Last post on Jan 28, 2013 at 6:55 PM
You are in the Sedans
What is this discussion about?
Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar XJ-Series, Lexus LS 460, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Volkswagen Phaeton, Maserati Quattroporte, Mercedes-Benz CL-Class, Sedan
Let's try to define this forum as being limited to luxury performance vehicles where the mainstream version in a typical configuration has an MSRP of at least $60k.
A luxury vehicle with a base price of $59k qualifies because it would typically be bought with some additional equipment, bringing the MSRP over $60k.
Vehicles like the E, 5, A6, M, or GS, even if available in certain versions over $60k, don't qualify because they are cars from companies that have higher end cars in their lineups.
#9879 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [ljflx]
Jul 25, 2005 (10:00 am)
This is why I've always said you can only go by these charts and graphs so much because I haven't seen a 2002 E430 for those prices anywhere around here. In the real world a 2002 E430 goes for more than the links you've posted, at least around here they do. The only ones I've seen that are close to those number are the A6 and GS.
You're right the CLK, SL and other "specialty" cars from MB aren't as bad as the common sedans.
#9880 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [merc1]
Jul 25, 2005 (10:25 am)
That's just the car without any options and it's my area. I see offered prices on all these cars that are higher than the link shows as well but that doesn't mean they are selling at those prices. Per Edmunds these are prices the cars sell at, not asking prices I can tell you around here even MB die-hards don't want to buy a used MB. But I'm sure the price problems are pretty widespread. The Wall Street Journal reported resale values of 55% after 3 years and 36K miles on MB as the national average. That was a few years ago before a spate of more bad news on quality. So the price pressures make plenty of sense. Anyway I had no idea prices got this bad as I haven't checked in since my lease was up a year and a half ago . I just posted it in response to someone wondering about retention values anyway and nothing more than that.
#9881 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [ljflx]
Jul 25, 2005 (11:53 am)
Well it doesn't surprise me you'd paint the worst picture possible. Mercedes' have traditionally been at that WSJ figure.
#9882 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [ljflx]
Jul 25, 2005 (6:23 pm)
From an ex-econometrician to an ex-auditor, I'm not surprised that an optioned up version of a particular series (the E-430 vs. a basic E) would lose more percentage wise in resale. They typically do. Afterall the biggest home in the neighborhood tends to revert to the mean price, too. (Although I am still surprised why a S430 and an S500 have the same percent resale.)
Merc1 may not like all this talk about resale values and lease subsidization but it tells a lot about a brand. I don't think it is good for a brand to have a high percentage of "sales" to people who lease. They are the "hot money" of the car industry and would change brands for the sake of maybe $75 a month on a lease payment. The MB reputation was built based on people buying and driving them for 150K. One of my neighbors until a year or so ago commuted in an impeccable Olive Drab 240D. The Porsche brand is very strong , despite some glitches, in part because they don't push leases. The wrong people then don't "buy" (i.e., lease) them for the wrong reasons. Is anyone else on this board old enough to remember what happened to Izod Lacoste in the early '60s? They had a brand that was as prominent as Rolex/MB/Polo are today.
Resale values also tell us about the true cost of ownership. Remember the cost of owning something is not what you paid for it, but rather the difference between what you paid for it and what you sold it for later.
#9883 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [blckislandguy]
Jul 25, 2005 (7:28 pm)
Point well taken and I think there is a 50-50 relationship on lease vs buy in most lux cars. Remember a lot of people take that lease deduction for business. I think there are a couple of points made here that really explain some resale issues. Designman has said a number of times now that performance buyers put reliability lower on the totem pole. I see his point and buy into it. So BMW reliability can slip but resale values will hold up because BMW's legend is built on performance and even used car buyers are buying into that performance. It's still delivering on its legacy. MB's legend is built on high level reliabilty that was always the highest in the land. Bulletproof and MB often went together in the same sentence throughout the 60-'s 70's and 80's. That reliability has slipped terribly in the last 10 years and its resale values have slipped with it. MB is no longer delivering on its legacy. The public gave them a 3-5 year grace period hence the high resale values in 2001 that I was getting on a lease deal. The MB retention values after three years supported those lease residuals at that time as I checked them closely in 2001. I do this everytime a lease is up and a renewal is at hand. But that grace period is over. Lexus is built on the same principles as MB and is delivering spectacularluy. Hence its resale values are rising as is its brand strength. Audi - need to look to Europe. I don't ever see Audi being big here and I don't ever see them getting out of BMW's shadow anywhere. But my view may be slanted by the US take on Audi. Infiniti is up and coming in the performance segment and because it is not yet a global player it has a lot more maneuvering room than Audi in its strategies. Audi, unfortunately has to also deal with a sick VW strategy that is further undermining it. Anyway that's my business view of this. Merc likes to look at the real cars from a purist standpoint and what real car folk are saying and I respect that. But the business goings on have a large future impact that is subtle at first and overwhelming over time. Nuff said.
Jul 25, 2005 (7:42 pm)
To me, one of the most interesting things that has happened in auto residual values lately is the "Ghosn effect" on Infiniti vehicles. Previous easily forgotten Infinitis such as the I, J, and Q have all had awful residual value. Then comes G35, and all of a sudden, it retains value better than the Lexus IS300. The Infiniti M also retains value better than the RL and GS. The turn around has been startling.
#9885 of 24723 Re: ljflx [lexusguy]
Jul 25, 2005 (11:26 pm)
This would all be good except the flagship Q45 is even worse than the bottom dwelling A8 in brand recognition and sales. Infiniti is building its brand from the bottom up G35, while Lexus built it top down from the LS400. Until the so-called *Ghosn effect* extend beyond the G/M to the Q, I see Infiniti remaining in Lexus' shadow, IMO.
#9886 of 24723 Re: Just for the heck of it here's the next level down [blckislandguy]
Jul 26, 2005 (5:53 am)
the true cost of ownership. Remember the cost of owning something is not what you paid for it, but rather the difference between what you paid for it and what you sold it for later.
I would add maintenance costs to the total cost of ownership. Combine MB's reliability issues with their abandoning their free maintenance program and TCO looks pretty bad.
#9887 of 24723 Re: Oac—the operative term—true driver [ljflx]
Jul 26, 2005 (6:16 am)
"This is really telling as an LS430 ultra is about equal to a stripped S430 in comparable features."
When I comparison shopped the LS430 Mod Lux (not Ultra) had more features than the S500. I don't see the comparison in features between an Ultra and the S430 as being anywhere near equal.
Many thousands of dollars of extras including parking sensors, HID, front and rear seat packages and many others are necessary to bring the S430 close to the LS.