Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
What are you talking about? :confuse: The guy asked about sport sedans.
All the cars in this group get crappy mileage. They make big claims but the reality is that very few will see more than 22-23 on a normal day.
Volvos and MBs of the 1980s were made during a different era. Today MB and Volvo are part of american car companies and their quality reflects that.
Styling? I think only those in the 50s and up or very conservative people who like MB or Volvo.
I know there are reliability questions for both brands and that she said reliability is a priority, but now that you've all told her to pick something she wasn't asking about , maybe you could give her some feedback on her original question.
goddess_1 doesn't want to experience pain (excessive maintenance and repairs over 8-10 years), so she's asking us which is better, a sharp stick in the eye (Volvo) or bamboo under the finger nails (Mercedes). I too might have suggested a third or fourth alternative that required hardly any spilling of blood whatsoever, but if those are the only choices, I'd vote for Mercedes. I know a lot more people that have eeked 130k miles out of Mercedes than Volvos without getting nickle and dimed (or dollared) to death. And they look better in the process. But with either one, I'd be tempted to get an extended warranty.
You might want look at the used car lots of your local Mercedes and Volvo dealers for 6-8 year old specimens and think about which you would have been happier with, had you made this decision in 1999. I suspect Mercedes.
I used to like Volvo back in the late 80's and early 90's but now whenever I see a Volvo I see a glorified Ford. :sick:
The S60 is a 5 or 6 year old platform (MY2001 I think) so that argument is moot.
I also don't buy into the whole reliability argument. Maybe the Japanese cars have a very slight edge in "predicted reliability" over the long haul, but all new cars today are pretty darn reliable. In all likelihood, a new Volvo or Mercedes, if properly maintained, will make just as fine a 10 year old car as a Honda or Toyota.
I work for a federal government agency, and we have a fleet of about 60 American cars assigned out to us. We keep all of these Dodge pickups, Ford Explorers & Tauruses, Chevy Luminas & Blazers, etc. for 7-8 years and 100,000 miles. In the 13 years I've worked for the feds, I've never seen a single car go out of service due to catastrophic mechanical failure - and we drive these cars hard. I've had more than a dozen cars assigned to me over the years, and I've never had a major breakdown. In fact, after I surplussed my M-B S420 last fall, I was assigned a beautiful '99 Ford Taurus. I've had it since July and so far, it's tight as a drum and trouble free.
I'm certain that a Mercedes or Volvo, driven normally and maintained properly, will provide years of reliable, comfortable service. Don't get sucked in by all the anecdotal hype you read here and elsewhere. Cars are machines designed and built by humans. No car is perfect, and any car can have it's share of problems. Buy the one you like best and enjoy it.
Just out of curiosity, how did you go from S420 to a Taurus? Are both of them provided from your agency?
I want to like the G35 because its styling looks sleeker than the somewhat bloated appearance of the TL. Since I buy a car about every 6 years it would feel good getting something that looked new.
I could use some help on this before trying the golf bag test myself.
The current C class came out in 2001 so 8 years from now in 2015 you’ll still be driving a car that (looks wise) came out 14 years earlier (there’s classic then there’s dated).
I don’t think the 280 engine has had a major overhaul but it does deliver 30 more hp; so you may have to deal with first year model issues (but that’s what the warranty is for).
If I were going the S60 route I’d go with a 2 year old certified you can save a bundle
Fedlawman - you said what this teeny, tiny voice in me was saying, but it was getting drowned out by the clamor of negativity & doubt (my own!) It's exactly what I needed to remind myself of a mistake I made years ago with a similar issue -- I bought a condo I hated that made "good" sense, then regretted it until long after I sold it. For many, there would have been no regrets, but I'm unequivocally my own person(!) who should know by now to listen to my instincts. Even when those instincts are about the size of an amoeba.
So, here's what I'm going to do . . . I'm going for the MB or Volvo from whomever offers me the fairest deal and does so without the schmooze and hi-pressure sales pitch. :P I'll let you guys know what happens . . . should I (or they) survive the experience.
The Mercedes was a seizure. The Taurus, like 90% of our cars, was a GSA purchase. I don't work the street any more so no more cool seizures for me.
"you said what this teeny, tiny voice in me was saying"
You'll get good advice here, but most people think of a car as an appliance to get from point A to point B. For most people, an Accord or Camry is all the car they'll ever need, so choosing the Lexus or Acura is a no brainer. You, on the other hand, have expressed some feelings about what you want. For you, you deserve a car that makes you feel good.
FWIW, I had a 2001 Volvo V70 wagon (purchased CPO in 2003 with 23,000 miles on the odo). The car was totaled after my wife was struck head-on by a van going 40 MPH. We didn't give it a second thought - replaced it with a new 2004 V70. Luxury package, rear-facing 3rd row jump seats, and 16" alloys where the only add-ons. Smooth ride, quiet interior, luxurious appointments, high quality materials - best minivan I never owned. I'm a very satisfied Volvo owner.
what you didn't share is what ELSE is important to you besides reliability.
The C280 and S60 are very different cars. The S60 is a bit bigger. If you get a T5, its definitely faster in a straight line. BUT, its fwd. The C280 will have better resale ... but in 8-10 years, that's not going to matter very much. Either car will only be worth a few grand, at best.
I'm surprised ... no, shocked ... they are the same price. Considering benzes are more new and have better resale ... are you sure you are looking at comparable vehicles and you KNOW the real price on them (not asking prices, as, in my experience, volvo dealers ask WAAAY more for their used cars than they are worth).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
FWD vs. RWD
If that is at all important to you..
regards,
kyfdx
(not the host here)
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
The BEST minivan (under $100,000) ever produced is the 2007 Corvette Z06. Now THAT is a nice handling, fast minivan!
As far as FWD or AWD goes, I'm sticking with FWD -- where I live, AWD is completely unnecessary in terms of use, and hence, expense. Rain? Snow? Forget it! (No offense to you ski lovers.)
HP, RPMs & torque are not my thing -- I expect to step on the gas and move along . . . not at a turtle's pace (my lead foot will take of that), but my ego isn't attached to my 0-60 time, either. If it was, I definitely would not be considering either of these vehicles! That's a major reason I won't go for a BMW -- it may be fast, but the ride is too rigid & uncomfortable for my tastes - I prefer to float along at the cost of some oomph & handling performance.
As for the pricing difference (or lack thereof) - I guess it comes down to the C280 being classed as MB's entry level vehicle, and the S60 as Volvo's mid-level class. In truth, the C280 is ~$2.5K-3.5K more, but I don't really consider that significant at this price range (hi $20s actual value, give or take.) Other people may view it differently. I'm finding both the C280 and S60 are offered at quite inflated prices (I live in a region that lives or dies by their vehicle class.) But, if I wanted inflated, I'd buy new.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '08 Charger R/T Daytona; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '08 Maser QP; '11 Mini Cooper S
Did Chevy finally introduce the Z06 with the 3rd row split-fold seating option? I knew I should have waited for MY07!
There were some inconsistencies in your previous posts. I assume you know that the Mercedes is RWD, not FWD as your previous post indicated you wanted to stick with. And, from what I've seen, the C280 would run close to $40k new loaded up with "serious creature comforts". And you alternated from indicating you were looking at 06/07 models (new) to "if I wanted inflated, I'd buy new".
I'm not exactly sure what you want and am hesitant to give advice, but...from a (barely) 30's something female to another, I offer two alternatives. A nice "certified" used low mileage 04/05 Boxster S, preferably in Speed Yellow, loaded with amenities for around $35k. It will get you better gas mileage and a boatload more smiles than the old folks cars you are considering.
Or, given that that suggestion is probably already in the trash can, search around for a used, low mileage 2005 E320 CDI. They can be had in the mid to high $30's (less than a new C280). The E-class is a big step up from the C-class. More comfortable, better built, lasts longer, etc. The CDI will give you considerably better gas mileage (35+ highway), with better acceleration than the other two.
I can't even pick between your choices. Way, way too boring.
Sorry, came over here because a friend is looking to get a ELLPS, as they call them. I'll get on with my other business.
That is why I did not buy a convertible - none of them had a trunk big enough for more than one set of clubs, and most could not fit one set of clubs.
Cliff
My marketing director has an E320 CDI, the sales manager that works for her has a 2004 C240. We have driven both of them to lunch together on dozens of occassions. The E320 is in a whole different league above the C class. Frankly, even with the imrpovements and revisions for the 2007 model, the C class just seems too much like a mediocre car for those that must have the Mercedes badge. It is NOT on the same playing field as the BMW 3 series, which has tremendous attributes in its own right (i.e. separate from the 5 series) as the best performing, best handling ELLPS. The C class seems like it's simply geared to those that can't afford the E class. IMO, the C class is a definite notch down from the TL.
When you look at how well the E320 CDI holds its value, plus the great fuel economy and moderate maintenance requirements, it's not much more expensive, if at all, than a gussied up C280. I'd go for the real thing, especially if comfort is a primary concern. The E320CDI is silky smooth at 75-80 on the highway. The C class feels like a Toyota by comparison. Which is not bad, but not great.
Try to find some ADD sellers of CDI's.
It has a smooth ride that absorbs all manner of road imperfections, yet it corners with minimal roll. It leans and pushes through corners about as bad as a Honda Accord - not sporty, but not flaccid either.
We love it for it's suprememly comfortable seats, airy interior, light but communicative steering, and very nice leather and wood trimmed interior. The cockpit is very driver oriented, and it's a pleasure to drive around town and on long freeway treks. Of course the safety engineering built into it goes without saying.
Better tires and firmer springs/shocks would make it a sporty handler, but even stock, it's more than adequate for transporting 4 kids (+ equipment) to soccer practice or taking 2-week road trips down to California.
Anyways, it's by far the most comfortable, stylish, economical (30+ MPG hwy), and sportiest vehicle that I can think of that seats 7 or hauls sheetrock with the tailgate closed. It's got plenty of passing power in the mountains - even fully loaded, and it's been as trouble free as any Honda I've ever owned - and I've owned 5 over the years.
I don't think you can have your cake and eat it too. You cannot have uncompromised comfort and sport in one car. I do think that, if you're willing to compromise, the ELLPS segment is as good a compromise as any, but I tried to live with an ELLPS and I didn't like it. For me, the only solution was to own 2 cars with very distinct personalities/functions. The Volvo V70 for serene errand running/family touring, and the BMW M3 for weekend canyon carving and racetrack lapping.
M
Yet another luxury car -- the special lane and free parking hybrid.
When those Prius cars reach the end of their life cycle, I bet they will make pretty cool skateboard ramps. A local dealership has over 20 in stock right now. Must no longer be in demand. Ah, but there is $3.50 gas pricing ahead for 2007 -- well maybe there is. That said, I still would not want such a beast.
-Loren
The CLK, as best I can tell, notwithstanding it's links to the C, has always been a separate class and has not suffered the same degredation. I still remember my first time in an early CLK thinking this is what a "cockpit" should look and feel like in a sport coupe. It looked and drove better than the E class, IMO. Made me even consider giving up my requirement for a manual transmission! Unfortunately, it was way above my affordability level at the time.
Consider that Arnold Schwartzenager's 10 mpg 6,000+ lb Hummers qualified for 100% accelerated tax write-offs. As does your friendly lawyer's GX470, doctor's Range Rover Sport and Tiki Barber's Escalade.
Add the cost of the war in Iraq to the list of items that some say should be funded (or at least substantially so) with a federal gas tax, and we'd rip right through $3.50 a gallon on our way to $7.00. After all, you don't think we'd be willing to spend as much or sacrifice as much to promote democracy in a region that wan't sitting on trillions of barrels of oil, do you?
I hate partisan "politics". I believe in economics and free market capitalism. Unfortunately, the average mass market Joe is going to be just as fuel efficient as his wallet requires, and the auto manufacturers need to be shown the money before they work on fuel efficiency as much as cup holder design for Tiki's behemouth. If I have to pay $7.00 per gallon to fill up the tank on my 19/26 mpg 911S or non-tax deductable, 18/23 mpg MDX, so be it. I'm paying a shipload more than that now out of my income tax to subsidize a fleet of tax deductable $60k+ 10-14 mpg SUV's. Giving a $5k break to someone driving a 40+ mpg Prius is the least of my worries - and probably a step in the right direction in the long term.
Well the CLK430 Cabriolet has finally come down to my affordability level, specifically this 2003 example.
M
When the money runs down and things are looking tight for government income, my guess is that the VAT tax becomes the law of the land.
It is interesting to see a lot of luxury car owners, as in those with the thick wallets, bought the Prius. A new status symbol. The ultimate near luxury auto Funny looking thing, with what I could only imagine to have limited handling and fun factor. OK-ok, the impress your neighbors with the technology is the fun factor. Yeaaa, or whoopee :P They are staking up on the lot now. Guess they are all too common a car for the rich now to own. Next up is the SUV hybrid. It is good that they will be saving gas now.
-Loren
The CLK, as best I can tell, notwithstanding it's links to the C, has always been a separate class and has not suffered the same degredation. I still remember my first time in an early CLK thinking this is what a "cockpit" should look and feel like in a sport coupe. It looked and drove better than the E class, IMO. Made me even consider giving up my requirement for a manual transmission! Unfortunately, it was way above my affordability level at the time.
I think the "old" CLK 98-2002 was based on the E class platform; and didn't use the C Class platform until after the new C class came out (01 or so).
So buying an older CLK you are ~in some way~ getting an E class.
-Loren
Actually the first 1998 CLK W208 was based on the 1994 C-Class too, the CLK has always been based on the C. The last E-Class-based coupes were the 1988-1995 300CE/E320 Coupes.
M
My co-worker has a CLK320(CLK230 with the big engine in it) and with manual, it's as quick as a Porsche. Agile as one, too - seriously overkill for almost any driving that you could want to do.
in love with that car! I remember the wheels
looked so "Ffat" on that car. To me it was the
bomb back then!!