ChrisB

From what I have read over the past 2 years of following MB the R129 series the SL 600 suffered more depreciation than the SL 500. Apparantly due to a percieved (not necisarily real) complexity and fear of extra cost for maintenance and repair in the long run.

I just did an quick analysis of used 2004 R230 on the MB Canada web site. SL 500 (5 available ) , SL 55 (3) and SL 600 (1). The one SL 600 compaired to SL 500 cars on average seems to have maintained the original 42% diferential in price (I got the original prices from a US web page road test report featuring the 2004 line up).

The SL 55's by compairison had dropped in price ... getting closer to the value of SL 500 than the spread when new. When new the premium was 35% it now seems to be 6%.

For performance, the SL 55s seem to be a good value right now.

Does this reflect the SL 600 exclusivity? Has the SL 55 supply vrs demand caused wide spread drop in SL 55 prices?

Has any one else been following this ... and care to comment?

I will eventually buy a R230, likely used. I am just trying to sort out my desires and cost justify them to some degree.

Will the R230 SL 55 and / or SL 600 be rediculously expensive to maintain over the long haul? Comaired to the R230 SL 500.

Feedback please.

Twinturbo

I would wait if for an 04 or later model. These have proved far more reliable than the previous years due to Mercedes fixing most problems found on the new model.

Juice it

I don't know where you are getting a 6% difference in the 55 vs the 500. If you compare the same year cars it is way more than that. An 03 55 is still high 90's while an 03 500 is high 60's low 70's. That is basically the same spread as when new.

ChrisB

The information came from
http://www.mercedes-benz.ca/index.cfm?id=3043

Juice it ... You are right. Unfortunately I overlooked the fact that the 3 SL 55 vehicles were 2003 model years. I had intended to compair 2004 models of each. Sorry, the analysis if flawed and distorted by one year of SL 55 depreciation.

Sats from September I was looking at in my spread sheet:

Year Kilometers Price (Can $)
2004 sl600 3,295 $192,300
2003 sl55 13,200 $149,900
2003 sl55 14,000 $144,900
2004 sl500 385 $140,000
2003 sl55 31,000 $137,000
2004 sl500 185 $134,900
2004 sl500 3,000 $132,940

I was also probably thinking at the time of doing my analysis that a 2003 SL 55 is equal to a 2004 SL 55 ... but the market depriciation does not work that way. There are also build quality improvements in the SL 55? The market may reflect that.

blueSL

Difficult to know whether the dominant factor in the pricing of the SL55s is mileage or model year. Both combine to put the SL55s within reach of the SL500.

All the cars are built on the same line, so most of the quality improvements apply across the board - few if any of the quality concerns expressed here are confined to specific models, mostly they apply to the car itself. A creaking roof is a creaking roof no matter what engine you have in it; unreliable and quirky electronics applies as a matter of course and some of the most expensive areas to maintain in the future - brakes, ABC, air con, roof mechanism apply to all cars.

For all the extra performance an SL55 and SL600 has, it's only used for a fraction of the time you are driving the car. Settle into a legal highway cruise and the car is coasting and there's no reason why scheduled maintenance costs should be significantly higher overall.

Put the car on a track and it's a very different story. I once wore out a set of tyres on a 911 during an afternoon of 6 laps of the Nurbergring. The brakes were shot as well, needing 4 new discs/rotors and pads all round at the next service.

A single big failure will distort your view of the maintenance costs. My SL600 gearbox failure doubled the lifetime maintenance costs of the car. It's the same story with a Ferrari. Whether the engine in my car really needs its cam belts changing every 3 years is a moot point, but compared to the cost of an engine rebuild after they let go at 8500 rpm, having them changed is a kind of knock-on-wood insurance policy.

tiggerfink

Just buy the model according to your needs. The only differences that I see are the transmissions, suspension systems, breaks, and speed.

okc329

BlueSL, don't worry about changing your cam belts. They're aren't any. Just chains made of good German steel. Could be some chain guides that require changing though.

blueSL

I know that of course, the point I was trying to make was that in normal driving, the SL55 and SL600 should not be significantly more expensive than the SL500 but that track use and/or a major unscheduled repair could dwarf the scheduled maintenance costs either way.

bbjai

those price list seems to be pretty distorted.
why would an sl600 '04 cost 190 000. new ones '05 are price at 178000 and with options, amg kit is only thing and bixenon, the price comes to 190 000. so ppl are selling their 04 sl600 for the same price as an 05. who'd be dumb enuf to buy that when there isn't a waiting list too in vancouver for sl600.


so i doubt that price list is anywhere near accurate to the actual price in the market.

david_101

i learned the hard way that as torque and tire speed-rating go up, tire life goes down. it's a costly inverse relationship.

the brake work on AMGs is more costly, as are parts, including the steering wheel.

as for value over time, i believe that the least costly model to acquire should retain the greatest value over time because it would be accessible to a larger group of potential buyers.

david

Trimmer2

I don't have any hard data just an opinion regarding the R230 600's vs the R129 600's. I seems the R129 600's depreciated tremendously after the public realized it just wasn't the car it was touted to be; minimal horsepower/performance gain, minimal interior finish gains and considerably steeper price tag and etc, etc over the 500.

On the other hand, it appears the general public still doesn't fully appreciate the new R230 600 and how advanced the ttV12 is. Not only considerably more hp/performance but, the interior finish is in my opinion much more luxurious than the 500. ...and when I talk about the general public, I guess I mean those who are/would or dream to be int he market for an SL.

Unfortunately, Mercedes seems to be producing as many SL55's as SL600's but, the buzz seems to go to the AMG even though they have the same brakes, differential, and price. Performance, on paper, appears to be the same but, actually, the 600 considerably outperforms the 55 in strait line performance and is much more civilized as a daily driver. I don't beleive any one who has dyno'd their 600 actually found they had 493hp but closer to 540+ or -. No question, the AMG has been engineered/marketed for more of a sport feel and still retains the AMG badge.

Another thought about some of the collector's of the newer Mercedes is who and how will they be service some 20-50 years from now? All one needs now is some basic mechanical skills and a proper tool kit to service 20-50yo cars. One can almost DIY at home. Could the current models be serviced at home in 50 years? Will we have have all the diagnostic computer tools available for the DIY or local import garage etc, etc.??

Only time will tell regarding depreciation but, I think as the world's eyes keep opening up to the R230 600, I believe their value will be strong for a number of years and possibly stronger than the AMG's.

blueSL

It's fine to try to convince yourself your car is not going to depreciate heavily, so long as you don't mind being disappointed when it does!

I agree though with your comments about the 129 it depreciated heavily and I've just sold mine for 17% of what I paid for it after 8 years. Previously I had an SL500 and although the SL600 was a much better car, the difference did not justify the price. Turns out my SL600 is worth no more than an equivalent SL500, maybe even less because of the perceived complexity.

Things should be better with the R230, but it's still going to lose a pile of money. All that Renntech stuff is going to frighten off future buyers who will just see it as unnecessary complexity and worry about whether it being on the car has stored up future trouble. If you increase the output of an engine, you reduce its operational life. Simple as that.

Maintenance is going to be a headache. Once the car has depreciated close to its floor value, costs are going to be an issue. There cannot be the network of lower cost maintainers because the complexity of the cars/equipment & skills required are simply too great. These cars will reach the end of their useful life when they become uneconomic to maintain which may have nothing to do with the actual business of making the thing move. In 20 years time, when the Sat Nav fails, who is going to bother to replace it, even if they can?

In the last year of my SL600, I spent 1/3 of its value on maintenance and have finally pulled the plug. I don't know what the next owner is going to find, but I can guess. Just some of the things which might fail - catalytic converter, roof mechanism, ABS, aircon condenser, any of which will really spoil your day. True, this can go wrong with any one of the cars but I think we are moving to the same situation with laptops. You buy it on a long warranty and keep it, maybe, until the first failure out of warranty and then junk it. Not so black and white with cars but I heard it straight from Mercedes that the design life of the SL is just 15 years. No way is it a classic in the making. In 50 years, the gullwing and the Pagoda will still be there but the R230? I don't think so.

ChrisB

BlueSL

Would you say the 15 year design life projected by that MB rep would be at say 10,000 miles per year?



I think I'll be in a R230 by then!

For the past two years of ownership ... having bought a 1999 SL 500 for $ 70,000 Cdn in Dec 02 at 38,000 Km ... we seen about $6,600 Cdn retail per year in depreciation ... and maintenance (including the 3 year extended warranty cost) has run $ 2,600 Cdn per year.

Great fun in a well above average car for a reasonable cost at this stage. We now have 64,000 Km on her