West_Coaster

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?

cetialpha5

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.

teksurv

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.

rbrylaw

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.

cetialpha5

Maybe because you have the wrong time for the E350? Other places have it listed at 5.8 seconds. Even this review just says the E300 is slower than the older E350.

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

rbrylaw

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.

West_Coaster

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.

cetialpha5

Turbo's have been around a long time and that's typically the failure method, one of the vanes break off and destroys the engine or the boost eventually blows the head gasket. However you're right, they seem to be more reliable these days and not many reports of that happening so if that's well off in the future past 100k, then anyone buying one now probably doesn't have to worry about it. Of course the old threads still have people saying that age old saying of no replacement for displacement. That's partly why turbo's went out of favor, not as good a V6. It's only back again because of CAFE.

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.

Cao Black

You don't say who the seller is. CPO Mercedes, other used car dealer, or private party? Expect to pay a few bucks more for a CPO or if it is 4Matic. 18K miles seems somewhat high at that price point. Having said that, I have owned both W212 and W213, and much prefer W213. The continuing engine horsepower and times to 60 mph arguments aside, the average driver will not notice a performance difference, and, as you pointed out, other features of the W213 are nicer, especially the interior.

JTK44

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.

G3710

Having owed a W213, I would not recommend it.

V6 slow, handled poorly with a dated interior

cetialpha5

Not sure what you mean by this. The V6 has a faster 0-60 time than the 4 cylinder. I've driven turbo's before, they seem fast, but are actually slower as the turbos spool up, but you get a nice kick that makes it seem faster. Otherwise with a V6 or V8, you don't get the kick but the speed just builds and builds. It's considered a smoother, more luxurious ride than a turbo. Only reason turbo's are back is due to CAFE.

JTK44

+1

ua549

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.

petee1997

BS

ua549

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.

Cambridgehank

I had a 1986 Mitsubishi Turbo driven car, had to let it cool down for a minute after a drive. Went to a 1987 Nissan Z Dual Turbo and it was an awful drive and required a cool down. I swore off turbos after that experience. My E400 engine is the best I have driven even with turbo. I agree that at least MB has down a great job on developing turbos.

ua549

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.

teksurv

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.

uh2

Whoops wrong forum