Jump to content
Create New...
  • 💬 Join the Conversation

    CnG Logo SQ 2023 RedBlue FavIcon300w.png
    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has been the go-to hub for automotive enthusiasts. Join today to access our vibrant forums, upload your vehicle to the Garage, and connect with fellow gearheads around the world.

     

  • Drew Dowdell
    Drew Dowdell

    Detroit 2016 Preview: 2017 Mercedes Benz E-Class

      Same Sausage, Different Lengths

    Mercedes Benz will be doing the full reveal of the 2017 Mercedes Benz E-Class on Monday, January 11th, however images of the car slipped out ahead of time. The exterior design of the new E-Class won't shock anyone as it now looks like a larger C-Class or smaller S-Class. The current E-Class is one of the oldest sedans in Mercedes' line-up and this move brings it up to date with the rest of the family look.

     

    Primary motive power is expected to come from a 2.0 liter turbo 4-cylinder and a twin-turbo V6. Alternative fuel minded customer will again have a diesel option this time with an all new 2.0 liter diesel while a plug-in hybrid will also join the line. AMG models are expected to produce around 600 horsepower. The transmission will be a standard issue Mercedes 9-speed and the 4Matic all-wheel drive system should be available on most variants. Fuel economy is rumored to be increased by up to 20% on certain models due to improved aerodynamics and 150 lb weight loss.

     

    A new autonomous drive system called Drive Pilot (Not DriveMatic Mercedes? I need that German consistency! - DD) will be available that will maintain lane position and speeds up to 60 mph without lane markings, and 120 mph with them. The driver will need to touch a sensor on the steering wheel every 2 minutes or so to keep the system active.

     

    Inside, the E-Class will have a posh new interior, again straddling the space and design features of the C-Class and S-Class.

     

    The 2017 E-Class will be officially revealed at 9:35 am eastern time on January 11th 2016.

     

    We'll have more for you as we get closer to the live reveal. You can follow this and all of the 2016 Detroit Auto Show stories on our North American International Auto Show page

     

    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    See, that's the core of argument I'm trying to present.

     

    Why get the E-Class when I can do myself a favour and coddle me some more with a barely used S-Class?

     

    Prestige and panache, at a lower price.

    Save even more with a gently used E Class.. and so on down the line.. lol  :cheers:

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Ahhh well, I going off the assumption that even though one day I might be filthy stinkin' rich I'll still be a scrooge and I guess if I do get rich, Casa himself can point me out as a sellout for buying a Mercedes when I clearly never intend to if I do get rich - because the *hypothetical* money fund is reserved for Camaro SS and CTS-V.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    The average S550 buyer is 62 years old with a $324,000 median income (also 83% male).  The average AMG S63 buyer is mid 40s and income of $500-600,000.  I don't think these are the types of people that care about depreciation.   $54,000 in depreciation is 2 months salary for an S550 buyer.  

     

    According to MotorTrend, the S-class overall has an average buyer age of 61 and median income of $371,000.  Which interestingly enough, the average income an an E-class wagon buyer is $375,000.  And that probably explains why they still make it, when he A6 Avant, 5-series wagon and CTS wagon are gone.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    wow...54 000 dollars lost in two months...

     

    or

     

    2 months salary gone...

     

    I dont care how much money someone's got...THAT is WASTEFUL and STUPID in my opinion.

     

    Billionaires the likes of Trump, Gates, Vladimir Putin and Bernie Ecclestone, where those monies get replaced through billions of products sold or...CORRUPTION...I could understand this mindset...

     

    But any poor schlep that works for a living....even an idiot 40 year old that makes $500 000 - $600 000 thousand a year is just pissing his money away.

     

    That is NOT a knock on a Mercedes product, its an observation on how stupid some humans beings could be.  Kudos to Mercedes to sell (LEASE) these things to those people...

    Edited by oldshurst442
    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    And yet, you're still losing more in absolute dollars.  Again, the XTS could devalue to ZERO and you would still lose less money than 2 years in an S-Class.   Here is a 2013 S550 4matic with night vision and surround view. It was probably around $115k new and it is being offered for $62,995 used... which means the buyout was in the high to mid-$50k range. It's only got 22k miles and is certified, so it's a screaming deal against a brand new S-Class.   But that also means that some combined group of people (buyer, dealer, MB Finance) ate about $57k in depreciation over 2 years.... will a 2 year old $57k CTS V6 with 22,000 miles be worth more than zero dollars you think?

    Exactly. 'Value retention' is always expressed in percentages, which only serve to make the people losing money feel better.

     

    If I bought a luxury sedan and only lost 20% in 3 years, all my millionaire friends would clap me on the back & congratulate my sound fiscal sense.

    I would just happen to fail to mention the car cost $1 million and I had $200,000 vacuumed from my account.

     

    Money (or the allusion thereof) certainly doesn't make people any smarter.

     

    Depreciation doesn't seem to stop the S-class from selling

    You mean; leased.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    An Escalade ESV Platinum loses $48,540 in 3 years.  Is the Escalade not the #1 most profitable GM product by a long shot?  People still buy the Escalade, it is the corner stone of the Cadillac brand.   The Escalade has 50% value after 3 years, and trucks hold value better than sedans.  If Cadillac had a $100,000 sedan, it would lose $60,000 in value after 3 years just like the other big cars do.  All these $100k vehicles lose money because people the make an average salary buying used cars can't afford the gas, maintenance, insurance, etc on them.  

     

    As far as leases go, I don't see them as any more crazy than 0% for 75 month financing that some brands are offering.  The finance wings of car companies are always looking for ways to get monthly payments low so they can sell people on a monthly payment, not the price of a car.  And wasn't this a complaint of Cadillac dealers a few years ago?  That they couldn't match the lease deals on Mercedes, BMW or Lexus because Cadillacs didn't hold value well enough, and they felt they were losing customers.   Personally I look to buy a 3-4 year old used car after the depreciation hit, and then pay it off in 4-5 years and keep it for 4 years after that.   I am not a lease fan myself, because you own nothing after it and forever will have a payment, but they do put people into a new car with a warranty for a low payment.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Buying an S-Class = Losing 25k per year for 2 years

    Buying an Escalade = Losing 16k per year for 3 years

     

    You don't need to work for a bank to figure out which is better for you financially. 

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites




    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Support Real Automotive Journalism

    Cheers and Gears Logo

    Since 2001, Cheers & Gears has delivered real content and honest opinions — not emotionless AI output or manufacturer-filtered fluff.

    If you value independent voices and authentic reviews, consider subscribing. Plans start at just $2.25/month, and paid members enjoy an ad-light experience.*

    You can view subscription options here.

    *a very limited number of ads contain special coupon deals for our members and will show

  • Similar Content

  • Posts

    • Rivian has opened a new 8 stall 350kW fast charger station at Lynnwood mall plus a 9th Handicap fast charge stall. Seems when remote service is being done they are tagged red as two of the units are. They take credit or debit cards on top of if you setup a Rivian app account.  There are now over 100 fast charge stations within a 5 mile radius of where I live.
    • Happy Birthday!!! Cheers!!!  
    • Yes. Ferrari was always a company selling towards the top tier rich.  I am not sure about Porsche's marketing after 1945, but I do know that Porsche wanted to go up market, really up market,  to sell to the rich in the late 1990s.    Rolex watches were always expensive.  But not always being a  chic jewellery accessory.  Rolex watches were expensive time pieces because they were highly precise time pieces meant for professions that required time pieces that were precise in time telling. Also, Rolexes were also engineered to be tough and not break in those job environments. Therefore the high price tags of them were because the high standard of engineering that went into them.  The value of the brand went up because of the people that bought them praised them. It was after the quartz movement of the 1960s and 1970s that Rolex needed to re-invent themselves as battery powered watches were MORE precise ate their lunch. So...like many other "swiss" automatic watch makers launched their new image as luxury time pieces. It was easy for Rolex to do as Rolex was coveted as a great engineered watch to begin with.   Like I said...its a boys club that they want to be known as and bought by (rich) people that have bought into that boys club mentality.  It aint for you or for @ccap41.   Even if you or @ccap41 had the money, its obvious that you guys have not fallen for this marketing gimmick.  Its barely for me either.  1. I cant afford Ferraris, Porsches or Rolexes. 2. I do not want to be in a Porsche Boys club.  I like Porsches and all, but Im not in their camp.  Not because of the boys club marketing schemes. Its just that I am not a rabid Porsche guy fanatic.  3. If I had 1% money, I am not sure Id be a Ferrari guy either.  After deep thought, I am more of a Ferrari guy than I am a Porsche guy.  But maybe not enough for me to fall for this kind of sales scheme either. 4.  Rolex...   I do like a Rolex.  But I am not one to boast about what kind of time piece Im wearing. So...nix me on that club as well. 5. It looks like I am aligned with you and @ccap41's take on this, but with me, I shrug it off.  I see why the companies want to go down this road. And I see why there are some people...rich people...that do not mind giving their monies away to these companies. And at the end of the day, its what makes them happy and superior to the rest of us as we do not have the time or money or will to buy into any of this. And kudos for them for buying into that lifestyle.    At the end of the day, whether we are talking about Ferrari or Porsche or Rolex, some of their product, past and present, have been REALLY REALLY EXCELLENT product. Whether we are talking about looks and style or engineering and technology, all 3 have styled and engineered awesomeness.  We could talk about their products that were failures, but wouldnt that signal some sort of sour grapes analogy on our part? Its a company's right to mold their brand image as they wish.   Whether we agree to it as individuals is irrelevant. What is relevant though is how collectively we ALL feel about it.  In Ferraris case its a huge success. Porsche and Rolex have to work on it just a tad more. But I feels its successful.  If there is a downfall for Porsche, I think it has more to do with their decisions to being a sports car maker ALONGSIDE being a (rich) family grocery getter/soccer mom SUV maker.  The failure of having two opposing identities is killing Porsche.  And it is a double edged sword.  On the one hand, if not for the SUVs, Porsche would have been gone by the early 2000s.  The inevitable was prolonged?  Rolex... Too many boutique time piece makers have propped up in the last 15 years that took their place in some areas of the really expensive realm.  Quartz time pieces keep on being a nuisance to them. This time around its the fashion watch trend. The name brand watch sellers like Michael Korrs and Hugo Boss and even Porsche that have taken some of Rolexes market share.  The advent of smart watches also hurts them.  So they decided to change it up in the sales realm.  Are there enough Rolex worshippers out there that will buy cheaper Rolexes or older models just to get that one highly anticipated limited edition time piece? Well...although watches are strictly fashion devices today, there are more than enough fashionable time pieces around for people to by-pass Rolex fandom.  Some have their own unique look to them and are sought after and some just emulate Rolex but watch brand snobs are too few today so Rolex has a steep hill to climb because most people that wear watches dont give a shyte what kind of watch you wear.  Unlike cars, car snobbery actually still exits...  Hence why Ferrari is still king of the douchiness and going on strong. Stronger than ever Id say.    
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online
  • My Clubs

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

Hey there, we noticed you're using an ad-blocker. We're a small site that is supported by ads or subscriptions. We rely on these to pay for server costs and vehicle reviews.  Please consider whitelisting us in your ad-blocker, or if you really like what you see, you can pick up one of our subscriptions for just $1.75 a month or $15 a year. It may not seem like a lot, but it goes a long way to help support real, honest content, that isn't generated by an AI bot.

See you out there.

Drew
Editor-in-Chief

Write what you are looking for and press enter or click the search icon to begin your search