I agree,the previous generation SL(230,250,280)is a much nicier car,and current prices reflect that. The last time I drove an SL(1988 560),I was surprised how truck-like it felt. Visually,it still has appeal,but really,driving one is nothing special. Not compared to,say,a much more modern BMW 3-series convert. As far as popularity speaking loudest,this might be another case of "I want the biggest" And that is often not the best way to judge a car.
I think people who buy collectible cars are more sophisticated than ever before, and more so than the person just buying a car to drive. For instance, the market shows that there is actually a price differentiation between the 230SL,. 250 and 280, even though they are very similar cars. But buyers know the differences, and which car is better, and pay accordingly. So a 280SL brings substantially more money than a 230SL.
The V8 SLs, however, have a different price structure, which is the same as any used car. The older it is, the less it is worth, the newer, the more it is worth. This is exactly opposite of how a collectible car's value tiers work. So in the case of the V8 SLs, the older V8 SLs cars are a better deal since they look similar to the 560SL but for half the money or less. The 560SL is a lot better car, however.
If you can find any of the 350-560SL cars in good shape you can get a daily driver that is admired by many people, for not a lot of money. For example, if you invest $10-20K for a nice one, depending on model, year, mileage, condition, etc. and plan for $1,000 - $2500 a year in maintanence, it will pencil out rather well against many new cars with much less presence. I think the main thing is not to confuse this line of SLs with true sports cars. They are top-down blvd cruisers. And they do still get lots of attention, even after 20+ years since the original body style was introduced.
But, contrary to Mr Shiftright, at least in San Diego, I'd expect to pay at least $10K for a really nice, low mileage car with few defects or signs of age, good compression and seals, etc. And I think the price difference would be money well spent.
The other point is that most people are unlikely to purchase a collectable and then use it as a daily driver.
Yeah, $10K sounds right for California for a fairly decent old SL.
The appeal of the SL V8s, that is, look rich for cheap, is offset by a very real fear of the expenses involved in fixing one. This is what keeps the price down, in fact, that many buyers are reluctant to take this risk. Just the engine alone is the price of the entire car. A professional rebuild on a 560SL engine will cost you $15,000.
What this means is that if you buy a $10K SL, and something terrible happens, you have to face the prospect of discarding the car entirely.
But that is true for nearly all of the old MBs .... at least $8-10K if the engine is rebuilt by someone who knows what they are doing. It's not just a limitation of SLs. .... Even the routine non-scheduled maintanence adds up over time. ... Heck, even the costs of keeping a new SL on the road, once the warranty expires, is pretty intimidating. What's a poor boy to do?
I think the V8 SLs are really a lot more expensive to rebuild, since the engines use a special alloy to coat the cylinders. Most any competent engine shop can rebuild an older MB six, but only very few shops can work on the later V8s. I'm not sure if the very early 350s and 450s have this problem, but even they aren't cheap to rebuild of course.
What's a boy to do? Well, unless the SL is thoroughly tested with cylinder leakdown and unless service records are good, I'd run from any cheal SL I saw at auction or on Ebay, especially if it's in any way shabby. A cheap SL is the most expensive car you'll ever buy.
My brother has a big "S"-class diesel-must be 1994 or 95. Anyway, the turbo charger on it failed, and a few weeks later the power door locks wouldn't work. My brother went to the dealer-over $5000.00 to rplace the turbo, plus another grand to fix the locks! No wonder people are scared of these! To add to his troubles, after all of this work was done, his headlights went out! I guess this says that a used M-B is still a VERY riskey proposition! Are these cars REALLY worth the expense and aggravation?
Good question. I've only owned 3 MBs but I'm convinced that (old SLs not withstanding) newer ones are by and large, more problematic and expensive to fix than the old ones, and the higher end ones are more problematic than the low end ones, mainly because of the increased complexity of the cars. They are great cars. Solid, stable, safe, and provide a great driving experience. There is also the ego boost. If one is suffering from self-esteem problems, owning an MB could still be cheaper than therapy. ...one private party ad I saw a while ago called the car "Prozac on wheels". But maintaning them is not cheap. And even though Toyota can seem to build a $12K sedan that runs trouble free for 100K miles before it self destructs, MB cannot seem to build a $120K car that will go 10K miles without some major system failure, even though many parts of the car are good for 300K miles. ...... I think part of the problem is the pressure to come up with new technology and design, but some of it is just bad or improper parts. For example, all 3 of our MBs required new shocks and struts before 70K miles. My E-class blew a head gasket at 38K miles and the radiator failed at 70K miles. My wife's 190 required 3 serpentine belts inside of 2 years. I don't think there is any way to justify this kind of performance or parts failure. ......I'm in a Lexus now, although my wife still has an old SL. I like the Lexus and it has been quite trouble free, but I still miss my E.
My mom bought a 1988 300E in 1991 or 92 w/20k miles. She still has the car, with the original, non-rebuilt engine and transmission today, with ~305k miles (odometer stopped right after 300k). It's been an excellent, mostly reliable car, and still feels 'tight' today. Granted, most of those miles are highway, and the car has not been without problems; the a/c has been redone (don't know if condenser, compressor or what) at least twice ($2k+ per episode), the power seat and roof motors have failed at some point and were repaired, and the aforementioned odo ($500 to fix). I'm sure there's lots more. Anyway, that era seems to have been pretty good for M-B, it doesn't sound like they've kept their quality standards up in the last ten years or so.
I have an '85 380SE that I bought in '91 with 70K on it. It now has 230K+ and you couldn't kill it with a cannon. The A/C compressor went out at about 200K, but that's about it. Maybe MB lost something in the last decade.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
Benzes in the 80s (vs. other cars vs. today) were frightfully expensive. My mom's 88 300E was about $45k new, whereas an E320 today starts at a bit less than $50k. It's like having almost no inflation. I think this was mainly due to the elevated deutsch mark, though maybe Bill has a point. After all, Mercedes didn't have half the competition in the 80s that it has today, so their high prices were gladly paid by people who could afford them.
Another question: anyone know much about 80s-early 90s BMWs? I was toying with the idea of a 325e/i or maybe a 528e for a cheap used car. Is this a bad idea?
It's almost winter, which generally means lower prices for convertibles or other 'Summer' vehicles. For a 74 450SL, condition is everything. One in bad shape could be as low as $5k, but *really* nice ones can be.......I dunno, maybe $14k? If you're buying, I'd definitely have it looked over by a mechanic. Check carefully for body work and/or rust also.
The host here can probably help out a lot more on this one.......
The asking price is 7,500. I will look tomorrow for ny signs of problems and I agree it must be looked at by MB mechanic. Any thoughts on items to be sure to look for?
I had a friend who had one of these around 1994. He claimed it was the fastest 4 door sedan in the world at that time. What is the story on this vehicle and what was the list price? How are they on the used market and how are they in general as used vehicles(maintenance, reliability, etc)? I don't see too many of them but on occasion I do see the 300E ( Is the E first or after the number? ). Any advice?
300E body but flared wheel wells to accommodate larger wheels; also, battery is in trunk to accommodate shoehorned engine; I think it had a Porsche-built engine, though the specs are similar to U.S. M-B S500 engine (5.0 liters, 322 hp), so I'm not sure; a total of 10479 were built for all world markets, from 1991-95; they were only sold in the U.S. in 92-94 model years (called 500E except 1994 model year, then called E500). Their U.S. list price was $79,200 in 92 and $80,800 in 1994. Used prices seem to be all over the place; I checked AutoTrader.com, they were as cheap as $25k and as high as $55k (for a 92, the seller is fantasizing). I would imagine body and engine parts aren't too easy or cheap to come by, because they are unique to this model, and had low production figures.
no, good job ghulet, I don't think there is much I can add. I'd probably go for the 500SE...it's a bit slower but still mighty quick and has the 140 body rather than the 500E's 124 body
450SL---well, again, 160,000 miles is a hell of a lot of miles, so you want to hammer hard on the price, even if the inspection turns out well. The price of $7,500 is a realistic starting price however. I'd suggest a mandatory cylinder leakdown test and also dropping the transmission pan and seeing what's up. Having to overhaul either the engine or trans will bury you in the car financially.
Wife's mother's car 71 original owner, in great shape after some mechanical work over the last few months, exterior was nice to start. In an area where there are lots of old rides to look at and have now had 4 owner's of 230's and 250's stop to chat and say, 'wish I had one of those'. All were very nice looking and sounded like they were in good running order and when complimented on their ride, they each went back to, 'thanks, but it's not a 280'. Not cheap to keep but the local MB dealer specialist on older cars sent my wife to an internet site for less expensive original replacement parts which he is then happy to install, cuts the costs a little. Something to try if you haven't already. Still suprised how quick it is, have to be careful on corners not to stay in it through 1st or get a chirp into 2nd, but it does rev on the freeway in 4th, about 4000 rpm at 70. Great fun for a nice weekend local drive.
Yes, they put a differential gearset in the 280SL that favored acceleration over highway speeds...the cars can be annoying at 70 mph. Some Euro models have the rare 5-speed, which I haven't driven, but I think the 5th gear was an overdrive. That would make the car a lot nicer and certainly more valuable.
I think I'd probably pick the bigger car, they're certainly cheaper used than a 500E, and parts and repairs are probably a bit less. OTOH, 500SELs are really large, probably a bigger car than most people want or need. The 300E/400E/500E body is a nice, handy size.
If we ever get around to needing a trans, it is something to keep in mind. I know the wife plans to pass it along as well so the kid better get pretty set in the next few decades.
The 500E/E500 is one of the legendary big blocck Benzs, heir to the 300SEL 6.3 and the 450SEL 6.9. However, instead of having the large heavy S-class body, the 322HP/354 ft/lb V-8 was put into the midsize E class body, producing exceptional acceleration, esp. at highway speeds, even by today's supercar standards.
The car was built as '92 - '94 models as a joint Mercedes-Porsche project (with Porsche input primarily on the suspension), being trucked back and forth between the MB and Porsche factories. For specs see:
http://www.mbusa.com/ and go to the model years under Starmark for the '94 E class to the 500E.
There is a large and very knowledgeable 500E enthusiast group under the "Hotrods" forum on this board:
Well, I hope the 500E inherited only the good points from the 300SEL 6.3 and 6.9 and not all the problems of those cars. Those are two older Benzes you want to stay away from unless you find the exceptional car at the exceptional price.
I've owned a 1992 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.6. I really love the car; it is in immaculate condition and no mechanical problems exist. The leather even seems new. But do you know how long I could expect a transmission to last on a car of this vintage, and also I am sort of concerned the A/C will break. Does anyone know how much it costs to get a new one?
A new a/c compressor would be about $350-400 if that's the part that breaks.
the Benz transmission should last a long long time if you service it regularly and drive diligently (no towing or spinning the tires excessively in snow). My 80 Benz transmission has over 200K on it.
My mom has an 88 300E with about 310k miles. The transmission has never been replaced.
The a/c, however, has been a different story. I don't know exactly what she's had replaced, but I know it's been fixed at least twice (probably compressor or evaporator, maybe condenser). She said it cost like $2k to fix. Drag.
I guess it's fairly likely MB made changes/improvements to the a/c system between 88 and 92, but these seem to be a frequent problem for older Mercedes.
Does anyone have any comments on the 2.6 engine found in the 190E and the 260E? (I have the 190 - it's not very fast, but passes very well and can keep up with most modern compact cars)
The 3.0 in the 300E and the 2.6 in the 260E/190E 2.6 are derivatives of the same engine. It seems as durable as any other Benz six-cylinder of the era. I've never driven the 2.6. The 3.0 is great, if you can deal with/get around the automatic trans that starts in second gear.
What do you make of the 1982-88 BMW 528e? Is it a good overall performer? An old friend of ours sold his '85 for $1000 in '97 with 141k miles on it. Reason being? "The engine was chugging badly." Since when does an engine chug, let alone a BMW unit?
No, the "e" stands for "eta" which stands for I'm not sure, but it is a real slug of a performer. The engine was tuned down for emissions and economy and really is a disappointment to drive. I can imagine it chugging, no problem!
The car to buy is the 528i. I wouldn't have a 528e for more than $1,000 myself. It's as slow as a non-turbo diesel. But the "i" has a good heart. How much difference in HP between the two? About 121 HP for the e and about 170 for the i. You can imagine 121 hp in a big heavy car like that.
Its' a High-Torque, Low-Rev engine. Redline on a 528e is around 4800rpms. At 5,500rpms you start damaging valve springs!
The ones with the 4HP22 ZF Automatics are dogs, taking nearly 13 seconds to do 0-60. The 5-speeds arent too bad (0-60 in just under 10 secs.. not too bad for 121hp in 1982)
Now, you CAN make that motor fly... Swap a 325i head on it..etc..
Good:
A 5-speed with the cruise on 70-mph on flat land will average closer to 30-35mpg on 87 octane unleaded. 170 lb/ft of torque. With proper care, the low-rev engine also lasts a VERY long time.
Bad:
Timing belt every 60K, always "running out of revs" as soon as the engine stats coming alive, you have to upshift. Suggestion:
Find a 533i 5-speed. A real stormer, just ditch the 390mm wheels or go to Avon CR28s and ditch those crappy TRXs.
Just took a look at an '86 Audi 5000 S for the fun of it about an hour ago. The gentleman was asking $650 for it, but I know much better than to buy a decrepit car like that. The vehicle had 140k miles on it, was an automatic, and had a rust-free body. The mechanicals, however, were a different story. The power windows and locks were not functioning, electronic climate control did not work at all, turn signals flashed very rapidly, engine idled very rough and died a bit, and most electrical stuff was just plain trash.
Most any Audi made between 1970 and 1994 wasn't much of a car. I'd advise prospective buyers to stay away from these older Audis if they can; I personally have never had good luck with them, whether riding in them or driving them.
Oh, I have been there, done that. The climate control defect is a control module behind the dash that will set you back around $350. The window switches are all bad and maybe a motor or two. Probably there's an issue in the fuse box, and also some bad grounding of the entire system. Rough engine probably the lifters, which aerate pretty badly on that engine. Figure $2,000 to put it in good running order, and then we can work on the body!
The criticsm of this car seems typical of the seemingly overcritical views of various European cars on this board. Sure,it might be slow by today's standard,but BWM's research did,I believe,come up with the "deep acceleration,early upshift"technque.At least before then the auto mags never mentioned this. In all the road tests of the eta back then space was devoted to this. Moreover,a base 5series is now $36,000,so I would think any fairly cherry 5,even an eta,would have more than minimal value.It would still be a tight car with a quality interior. So to dismiss it as a $1,000 beater seems wrong.It seems facile to just say"go for the 533".Of course that is a far more desireable(and expensive)BMW. But a 525e in really fine shape,with manual shift,would make a fun weekend car to tootle around town in. Similarly,why are all old Audis getting a beating? Sure,the LS100,with things like its hard to repair inboard rear brakes is teoublesome. But the Fox? What did this car ever do to anyone? The press at the time was usually positive of them.They had a trim pleasingness to them. I don't think every old car from Europe has to be a Ferrari Lusso to command some respect. I'd much rather have a Fox thah a Grenada!
You'd have to drive a 528e to see the problem. It's a real chore.My main gripe is that it violates the very principles of the BMW company. Is this a "driving machine"? Uh-uh. The 320i is another on my black list.
I have nothing against the Fox at all.
The Audis, especially the 5000s, were just murderous to their owners. The car deserves little praise from a practical point of view despite a valiant attempt at innovative design. Its merits are academic, not "real world" IMO.
There was that Car & Driver(?) long-term A4 that lost its AWD just short of the 50k warranty. That's the sort of thing that makes you think twice about buying any newer car out of warranty.
On the other hand I drove an A4 1.8T briefly and was impressed with how refined and well put together the car seemed to be. There was strong demand for this car almost to the end of its long run--I didn't see incentives (rebates, subsidized leases) on the car until just recently and that's remarkable.
What's your opinion on the very early VW Jettas (i.e. 1980-82)? I do not see many of these cars still running around and being driven, with the exception of an eccentric old man in town who has an '80 two-door with 240k on it. These first Jettas weren't all that reliable, right?
I used to call cars like this "driveable nuisances". Not terrible cars, but nickel and dimers. I think if you found a really nice one and kept on top of it, it could be an okay car. Some cars are hopeless, but I don't think early Jettas would be that bad. Problem is, by this time, most of the survivors are beaters, so it's hard to know what the car was like when new anymore. Who would be crazy enough to restore one and find out?
I don't know if the Jettas fared as badly, but I had an 83 GTI (same platform) that had virtually no floor in the back. You couldn't really tell how bad the rust was til it rained, then suddenly there was four inches of water on the rear floor. The rust on early GTIs (and I would assume Rabbits and Jettas) also caused erosion of the shock or strut braces, causing a bouncy and erratic ride.
I think you'd have to be nuts to restore a Jetta I, they're not worth any money in great shape (MAYBE $3k if peeerrrrrfect).
I believe it about depreciation versus repair bills. Over the years I've learned the hard way that when it comes to cars there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Maybe the closest thing to a free lunch would be a subsidized lease, where the manufacturer sets an artificially high residual, but usually these leases are only offered with cars that aren't competitive in their list price range. It's a deal but not really--you pay less but you get less car.
Comments
As far as popularity speaking loudest,this might be another case of "I want the biggest" And that is often not the best way to judge a car.
The V8 SLs, however, have a different price structure, which is the same as any used car. The older it is, the less it is worth, the newer, the more it is worth. This is exactly opposite of how a collectible car's value tiers work. So in the case of the V8 SLs, the older V8 SLs cars are a better deal since they look similar to the 560SL but for half the money or less. The 560SL is a lot better car, however.
But, contrary to Mr Shiftright, at least in San Diego, I'd expect to pay at least $10K for a really nice, low mileage car with few defects or signs of age, good compression and seals, etc. And I think the price difference would be money well spent.
The other point is that most people are unlikely to purchase a collectable and then use it as a daily driver.
The appeal of the SL V8s, that is, look rich for cheap, is offset by a very real fear of the expenses involved in fixing one. This is what keeps the price down, in fact, that many buyers are reluctant to take this risk. Just the engine alone is the price of the entire car. A professional rebuild on a 560SL engine will cost you $15,000.
What this means is that if you buy a $10K SL, and something terrible happens, you have to face the prospect of discarding the car entirely.
Nah, I don't think even a conversion to an American V8 would be economical. That's a hell of a lot of work.
What's a boy to do? Well, unless the SL is thoroughly tested with cylinder leakdown and unless service records are good, I'd run from any cheal SL I saw at auction or on Ebay, especially if it's in any way shabby. A cheap SL is the most expensive car you'll ever buy.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
I have a saying, and I think that it pertains wells to the W123..W126...etc body cars.
"These were made back when the Engineeres at Mercedes-Benz designed the cars and all the accountants did was figure out how much to charge for them"
There's a reason that the employees atthe local MB dealer own a LOT of old 300Es and 560/420/300SELs...
Bill
Another question: anyone know much about 80s-early 90s BMWs? I was toying with the idea of a 325e/i or maybe a 528e for a cheap used car. Is this a bad idea?
The host here can probably help out a lot more on this one.......
300E body but flared wheel wells to accommodate larger wheels; also, battery is in trunk to accommodate shoehorned engine;
I think it had a Porsche-built engine, though the specs are similar to U.S. M-B S500 engine (5.0 liters, 322 hp), so I'm not sure;
a total of 10479 were built for all world markets, from 1991-95; they were only sold in the U.S. in 92-94 model years (called 500E except 1994 model year, then called E500). Their U.S. list price was $79,200 in 92 and $80,800 in 1994. Used prices seem to be all over the place; I checked AutoTrader.com, they were as cheap as $25k and as high as $55k (for a 92, the seller is fantasizing). I would imagine body and engine parts aren't too easy or cheap to come by, because they are unique to this model, and had low production figures.
Shift, please add anything I missed.
450SL---well, again, 160,000 miles is a hell of a lot of miles, so you want to hammer hard on the price, even if the inspection turns out well. The price of $7,500 is a realistic starting price however. I'd suggest a mandatory cylinder leakdown test and also dropping the transmission pan and seeing what's up. Having to overhaul either the engine or trans will bury you in the car financially.
The car was built as '92 - '94 models as a joint Mercedes-Porsche project (with Porsche input primarily on the suspension), being trucked back and forth between the MB and Porsche factories. For specs see:
http://www.mbusa.com/ and go to the model years under Starmark for the '94 E class to the 500E.
There is a large and very knowledgeable 500E enthusiast group under the "Hotrods" forum on this board:
http://www.mercedesshop.com/11
All in all, an exceptional car to own for luxury and performance -- the modern equivalent is the E55 AMG.
I've owned a 1992 Mercedes Benz 190E 2.6. I really love the car; it is in immaculate condition and no mechanical problems exist. The leather even seems new. But do you know how long I could expect a transmission to last on a car of this vintage, and also I am sort of concerned the A/C will break. Does anyone know how much it costs to get a new one?
Thanks
the Benz transmission should last a long long time if you service it regularly and drive diligently (no towing or spinning the tires excessively in snow). My 80 Benz transmission has over 200K on it.
The a/c, however, has been a different story. I don't know exactly what she's had replaced, but I know it's been fixed at least twice (probably compressor or evaporator, maybe condenser). She said it cost like $2k to fix. Drag.
I guess it's fairly likely MB made changes/improvements to the a/c system between 88 and 92, but these seem to be a frequent problem for older Mercedes.
German A/C----let's just face it. German a/c from the 1980s stinks. Okay, I said it, Now you know.
The car to buy is the 528i. I wouldn't have a 528e for more than $1,000 myself. It's as slow as a non-turbo diesel. But the "i" has a good heart. How much difference in HP between the two? About 121 HP for the e and about 170 for the i. You can imagine 121 hp in a big heavy car like that.
Its' a High-Torque, Low-Rev engine. Redline on a 528e is around 4800rpms. At 5,500rpms you start damaging valve springs!
The ones with the 4HP22 ZF Automatics are dogs, taking nearly 13 seconds to do 0-60. The 5-speeds arent too bad (0-60 in just under 10 secs.. not too bad for 121hp in 1982)
Now, you CAN make that motor fly... Swap a 325i head on it..etc..
Good:
A 5-speed with the cruise on 70-mph on flat land will average closer to 30-35mpg on 87 octane unleaded. 170 lb/ft of torque. With proper care, the low-rev engine also lasts a VERY long time.
Bad:
Timing belt every 60K, always "running out of revs" as soon as the engine stats coming alive, you have to upshift.
Suggestion:
Find a 533i 5-speed. A real stormer, just ditch the 390mm wheels or go to Avon CR28s and ditch those crappy TRXs.
Bill
So I'd be more apt to go with a 528i or 535i than try to get anything out of the 528e.
I'd also worry about cylinder head cracking on any of the old 6 cylinder cars.
Rough engine probably the lifters, which aerate pretty badly on that engine. Figure $2,000 to put it in good running order, and then we can work on the body!
Moreover,a base 5series is now $36,000,so I would think any fairly cherry 5,even an eta,would have more than minimal value.It would still be a tight car with a quality interior. So to dismiss it as a $1,000 beater seems wrong.It seems facile to just say"go for the 533".Of course that is a far more desireable(and expensive)BMW. But a 525e in really fine shape,with manual shift,would make a fun weekend car to tootle around town in.
Similarly,why are all old Audis getting a beating? Sure,the LS100,with things like its hard to repair inboard rear brakes is teoublesome. But the Fox? What did this car ever do to anyone? The press at the time was usually positive of them.They had a trim pleasingness to them.
I don't think every old car from Europe has to be a Ferrari Lusso to command some respect. I'd much rather have a Fox thah a Grenada!
I have nothing against the Fox at all.
The Audis, especially the 5000s, were just murderous to their owners. The car deserves little praise from a practical point of view despite a valiant attempt at innovative design. Its merits are academic, not "real world" IMO.
On the other hand I drove an A4 1.8T briefly and was impressed with how refined and well put together the car seemed to be. There was strong demand for this car almost to the end of its long run--I didn't see incentives (rebates, subsidized leases) on the car until just recently and that's remarkable.
1) Owner wants a car (especially fearsome cars, big BMW, big Audi) under warranty because of prospective repair bills....
2) Owner buys car new to get warranty
3) Owner sells car near end of warranty, which happens to be only 1/3 of the way or so thru the car's lifespan
4) Selling/trade-in price of car is low since no one wants to buy a potential bundle of troubles.
5) Owner gets nailed with outrageous depreciation rather than outrageous repair bills.
I think if you found a really nice one and kept on top of it, it could be an okay car. Some cars are hopeless, but I don't think early Jettas would be that bad. Problem is, by this time, most of the survivors are beaters, so it's hard to know what the car was like when new anymore. Who would be crazy enough to restore one and find out?
I think you'd have to be nuts to restore a Jetta I, they're not worth any money in great shape (MAYBE $3k if peeerrrrrfect).
Maybe the closest thing to a free lunch would be a subsidized lease, where the manufacturer sets an artificially high residual, but usually these leases are only offered with cars that aren't competitive in their list price range. It's a deal but not really--you pay less but you get less car.
Shoot! I just sold a PERFECT 528e for $2,950!
Bill