Got the CTS-V...comparison to my 2004 E55
08-21-2013, 04:26 AM
#101
Senior Member
In the V you get a cheaper, infinitely more reliable, uglier car which can be made to go faster. Truth is, the Benz is fast enough for anyone who wants to hurl around a heavy car, it is just so disastrously prone to failure and expensive repairs that many people regret owning one once they total up all the cost and headache.
08-21-2013, 07:27 AM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Morristown, NJ and Philly
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Current: Cadillac CTS-V (V2), Chevy Cruze Past: E55k
In the V you get a cheaper, infinitely more reliable, uglier car which can be made to go faster. Truth is, the Benz is fast enough for anyone who wants to hurl around a heavy car, it is just so disastrously prone to failure and expensive repairs that many people regret owning one once they total up all the cost and headache.
08-21-2013, 08:14 AM
#103
MBWorld Fanatic!
In the V you get a cheaper, infinitely more reliable, uglier car which can be made to go faster. Truth is, the Benz is fast enough for anyone who wants to hurl around a heavy car, it is just so disastrously prone to failure and expensive repairs that many people regret owning one once they total up all the cost and headache.
08-21-2013, 09:17 AM
#104
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.I. NY
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2011 CTSV auto, 06 E55 white pano, 87 Grand national, 63 split window
wait a minute here .... 
I dont think so. I was at the track with a guy running mid 12s at 114-116 MPH all night in good weather. He had street tires but was still cutting 2.0 60s and the traps dont lie. Oh he was also an auto. I was crushing him in my GTO which traps a lot less than my bolt on E55.
I think it would be more accurate to say a stock V runs right about what a stock E55 runs at the track.
I love the Vs and might get one dont get me wrong but a full bolt on E55 is in the 550 WHP 600 TQ range.
I dont think so. I was at the track with a guy running mid 12s at 114-116 MPH all night in good weather. He had street tires but was still cutting 2.0 60s and the traps dont lie. Oh he was also an auto. I was crushing him in my GTO which traps a lot less than my bolt on E55. I think it would be more accurate to say a stock V runs right about what a stock E55 runs at the track.
I love the Vs and might get one dont get me wrong but a full bolt on E55 is in the 550 WHP 600 TQ range.
In the V you get a cheaper, infinitely more reliable, uglier car which can be made to go faster. Truth is, the Benz is fast enough for anyone who wants to hurl around a heavy car, it is just so disastrously prone to failure and expensive repairs that many people regret owning one once they total up all the cost and headache.
Knock on wood. I've had more parts fail on my American cars than my E55. I have yet to find an interior that holds up even remotely as nice as the sliding console E55s. Mercedes went through a bad patch when they were trying to raise capital to buy Chrysler (clearly a dumb move) but I believe from 06 on the reliability is back. Everyone's experience is different though. What's amusing is the POS C-coupe that MB built in the early 2000s, which is arguably one of the worst cars MB ever built, has a high rate of return of buyers going back to MB.
08-21-2013, 10:22 AM
#105
Member
They're very similar cars in premise, Cadillac's just executed on it better and with good reason as they're significantly newer and designed in the mid 2000s versus early 2000s. No doubt Cadillac learned lessons from their 1st gen -V and watching E55s, M5s, etc. on the street.
Think of the -V as an aimed volley in direct response to E55s, E63s, M5s, etc. of the world - and Cadillac nailed it (in spite of niggling shortcomings such as interior, etc.) Yes the E rates slightly higher in certain areas but objective parties are going to point to the -V as the better car. E owners, don't be insulted, this is the march of progress.
Think of the -V as an aimed volley in direct response to E55s, E63s, M5s, etc. of the world - and Cadillac nailed it (in spite of niggling shortcomings such as interior, etc.) Yes the E rates slightly higher in certain areas but objective parties are going to point to the -V as the better car. E owners, don't be insulted, this is the march of progress.
08-21-2013, 12:49 PM
#106
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Morristown, NJ and Philly
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Current: Cadillac CTS-V (V2), Chevy Cruze Past: E55k
They're very similar cars in premise, Cadillac's just executed on it better and with good reason as they're significantly newer and designed in the mid 2000s versus early 2000s.
Think of the -V as an aimed volley in direct response to E55s, E63s, M5s, etc. of the world - and Cadillac nailed it (in spite of niggling shortcomings such as interior, etc.) Yes the E rates slightly higher in certain areas but objective parties are going to point to the -V as the better car. E owners, don't be insulted, this is the march of progress.
08-21-2013, 12:54 PM
#107
Senior Member
They're very similar cars in premise, Cadillac's just executed on it better and with good reason as they're significantly newer and designed in the mid 2000s versus early 2000s. No doubt Cadillac learned lessons from their 1st gen -V and watching E55s, M5s, etc. on the street.
Think of the -V as an aimed volley in direct response to E55s, E63s, M5s, etc. of the world - and Cadillac nailed it (in spite of niggling shortcomings such as interior, etc.) Yes the E rates slightly higher in certain areas but objective parties are going to point to the -V as the better car. E owners, don't be insulted, this is the march of progress.
Think of the -V as an aimed volley in direct response to E55s, E63s, M5s, etc. of the world - and Cadillac nailed it (in spite of niggling shortcomings such as interior, etc.) Yes the E rates slightly higher in certain areas but objective parties are going to point to the -V as the better car. E owners, don't be insulted, this is the march of progress.
it will be very interesting to see if any opinions change once these V's are 7-10 years old.. how reliable will they be than?? or how did the interior hold up as they aged??(hopefully better than 7-10 yr old caddy's i see now)
after all the E55's are 7-10 years old. so if we want to compare FAIRLY we need to wait.
08-21-2013, 01:12 PM
#108
Member
Hence my comment about a mid-2000s design.
08-21-2013, 01:29 PM
#109
Member
you should sell caddy's
it will be very interesting to see if any opinions change once these V's are 7-10 years old.. how reliable will they be than?? or how did the interior hold up as they aged??(hopefully better than 7-10 yr old caddy's i see now)
after all the E55's are 7-10 years old. so if we want to compare FAIRLY we need to wait.
it will be very interesting to see if any opinions change once these V's are 7-10 years old.. how reliable will they be than?? or how did the interior hold up as they aged??(hopefully better than 7-10 yr old caddy's i see now)
after all the E55's are 7-10 years old. so if we want to compare FAIRLY we need to wait.
Likewise with the transmission - the 6L90e (and its related 6l80e) are in so many vehicles and are iterated off of related older GM designs that even if they're not particularly sophisticated compared to many performance-oriented transmissions (DSG/SMG gearboxes, ZF's 8 speeds, etc.) they're relatively bulletproof and a very well-known entity by the aftermarket, speed shops, and the dealer network.
You're probably seeing a theme by now - electronics (ECU/TCU etc) are very similar to all the other off the shelf components in other GM models, and the magnetorheological shocks the Caddy uses that (while sophisticated) were developed by Delphi in the late 90s and early 2000s and have been in use since 2002 and have been iterated on since then.
Side benefit of all this massive volume: much lower cost for repair. The 2nd gen -Vs were significantly less expensive to begin with too, which will be reflected in repair costs down the road.
Last, the interior: this is/was the place where GM has lagged behind the most in my opinion, and the first-gen CTS platform definitely suffered from malaisey GM interiors for sure. With that said, the second gen V is significantly better (if not the best in class); in terms of design it's certainly on par (subject to stylistic preferences) with the E, which is to say the w211's interior was good for its time and has aged well. Similarly I think the second gen V's interior will age relatively well - certainly better than the already-dated-at-lauch 1st gen -V's.
In short, my suspicion is the 2nd gen -V is going to age better than the -E, particularly in terms of overall reliability. Bear in mind the first 2nd gen 2009 -Vs hit the market about this time 5 years ago and we're already seeing a number of -Vs out of warranty. So far the Cadillac guys aren't seeing any major red flags, certainly nothing on the scale of Airmatic failures etc.
08-21-2013, 01:58 PM
#110
Senior Member
Caddy released a less complex car (drivetrain, electronics, suspension, you name it) with more development behind all those technologies. Not that the 55k powerplant isn't awesome, but its development and related-engine volume doesn't hold a candle next to 3rd/4th gen LS motors such as the LSA (with its literal tens of millions of cousins out there in innumerable GM products.)
Likewise with the transmission - the 6L90e (and its related 6l80e) are in so many vehicles and are iterated off of related older GM designs that even if they're not particularly sophisticated compared to many performance-oriented transmissions (DSG/SMG gearboxes, ZF's 8 speeds, etc.) they're relatively bulletproof and a very well-known entity by the aftermarket, speed shops, and the dealer network.
You're probably seeing a theme by now - electronics (ECU/TCU etc) are very similar to all the other off the shelf components in other GM models, and the magnetorheological shocks the Caddy uses that (while sophisticated) were developed by Delphi in the late 90s and early 2000s and have been in use since 2002 and have been iterated on since then.
Side benefit of all this massive volume: much lower cost for repair. The 2nd gen -Vs were significantly less expensive to begin with too, which will be reflected in repair costs down the road.
Last, the interior: this is/was the place where GM has lagged behind the most in my opinion, and the first-gen CTS platform definitely suffered from malaisey GM interiors for sure. With that said, the second gen V is significantly better (if not the best in class); in terms of design it's certainly on par (subject to stylistic preferences) with the E, which is to say the w211's interior was good for its time and has aged well. Similarly I think the second gen V's interior will age relatively well - certainly better than the already-dated-at-lauch 1st gen -V's.
In short, my suspicion is the 2nd gen -V is going to age better than the -E, particularly in terms of overall reliability. Bear in mind the first 2nd gen 2009 -Vs hit the market about this time 5 years ago and we're already seeing a number of -Vs out of warranty. So far the Cadillac guys aren't seeing any major red flags, certainly nothing on the scale of Airmatic failures etc.
Likewise with the transmission - the 6L90e (and its related 6l80e) are in so many vehicles and are iterated off of related older GM designs that even if they're not particularly sophisticated compared to many performance-oriented transmissions (DSG/SMG gearboxes, ZF's 8 speeds, etc.) they're relatively bulletproof and a very well-known entity by the aftermarket, speed shops, and the dealer network.
You're probably seeing a theme by now - electronics (ECU/TCU etc) are very similar to all the other off the shelf components in other GM models, and the magnetorheological shocks the Caddy uses that (while sophisticated) were developed by Delphi in the late 90s and early 2000s and have been in use since 2002 and have been iterated on since then.
Side benefit of all this massive volume: much lower cost for repair. The 2nd gen -Vs were significantly less expensive to begin with too, which will be reflected in repair costs down the road.
Last, the interior: this is/was the place where GM has lagged behind the most in my opinion, and the first-gen CTS platform definitely suffered from malaisey GM interiors for sure. With that said, the second gen V is significantly better (if not the best in class); in terms of design it's certainly on par (subject to stylistic preferences) with the E, which is to say the w211's interior was good for its time and has aged well. Similarly I think the second gen V's interior will age relatively well - certainly better than the already-dated-at-lauch 1st gen -V's.
In short, my suspicion is the 2nd gen -V is going to age better than the -E, particularly in terms of overall reliability. Bear in mind the first 2nd gen 2009 -Vs hit the market about this time 5 years ago and we're already seeing a number of -Vs out of warranty. So far the Cadillac guys aren't seeing any major red flags, certainly nothing on the scale of Airmatic failures etc.
i hear ya man, the engine is awesome
again the transmission is awesome
interior is better..
when they are 7-10 yrs old. like the E's are than its a fair comparison
7-10 yr old E's.. engine's still awesome, transmission's still very good, interior excellent.... still
08-21-2013, 03:43 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Morristown, NJ and Philly
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Current: Cadillac CTS-V (V2), Chevy Cruze Past: E55k
it will be very interesting to see if any opinions change once these V's are 7-10 years old.. how reliable will they be than?? or how did the interior hold up as they aged??(hopefully better than 7-10 yr old caddy's i see now)
Important to note here is that cars take 2-5 years to hit the market from start to finish. With the 2nd gen CTS platform hitting the market in 2007, they started working on it likely anywhere from 2003-2005 at the latest. I suspect the moment the 1st gen CTS hit the market (in what, 2001? 2002?) they were working on the second gen car.
Hence my comment about a mid-2000s design.
Hence my comment about a mid-2000s design.
08-21-2013, 04:05 PM
#112
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Morristown, NJ and Philly
Posts: 438
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Current: Cadillac CTS-V (V2), Chevy Cruze Past: E55k
Caddy released a less complex car (drivetrain, electronics, suspension, you name it) with more development behind all those technologies. Not that the 55k powerplant isn't awesome, but its development and related-engine volume doesn't hold a candle next to 3rd/4th gen LS motors such as the LSA (with its literal tens of millions of cousins out there in innumerable GM products.)
Likewise with the transmission - the 6L90e (and its related 6l80e) are in so many vehicles and are iterated off of related older GM designs that even if they're not particularly sophisticated compared to many performance-oriented transmissions (DSG/SMG gearboxes, ZF's 8 speeds, etc.) they're relatively bulletproof and a very well-known entity by the aftermarket, speed shops, and the dealer network.
I agree with everything you said, except the suspension part. The Magnetic Ride Control is anything but simple.
Not exactly true, GM is on to their third generation of the magnetorheological shocks with the 2014 Corvette.
I agree 100%
Likewise with the transmission - the 6L90e (and its related 6l80e) are in so many vehicles and are iterated off of related older GM designs that even if they're not particularly sophisticated compared to many performance-oriented transmissions (DSG/SMG gearboxes, ZF's 8 speeds, etc.) they're relatively bulletproof and a very well-known entity by the aftermarket, speed shops, and the dealer network.
I agree with everything you said, except the suspension part. The Magnetic Ride Control is anything but simple.
You're probably seeing a theme by now - electronics (ECU/TCU etc) are very similar to all the other off the shelf components in other GM models, and the magnetorheological shocks the Caddy uses that (while sophisticated) were developed by Delphi in the late 90s and early 2000s and have been in use since 2002 and have been iterated on since then.
Side benefit of all this massive volume: much lower cost for repair. The 2nd gen -Vs were significantly less expensive to begin with too, which will be reflected in repair costs down the road.
Last, the interior: this is/was the place where GM has lagged behind the most in my opinion, and the first-gen CTS platform definitely suffered from malaisey GM interiors for sure. With that said, the second gen V is significantly better (if not the best in class); in terms of design it's certainly on par (subject to stylistic preferences) with the E, which is to say the w211's interior was good for its time and has aged well. Similarly I think the second gen V's interior will age relatively well - certainly better than the already-dated-at-lauch 1st gen -V's.
In short, my suspicion is the 2nd gen -V is going to age better than the -E, particularly in terms of overall reliability. Bear in mind the first 2nd gen 2009 -Vs hit the market about this time 5 years ago and we're already seeing a number of -Vs out of warranty. So far the Cadillac guys aren't seeing any major red flags, certainly nothing on the scale of Airmatic failures etc.
Last, the interior: this is/was the place where GM has lagged behind the most in my opinion, and the first-gen CTS platform definitely suffered from malaisey GM interiors for sure. With that said, the second gen V is significantly better (if not the best in class); in terms of design it's certainly on par (subject to stylistic preferences) with the E, which is to say the w211's interior was good for its time and has aged well. Similarly I think the second gen V's interior will age relatively well - certainly better than the already-dated-at-lauch 1st gen -V's.
In short, my suspicion is the 2nd gen -V is going to age better than the -E, particularly in terms of overall reliability. Bear in mind the first 2nd gen 2009 -Vs hit the market about this time 5 years ago and we're already seeing a number of -Vs out of warranty. So far the Cadillac guys aren't seeing any major red flags, certainly nothing on the scale of Airmatic failures etc.
08-21-2013, 04:32 PM
#113
Member
The -V is on the second generation of the Magride stuff, hence my comment about GM iterating on it. For what it's worth the Magride stuff is looking to be relatively reliable.
One last comment here; for those of you that got into an E55 at or above $40k, I'm sure you're dismayed at the plummeting value of your car since almost every E55 is worth half that or less now in the open market. Much of that massive depreciation is related to the car's reliability.
By contrast the Cadillac guys are seeing a far more gradual depreciation rate on the -Vs - a 5 year old -V is still in the low 30s, and the car was $59,995 + a few options to begin with. expect those cars to continue to hover in high 20s if they're ragged on and 100k+ miles or low to mid 30s as they begin to cycle out of warranty. An '09+ still in warranty is still rare to find under $40k. Nevertheless assume an average of 50% depreciation over 5 years.
By contrast, whereas an $80k+ '06 E55 that can be found for <$25k with moderate miles and sometimes under $20k with higher miles, is seeing 65-75%+ depreciation at 6 years. The -V won't be that low % wise, nor will the out of pocket depreciation be as high - assume ~$30k over the life of the car by year 6 for the V, whereas we're looking at $50-60k+ for the E55. Not that a lot of buyers of new Mercedes products care about this, but the market certainly speaks loudly as to the value of each model relative to its resale value.
In conclusion I think we can read this as promising signs for used -Vs in the future in that both current owners won't see as steep of depreciation, and future owners won't be taking as much of a hit either both in terms of continued depreciation but also repair costs.
- $0.02.
One last comment here; for those of you that got into an E55 at or above $40k, I'm sure you're dismayed at the plummeting value of your car since almost every E55 is worth half that or less now in the open market. Much of that massive depreciation is related to the car's reliability.
By contrast the Cadillac guys are seeing a far more gradual depreciation rate on the -Vs - a 5 year old -V is still in the low 30s, and the car was $59,995 + a few options to begin with. expect those cars to continue to hover in high 20s if they're ragged on and 100k+ miles or low to mid 30s as they begin to cycle out of warranty. An '09+ still in warranty is still rare to find under $40k. Nevertheless assume an average of 50% depreciation over 5 years.
By contrast, whereas an $80k+ '06 E55 that can be found for <$25k with moderate miles and sometimes under $20k with higher miles, is seeing 65-75%+ depreciation at 6 years. The -V won't be that low % wise, nor will the out of pocket depreciation be as high - assume ~$30k over the life of the car by year 6 for the V, whereas we're looking at $50-60k+ for the E55. Not that a lot of buyers of new Mercedes products care about this, but the market certainly speaks loudly as to the value of each model relative to its resale value.
In conclusion I think we can read this as promising signs for used -Vs in the future in that both current owners won't see as steep of depreciation, and future owners won't be taking as much of a hit either both in terms of continued depreciation but also repair costs.
- $0.02.
Last edited by Tremek; 08-21-2013 at 04:36 PM.
08-21-2013, 04:57 PM
#115
Member
Hah, because I wanted to spend <$20k on a fun family car now and not have a payment. E55 met the criteria! A -V wagon will probably be the next car, but I'm going to let someone else eat some of the depreciation first.
08-21-2013, 05:01 PM
#116
Senior Member
Edmunds estimates a 2009 V greater total cost of ownership over five years than 09 e63 by $10k due to higher cost of depreciation, fuel and insurance...
08-21-2013, 05:16 PM
#117
Member
So taking this at face value, they're saying the -V's total depreciation off of MSRP will be approximately $20k less than the E63, and TCO of the Mercedes is going to be almost $25,000 higher. But this, too, is probably wrong: the -V won't depreciate $43,392 in 5 years - it will probably depreciate $25-30k off the actual $61k (possible - low-60s is realistic) purchase price.
Now the E63's also being unfairly evaluated here I think, which is to say I think the algorithm to calculate depreciation isn't taking into account the exclusivity of these cars and how we're generally seeing them trend higher in value over time. I think a 5-year old E63 is still going to be a $45k car in 2018, so call it $50k depreciation (as any '13 E63 is not actually transacting at $82k with options - more like $90-100k+.)
Even then the difference between the -V and the E is significant in that the -V was 40% cheaper new and depreciated less relative to the MSRP.
08-21-2013, 05:19 PM
#118
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.I. NY
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2011 CTSV auto, 06 E55 white pano, 87 Grand national, 63 split window
2009 E63...price new $90k and worth about the same with same miles...
So, I don't get it! E63 is much more to maintain, higher insurance and I think it is worse on fuel but not sure. I also believe that the warranty is longer on the caddy.
08-21-2013, 05:25 PM
#119
Member
2009 CTSV... price new $70k and worth very high $30's with 50k miles
2009 E63...price new $90k and worth about the same with same miles...
So, I don't get it! E63 is much more to maintain, higher insurance and I think it is worse on fuel but not sure. I also believe that the warranty is longer on the caddy.
2009 E63...price new $90k and worth about the same with same miles...
So, I don't get it! E63 is much more to maintain, higher insurance and I think it is worse on fuel but not sure. I also believe that the warranty is longer on the caddy.
Similar problem to what we're seeing with GTRs (although not NEARLY as ridiculous) - 2009 GTR was $69,850, and a 2013 GTR is now $96,820(!)
08-21-2013, 05:32 PM
#120
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.I. NY
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2011 CTSV auto, 06 E55 white pano, 87 Grand national, 63 split window
A loaded V was $73k in 2012...loaded e63 in 2009, yes I said 2009, was $98k. 2012 was prolly $108k.
I just don't agree one bit but no biggie...only my opinion. I like both cars (my e55) and the V.
P.S. Love the cayenne turbos for DD!
I just don't agree one bit but no biggie...only my opinion. I like both cars (my e55) and the V.
P.S. Love the cayenne turbos for DD!
08-21-2013, 05:37 PM
#121
Member
re: Cayenne DD, I would like it a lot more right now as a DD if it wasn't on week 2 of sitting in my garage with the intake manifold off while I wait for parts due to replacing plastic coolant pipes in the engine valley.
Last week the E55 had the front right Airmatic shock fail right after the Cayenne died, and my basement flooded, so it was a pretty stellar week in general. 
08-21-2013, 08:58 PM
#122
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.I. NY
Posts: 1,203
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
2011 CTSV auto, 06 E55 white pano, 87 Grand national, 63 split window
I am saying that you get crushed when buying a newer benz that's all...
Sorry to hear about the Cayenne, you'll get it fixed up I am sure...those aren't to cheap to fix either! Hope you get out inexpensively! I'll be away till Sunday so I will back in touch then.
Sorry to hear about the Cayenne, you'll get it fixed up I am sure...those aren't to cheap to fix either! Hope you get out inexpensively! I'll be away till Sunday so I will back in touch then.
08-21-2013, 11:10 PM
#123
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norther CA
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 208 Likes
on
91 Posts
2014 cls63 a amg. 2018 AMG GTR
Sorry, I'm not clear on what is it you don't agree with?
re: Cayenne DD, I would like it a lot more right now as a DD if it wasn't on week 2 of sitting in my garage with the intake manifold off while I wait for parts due to replacing plastic coolant pipes in the engine valley. Last week the E55 had the front right Airmatic shock fail right after the Cayenne died, and my basement flooded, so it was a pretty stellar week in general.
re: Cayenne DD, I would like it a lot more right now as a DD if it wasn't on week 2 of sitting in my garage with the intake manifold off while I wait for parts due to replacing plastic coolant pipes in the engine valley.
Last week the E55 had the front right Airmatic shock fail right after the Cayenne died, and my basement flooded, so it was a pretty stellar week in general. Want to talk about depreciation, got my Cayenne Turbo with the $3K pipes installed, $1500 brand new tire, brand new brake job with 80K miles for $16.5K clean title
Only lost about 85% of its value..... crazy 
I remember when my mother in law bought a brand new SL55 AMG for nearly $150K I saw one a year old with under 10K miles selling for $85K.
08-21-2013, 11:29 PM
#124
Member
Yeah, definitely crazy depreciation. I have the window sticker for our Turbo S and it was about $120k, we bought it for less than 1/4 that, it's still "worth" close to that in trade-in but holy crap. Between these coolant pipes and doing a brake job on it in June ($650 per front 2-piece rotor) this stuff adds up.
08-22-2013, 12:43 PM
#125
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Norther CA
Posts: 1,155
Likes: 0
Received 208 Likes
on
91 Posts
2014 cls63 a amg. 2018 AMG GTR
Yeah, definitely crazy depreciation. I have the window sticker for our Turbo S and it was about $120k, we bought it for less than 1/4 that, it's still "worth" close to that in trade-in but holy crap. Between these coolant pipes and doing a brake job on it in June ($650 per front 2-piece rotor) this stuff adds up.
