
The Mitsubishi in question may have been the Starion, in which case that car was...quirky. A 1987 Nissan 300ZX would have been a 200hp single turbo VG30DET. In the past turbos were argued against by folks with the "no replacement for displacement" mindset. A period equivalent Buick Grand National would have shown them a thing or two. Getting away from memory lane, the current I4 turbo engines on offer from MB can be laggy in comfort mode. Sport mode greatly reduces this. It seems more about transmission logic than the engine. My biturbo V6 even feels a bit lowly in Comfort as it starts off in 2nd gear. Put it in Sport and that 354 lb/ft of torque gets to work in short order. Turbo engines by nature of how they work will be a bit hotter than NA and I still let the car idle for 30 seconds before shutoff as old habits die hard. Oil coking in the lines was a thing.
|
Whoops wrong forum
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands