Z-06

epa ratings seem to be $h!. i got 40mpg recently in my mazda 6 with ~120 miles of interstate at ~65 and ~60 miles of highway and ~70 miles of light traffic town driving.

That car indeed is a gem.

I get 22-23 mpg combined (60:40 city:hwy) on my Z06, rated 14-24. I can see the 7 speed crossing the 30 mpg barrier.

Excuses, excuses though, why can't BMw Lexus or Audi compete with the S-cpass then? Infiniti, Acura and Cadillac don't even try although at least Cadillac is taking a shot at it. And you think a $100,000 Cadillac sedan won't depreciate fast?

That is all you have? Another rhetoric? That's right, there are no numbers to prove otherwise.

LOL at some of the comments on MBWorld Forum. Sure SMK you go there to practice your MB cheerleading skills.

 

Bought my first new AMG in '05,a C55. Traded it in for a E55..traded that for a CLS55...

Then I paid $90k for my new E63 in '07,sold it this past December&took a $55k hit in depreciation&the car was mint.

I will NEVER buy another new AMG,lease or CPO only from here on

 

Agree that year 1 and 2 depreciation are pretty awful, but it's really not so bad after that.

 

Keep up the good work AMG! It allows me to buy cars like my CLS at half the cost with only 19000 miles! Love it! Best kept secret!

 

My W220 2006 S65 was 176K sticker in 2006 and purchased in 2010 as a CPO car for 60K! Love that depreciation. I love the car too.

Do you want me to keep going? Or may be your ADHD will kick in before you read this sentence.

I was thinking the same. Let me know how you want to coordinate.

Okay screw what the DIC says, back to basics, did you manually compute the mpg?

How many miles did this puppy have when you got it?

If the S-class was overpriced, it wouldn't be a market share god all over the world.  Every competitor undercuts the S-class by about $20,000 and it still outsells the BMW, Lexus, Audi and Jaguar combined.  If the S-class price was too high, buyers would go to cheaper alternatives.  The S-class is almost good value, it is a better car than what you get from a Flying Spur or a Ghost, and those cost over $200,000.

Disprove my numbers; don't use hyperbole and grandiose statements.

If it is a good value how the heck it depreciates to 40% of its value in 4 years? An average vehicle depreciates up to 50% of its value in that time frame. S is inline if not worse with depreciation of all the other luxury sedans it outsells combined. In fact it rivals with the Cobalt and Rio for the depreciation.

As of today there are 7 2010 S600s listed for sale around the country. The highest is 139,000 (good luck) and the lowest does not have a list price. If you ignore those 2 outliers, the median is $65,000. The prices vary for other 5 cars from $69,000 to $55,800. The brand new S600 was priced at $149,000 in 2010 without any options. Oh SMK thy please tell me where thou seeketh the value in the higher level appliance?

If S is market share God then by your logic so are Camry and Corolla. Just like your S class is, till recently, Toyota was undercut by brands like Hyundai, Americans, etc who had cheaper cars and/or huge incentives. Do you think they are the best? At least the two Toyotas can claim to have a 60% value during the same 4 year time period. Using your logic, those two Toyotas are the best vehicles, even better than your market share God because they not only have sales numbers to prove but also have tremendous appliance values.

Your notion of S class being a tremendous value is stuck in the neutral with W222, which to me was the last best S Class when it came to durability, longevity and value. The successors are high level appliances living on the legacy of the past. Bring yourself to 2014 reality.

A 2007 is a borderline 8 year old car now.  Most cars at 7 or 8 years old are only going to hold 1/3 of their original value.  I have seen 2008 CTS for $15k, so 1/3 what is what new.  An S600 has to depreciate because there aren't many people on the used market that can afford to run a V12.  Only crazy rich people can pay that kind of cost, and they can afford a new one.  The S-class is still the best car in this class, has the most engine options and they have a coupe and soon to have a convertible.

Did you read my prior post? It was two years ago, specifically March 2012. In fact CL is one of the highest depreciating cars on the market. And why can't someone afford to own a CPO V12 instead of a V8? Let us hear your logical reasoning. Does it give like 2 mpg that people cannot afford to pay gas? Is it more expensive to maintain? Kinda confirms my notion of the S class being a outrageously priced appliance if you follow your own reasoning.

First, 2008 CTS started at 32,000 and topped off at 45,000 and you are now talking about a seven year old model, which I will agree with the price you mention.

 

While I was shopping for a car in 2012, the price of a CPO 2008 S600 with 29,000 miles custom Designo interior was $65,000. The car retailed brand new for $147,000. That is hell of a depreciation.

4 years of ownership and the depreciation ALONE costs you $82,000 !!

Nothing quite says 'I'm dumber than dirt" than buying a top-shelf mercedes.

Continually striving for ever-increased production and heavy downmarket pushing is NOT going to help Mercedes in any other way than to thin out the top of the lineup.

 

Not that I was interested in buying it, I wanted for $hits and Giggles see what was the cost of owning a V12. A 2007 CPO CL600 at the same dealership was $55,000.

As much as I make fun of MB as Chevroletdes Benz - my problem with these cars is the economics and longevity. MB for a long time has been bulwark of reliable machines while offering solid build after even 50 years of existence of those machines and there is no denying. I admired those qualities of MB. And given a choice I would like to own the old MB diesels, which I have respect for.

MB has now become a consumer electronics builder with automobiles as secondary objective. And it reflects.

While I was shopping for a car in 2012, the price of a CPO 2008 S600 with 29,000 miles custom Designo interior was $65,000. The car retailed brand new for $147,000. That is hell of a depreciation. A comparable mileage Escalade Platinum Edition or Z06 depreciated by only 35 - 40%.

Besides that, if I buy a used S class, once the warranty runs out, the costs of fixing tech related stuff are astronomical. For e.g. LCD screen in the dashboard - $4,400. You now have a powertrain which is bulletproof saddled by shoddy electronics. Good luck keeping them on road for even 15 years like the past S classes did, because electronics will be outdated and once dead they are gone. MB is not going to supply those old parts as the technology would have advanced.

The MB cars are thus becoming nothing more than glorified appliances. Unfortunately, trying to out-do the Germans the others are following this route. The automobile industry has reached its core-technological peak, now its grasping for crumbs through diversification of non-essential goals.

Gone are the days when S class used to be easy to maintain and practically impossible to destroy. Judging by my BMW 330, great driving car with horrible electronics, my guess is S class will not be too different since it has hundreds of patents boasting how electronically advanced the car is.

How many of us are still using Iphone 1 or Galaxy S1?

Doesn't GM build hot hatches - Astra and Corca OPC/GTC? Just that USA does not get them.

I always wondered why GM did not reignite Cobalt SS Turbo in the Cruze. That was a giant killer, faster than 135 and Lexus IS in Car and Driver Lightning Laps. Except excuses for its shabby interior, it was a terror machine.

Or the GLK.

Yes, those are robust vehicles. Practically bulletproof so as long you give them just the right TLC.

i'd rather have cadillac have the mid engine supercar.

This. Because other than selling few hundred of these per year, the car is not going to be what a Corvette is. Pricewise, Cadillac may be able to command and get $120k+  than a Chevrolet can.

And I am not in favor of Corvette as a brand.

I am not a BMW fan, but the 3-series outsells the ATS like 5 to 1 and ATS sales are down 20% this year. So Cadillac must have missed the mark on something. I don't think Cadillac really understands the luxury market. They copy the 3-series and the Lexus RX, they threw the ELR against the wall to see if it would stick, they figured there are a lot of "traditional" Cadillac buyers so we need an XTS for them, and they got some hits and misses. But overall they don't have a really good plan of attack. Not enough body style and engine choices, not enough focus on brand image, no core value to cling to. The ATS and CTS are supposed to be hardcore sport sedans, then you pair them with FWD soft riding SRX and XTS. What is Cadillac trying to be?

Cadillac's failure is in perception. Both internal and external.

One should own at least one Corvette before leaving the matierialistic existence.

LOL.

The ELR can't be compared to an R8 or SLS AMG (which is getting replaced next year), because those are high end sports cars, they aren't going to sell they are more there for marketing purpose and engineer exercises.  The ELR is a Volt coupe, the engineering was already there and it isn't creating some sports car halo effect that makes Cadillac a cool brand.

Giving you the benefit of doubt, that is why I specifically asked you what was your qualification for calling ELR a flop and you mentioned sales. Well if sales is the only indicator then those cars are flop, forget the qualifiers you are now adding to dance around your moving goal posts.

Per your indicator it does not matter if it was FWD or Halo or engineering marvel, since it did not meet your sales expectation, it is a flop, then so are SLS and R8. I am just following your flawless logic.

HB my friend.

24 going on 12.

 

 

I don't think an Escalade is going to out-handle a Range Rover.  The Range Rover is a great SUV, although any 500+ horsepower SUV is sort of pointless because it isn't going to be able to perform like a car.

Totally Disagree with you, my Trailbazer SS handles better than many sports cars.

 

LoL....maybe 50 year old sports cars on bias-ply tires...

 

He is not totally incorrect.

This was eight years ago: - Not a faint praise for a vehicle conceived in possibly the worst of GM's phase.

 

A 5.5-second blast to 60 mph is still quick enough to make it feel much less like a truck and more like a sports car.

 

During one such maneuver -- kids, don't try this at home -- we flicked the truck left, then abruptly right, at about 90 mph. The SS gracefully arced into a sideways slide that would do professional rally driver Colin McRae proud. We were grinning like idiots until we looked out the left-side window and noticed this tippy sport-ute was drastically leaning on its left side.

Have you ever had a brief moment of clarity when time slows to a crawl and you can seemingly foresee impending disaster? We did while we were going sideways -- at 90 mph -- in the Chevy.

But nothing happened. The SS handled the maneuver a lot like a Corvette; a little bit of countersteering and it pulled out of the slide just fine.

 

It rolls a little more in the corners, and there's a little less feedback through the steering wheel, but it's still a fun car to hustle on back roads. In exchange for some of the handling precision, however, the SS delivers a much better ride. We're still talking about sports-car firmness, but the SS doesn't bounce around like the Jeep.

The ELR in May had a 725 day supply on dealership lots, I wouldn't say they are moving.  I guess with the big discounts though (and probably them not building any) has got it down to 194 days now.  But that is still over 6 months.  The CTS has a 215 day inventory supply.  BMW and Audi have supplies less than 45 days by comparison.

 

The ELR selling 60 a month or whatever they are getting is what makes it a flop.  Had they priced it at $54,000 maybe they could have sold like 250 a month and it wouldn't have been as embarrassing.  Either way they should drop the car.

So based on your logic, other cars such as GTR, B class electric, Z4, Mini Coupe/RS/Paceman, CL, SLS, R8, TT are flop also since they were outsold by your flop in July. All those cars should also be dropped.

SLS should have been priced at $55,000 also so that it would not have been embarrassed by lowly Challenger.

The 3-series may have drifted from the core values, and it does seem a bit big and fat now (as do all BMWs), but the 3-series still has enough of the BMW traits to keep people buying.  Steering isn't as good, but they still have BMW suspension and BMW brakes, it is bigger, but they give you more interior room, it is heavier than it was 10 years ago, but they have an 8-speed and turbo inline 6 that is super smooth with great low end torque.   BMW still does enough and the 3-series is sort of evolving or aging with its customer base.   The ATS can't match the 3-series acceleration, and the ATS can't match the NVH.  And the 3-series has a diesel that gets 45 mpg.

 

The C-class is going to put the "luxury" back into luxury sports sedans, they aren't going to copy BMW like Cadillac and Lexus have done, Mercedes is doing what Mercedes does best and I think they are about to stick it to BMW.  Cadillac needs to do what Cadillac does best, and not just try to copy the E90 3-series, because people aren't going to buy the copy.

But according to you enough is not enough, you have to be the bestest and mostest when you put the goal post for Cadillac.

For the last few years the complaint about the 3 series is how it got too big, too heavy, and lost it's soul. Along comes a Cadillac in more compact dimensions, lightest in its class, and with all the moves and more that the old lamented 3er had and suddenly the priority is back seat room?!?

Press is like SMK. Keeps its targets moving to favor its favorites.

Back then failure of fuel pump, most expensive yet least optioned vehicle, back sit with no space to place your newborn did not matter as BMW was the handling queen. Then for cost cutting BMW puts electric steering, which it has no clue to fine tune, puts suspensions from the 90s compared to the 21st century magneto shocks, suddenly the sacred cow was to be slaughtered. But better slaughter it with a FWD German to give it a "all-round" balanced vehicle than a vehicle that bettered the very qualities that made a BMW.

Yes, ATS has faults, but sum of its parts is not lesser than a BMW or Audi or Lexus.

I read there are dealers giving $20,000 off to sell ELR's.  This car is a flop, the idea of the car itself was bad, to charge $76k for it was a horrible idea.  Had they priced it at $55k from the start, maybe they would have sold a few, but this car is tanking faster than the Allante or XLR did.

I want to explicitly understand your reasoning behind it, on what basis? Based on "maybe they would have sold a few," sales?

 

 

I like this better than the Challenger.

 

 

The only reason I would ever even THINK THAT..  would be if I had a disdain for 2 door vehicles. The Challenger, RT and above, behind the ANY Camaro, is gorgeous

 

 

Assumptions are dangerous.

 

 

 

Assumption? Re-Read what I typed. " The only reason I would ever even THINK THAT"   The key word being " I  ", meaning me, and myself knowing exactly the reason why I, as in ME, would consider a Charger over the Challenger. 

 

My statement still stands, because your parameters of liking seem to be different than that of mine.