2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG Long-Term Road Test | Wrap-Up

Edmunds.com

2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG Long-Term Road Test | Wrap-Up

Our Long-Term Test of the 2005 Mercedes-Benz CL65 AMG is complete. New, it cost $180,000. Used, ours cost $34,000. Now we know why.

Read the full story here

marcos9

Great long term test! It really drives home the point that maintenance costs do not depreciate. And anyone who has done research on the S and CLs know that active body control repairs are pricey.

darthbimmer

So, the car had a "run rate" of a little over $2,000/month for depreciation and repairs.I'm not How does that compare to the monthly leasing cost of a comparable car, new? (Not to mention, a new car likely would not suffer a whopping 7 breakdowns stranding the driver in the first 12 months.)

mcesarey

I just went to the payment calculator on MB's website, and you can do a 30-mth lease on a new CLS 63 AMG for just under $1700/mo...so this car cost about $300/mo MORE than that. Ha! It's a great experiment, though, and it's perfect for those of us pouring through eBay looking at "affordable" used luxury vehicles. Thanks for the test!

ses184

Did you have any indication of the car's previous service history before purchase? Did it sit unattended for a year or two? I'm just curious if your year of ownership and maintenance costs were somewhat "catchup costs" to get the car back to being roadworthy or if the hits would have just kept coming into year two. Maybe the new owner could follow up on his or her experience with it over the next year!

drerx8

Sounds about right - had my 2003 SL500 not had extended warranty...which covered about 70% of the expense I incurred...it would have bankrupt me. I was disposing of my receipts and they mirrored this maintenance list...especially that horrid ABC system. When the warranty was up I went 997 S.

s197gt

one of the more interesting long-term cars and shows how important it is to do your research before buying a used luxury car. now it's time for edmund's to find an out of warranty range rover to buy...

markinnaples_

ses184, excellent question. That might be the reason for the delayed repairs. I wonder if a higher mileage example would have had less maintenance and repair costs.

adantium

Now that's what I call a Lemon. Pretty much anyone who buys a Merc is crazy. Their parts are all designed to fail right after the warranty is up. First they sell it for $180 000 then they make another $180 000 in parts and labour when its out of warranty. I'm guessing a C class sells for $50 000 then you have to pay $50 000 in parts replacement to keep it running. They do give you a lot for the money when new. Especially the new S class so it could just be their business model to keep profitable. I do wonder how all those E class Taxi's in Europe don't go bust but my guess would be they come with much less tech as a base car in the Motherland.

scottnsc2

I'm conducting a similar experiment with a 1995 Volvo 940 wagon. I bought it to keep some miles off of my BMW 3-series, and I wanted something I could put the dogs in and drive around without worrying about them scratching my seats. Paid $2200 last June, had 6 flawless weeks until the spindle (?) that pulled the timing belt failed. This cost $450 to replace/repair. Went another few months, then in February the started failed. First quote was $380, which I declined, but their next quote was a more reasonable $175. I had really hoped that when my BMW lease ended I could drive this car 1 full year have no car payments, property taxes, etc. However, I just can't be comfortable that it will happen.

stpawyfrmdonut

I am starting to think a general rule is 10% cost per year for depreciation and maintenance/repair. So if this car cost $180k new then probably it will cost $18k per year for repair and depreciation as time goes on. I am thinking of buying a 2002 E55, $70k when new, so I assume it will cost me $7k/year for repair/ maintenance now since most depreciation is gone. Just at thought. Please keep buying and testing older BMW/Mercedes/Audi/Porsche since most enthusiasts think about buying these due to a low purchase price. Maybe buy a 2005 Audi S8 and see how this tests for 1 year. Adaptive air suspension.

mercedesfan

@adantium,

Okay, that is an absurd statement. MB's parts are designed to last hundreds of thousands of miles. However, because things like ABC are so sophisticated there is no real world data to design to. That means parts fail in ways that are completely unexpected to the engineers because real cars out in real people's hands stress vehicles in ways manufacturers can never predict. This CL65 was one of the very first cars to ever utilize ABC. Anyone buying a W220/C220 has to be aware that they are buying a science experiment. These days ABC is vastly more robust. You don't see the same failure modes on W221s and even less on W222s.

Furthermore, this kind of craziness is pretty much exclusive to MB's high-end models like the S/CL/SL. The C-Class and E-Class have extremely strong reliability records and really aren't very expensive to keep running at their best. This is because only MB's crazy electrical & electrohydraulic wizardry really causes regular and expensive problems. Their powertrains remain bullet proof even today.

zoomzoomn

Nice service record! LOL!!! Very typical of these German cars and the reason that most people simply can't afford to keep them. MONEY PITS!!!

meteor10

drove CL65. a car for people after 55. too boring even with too much power imho...

jakek66

It's kind of a false statement about this car being the pinnacle of 2005. This model may have been out in 2005 but the bodystyle was designed 10 years prior to that and was released in the late 90's. Really is closer to a 15 year old design.

benson2175

I'm glad Edmunds did this test and it has given MBs such a terrible reputation because this will keep the prices low. I've owned 2 used Benzes, an E class and a S class and they have been bullet proof but you guys are right these are terrible cars and you shouldn't buy one. Get a Corolla, I hear they're real reliable and decent.

cl65amgdriver

I had a 2005 CL65 for 2 years, bought it used at a fire sale price. It had 28k miles on it and had an album of service receipts. Thankfully I also picked up a zero deductible, bumper to bumper warranty from USAA for around $3,500. In the two years of ownership, the warranty company paid out over $38,000 in repairs. This was over a stretch of driving 30,000 miles. With a couple of exceptions, all of the repairs were mandatory and would have left the car undriveable if not addressed.
I also own a 2007 Corvette. Over 120,000 miles and not ONE major repair. I haven't even changed the plugs yet. I get 25k miles out of a set of tires, as opposed to 15k on the Benz, it doesn't burn any oil as opposed to a quart every 500 on the Benz and most importantly, there remains a strong market for the Vette.
Yes, I know the two are not apples to apples. But Jesus, the Vette cost $130,000 less when new. Give me a new Vette, let me spend just $100k in enhancements, or buy a new S class with the difference.
Shame on Mercedes. For a flag ship car, what a dismal failure.

stever

$38,000? You're way ahead of that CarMax Land Rover guy over on Jalopnik. Crazy.