I am looking into moving out of a 2001 CL600 and into a newer ('04-'05) R230. Since I'm going to lease, RESIDUAL VALUE is of utmost importance. I mean, c'mon people, they all LOOK THE SAME, so, other than performance, in simple terms, what's going to hold its value the best after 2-3 years?

1) 500 is least expensive, so would it be safe to assume it will take the least hit - or - would it be worse because it is the most mass-produced out of all the R230s?

2) 55: Safe to assume it has less production than the 500 and better value retention after a couple years? Is it still true that having that AMG badge commands better resale overall?

3) 600: Historically huge depreciation because of the V12, but is that still the case? Again, does the 55 wins hands down in terms of resale value, in this case, over the 600?

4) Ah, the stellar 65: Dealers tout as very LIMITED PRODUCTION, and, as such, will hold its value for some time (it is an AMG, after all), but I question whether that will really mean anything in 2-3 years. Dealers obviously won't put that language in the sales contract. This should be a real concern because of the $180K+ price tag and potential wide spread between it and the residual value at the end of a lease, per se! Why would someone who has that kind of discretionary cash want to pay top dollar for a used one when it's nothing for him to buy new? Do you think the old adage will apply here: "The bigger they are, the harder they fall"?

And to make matters more confusing, here's something else that throws a monkey wrench into the resale equation:

The purported imminent late '05-'06 front-end re-design/ SLK/SLR-lookalike facelift issue. If it's going to be coming out that soon, all these cars will take a DUMP just based on the fact that everyone will want to be in on the latest look in SL "fashion".

Help!

 

I think the SL500 will take the least hit because it's extremely common and easy to get rid of at a high price because people are still and will still pay for it. Although not as much as a 55 or 600/65, it shouldn't lose as much from the original value as the latter.

 

I haven't looked into this but my gut tells me that vraa is correct. As for the nose there are huge debates but personally I don't think the SL's are getting the new nose.

 

The AMG 55 will depreciate less than the others.

 

I checked with my dealer today and while I am a SL600 owner the gentlemen is correct that the SL55 does depreciate the least amount.

 

If one is concerned more with longevity (rather than depriciation and regular maintenance cost)... will the SL600 be a more solid car over the long haul?

Does the V12 deliver the power with less stress on the motor than the V8? Is the SL600 more heavily reinforced in the drive train?

Any one with a mechanical insight care to comment?

.

cylender