Yep, I suscribe to about 5 or 6 different car magazines, and in at least one of them in the review of the Maybach mentioned that the Maybach sedans are built on an updated version of the W140 chassis, and that it had to be lengthened (obviously) and strengthened.

I think this is but another case that clearly shows the weakness of the W220 car and platform.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

Yes, it is standard with the 2003 E500 which I recently acquired. I am hoping that the Airmatic problems have been resolved!

__________________
Flash Gordon

2003 E500 BlackOpal/Charcoal

2004 Infiniti G35X

Wow I didn't know that the Maybach was built on the W140 platform. Interesting.

__________________
1985 500SEL 124k miles
2001 Honda Civic EX

Interesting that it shares the chasis of the 140...BUT I think those magazines that one of the listers read should also point out that it shares many of the features of the 220 also(electronics,switchgear etc).....so maybe the best of both worlds?


Warren
1992 300SD 158K
Columbus Ohio

Attached Thumbnails

 

I have said it a thousand times: the SWB Maybach is what the W220 should have been. Not the joke M.B. erupted from the production line, which it thinks have "updated" with the last facelift.

If you still doubt this theory, look at the Maybach from the back and look at the rear tail lights. A clear and logical evolution from the 1998/9 W140 rear lamp setup.

By the way, in all P.R. features and press releases Mercedes-Benz stresses the fact the new facelifted W220 "has better build quality and better plastics throughout the interior".

It is obvious that they are recognizing the fact that from the start the W220 suffered from a "cheap" interior and a non-MB standard of quality.

Just my opinion...

__________________
A. Rosich
CL 500, 1998
S 500 L, 1998
E 320 T, 1995 [Sadly sold ]

Did the Maybach spawn from the W140 because of deficiencies in the W220 series or because MB got started on the Maybach before the W220 was finalized?

My uninformed guess is that MB strengthened the W140 platform and called it the Maybach and lightened the W140 platform and called it the W220.

Sixto
91 300SE
87 300SDL
83 300SD

I assume that you all have spent some time driving the 220?..in my opinion a very nice driving car..VERY poised when driven through hurried situations..my driving experince was actually on a test track with cones and sharp curves where riduculous speeds were permitted...I will tell you that the 220 took turns and stopped in a manner that my 140 could never do(and of course the ESP was a big plus!!...gotta have that on the next vehicle

I agree the 220 has some cheaper materials inside...BUT it was the same price(sticker) as the 140 was 10 years before it

I think MB had to build a car to a price(for profit reasons..lol)
I think they seriously had to realize that for a mass produced model(like the 220) what price the desired market would bear..and then consider another vehicle for low volume market who are willing to pay up the huge bucks..... enter the Maybach

The 140's(believe it or not) were considered WAY overpriced by many...take a look at what some of the actual transaction prices of the cars when they were new and you will see that many people paid 10-12K off the sticker.I persoannly know of a friends parents who paid $78K for new $93K S500 in 1997

Even more look the used car market(especially for the S320) and see what a 97-98 vehicle is worth...the usual is about 35-40% of the sticker

that should say something about how the car is percieved and what people think its actually worth


Warren
1992 300SD
Columbus Ohio

Attached Thumbnails

 

All current MB's still have a lack of interior quality. I sat in a brand new W211 E500 and was very disappointed.

One of the car magazines this month reviewed the new VW Taureg, and also in the same issue reviewed mid-sized sedans, including the Passat, Mazda 6, Camry, Accord and Altima.

In both cases, the magazine marveled over the incredibly high quality of the interior of the VW's, and wondered how the lowly VW's can have notably higher quality interiors than any of the Mercedes.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

I think I have seen the same publication you were speaking of...a couple of things to consider here..the VW they were speaking about was the Passat...compare the price of the Passat to the newest C- Class....as for the VW Toureg,look at the price as compared to the newest ML350....

the magazine didn't say the VW interior was better than benz(benz wasn't part of the competition)..it was simply saying the VW 's have nice interiors period

Look at the prices of the VW's and MB's(the difference actually) and then form opinion on how much better one should be than the other

In the past 10 years VW's has moved their market upscale and the prices have followed..MB prices are where they were 10 years ago( they actually cost less if you factor in inflation)

Attached Thumbnails

 

Yeah, you're right - the V6 Passat with leather is right up there at the cost of a C240, but the interior quality is still much higher.

I've also read reviews on the Jetta and read heaps of praises on its interior, too, and how VW's materials are benchmarked by every other manufacturer, even Mercedes.

MB's have gone down considerably when you factor in the cost of inflation.

My 93 300E (3.2) had an invoice sticker price of $49,900. I could have bought a 2002 E320 for $46,000, and even close to $44,000 when they were blowing them out for the new W211's!

By just doing a down and dirty calculation, if you add 3% to $49,900 to adjust for inflation, and compound that inflation anually for 9 years, just to have the same price of my 1993, a 2002 E320 would have to sale for about $66,500!

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

yes and no.....

I think you are making the assumption that the 124's of the early 90's were bringing sticker...the one person who I knew well enough to tell me what he paid, bought a 1993 300D(sticker of 43K) brand new for $37
I think the markup(in the sticker) of cars during that period was VERY high so the dealers had tons of room to negociate..hence maybe the deep discounts of the cars defined what they were truly worth...if you recall a 560SEL of the early 90's was an 80K car..sticker wise anyway....I am very sure that realistically no one paid anywhere close to that..the actual transaction price was probably 10-15 less than sticker

NOW..update to present day...I don't think the dealer(or Mercedes) makes near the profit per unit that they made 10-15 years ago...they have cut their margins and used somewhat more economical materials...cars are actually cheaper than they were 10 years ago...

you get what you pay for?........my .002

Warren
1992 300SD 158K
Columbus Ohio

Attached Thumbnails

 

I think there is a small deviation on the real theme about this thread, which is the fact the the W220 is a platic toy compared to the real thing: the W140.

Everyone knows that the W140, when introduced and during its first 4 years of production was essentially a very expensive piece of over-engineered automobile. And that was the issue which forced Mercedes into making the facelifted W140 into an easier and cheaper car to build. Although, the mistake had already been made and the overbudgeted W140 always represented a nightmare for M.B. finances.

And that is WHY the W140 is such a great car for its owners. Money was no object when it was designed, and it really shows. On the other hand, the W220 had to be cheap to manufacture, and cheap on sticker, so it would not scare potential owners like the W140 did at first.

And that is WHY the W220 is such a looser for its owners. Cheap from its conception, cheap during its assembly, cheap to buy, and cheap to own.

You don't need to drive a W220 three months to find it out. A week is more than enough. Some people even can spot it during a one-hour drive. Others simply by looking at both cars side by side can tell the difference.

I am sorry for the actual and potential W220 owners, I really do not want to offend their egos, but it is simple arithmetic (like 2+2=4): W140 > W220.

__________________
A. Rosich
CL 500, 1998
S 500 L, 1998
E 320 T, 1995 [Sadly sold ]

I dont know why Mercedes used the W140 chassis for the Maybah, but I do know why they made it. Mercedes' biggest two competitors just each bought a SUPER luxury brand. VW got Bentely, and BMW got Rolls Royce. Mercedes could not sit back and let them take that entire market to themselves. So...without too much extra thought, Mercedes jumped into the archives and pulled out the sstrongest thing they had.....The W140 chassis. Make since? And, now Mercedes has another dillema on its hands. BMW has Mini, and VW has...VW. The econobox wars! lol

__________________
"If I teach you half of what I forgot, you'll still have enough to compete with most people"

Man, I agree with your comments 100%. Couldn't have said it better myself.

__________________
Paul S.

2001 E430, Bourdeaux Red, Oyster interior.
79,200 miles.

1973 280SE 4.5, 170,000 miles. 568 Signal Red, Black MB Tex. "The Red Baron".

and the expense continued in its cost to repair and pull out the bugs that MB didn't engineer out of the car before production

ie..instrument clusters shorting out,AC evap cores,closing assist pumps,window regulators..steering shimmy..class action suits..etc..etc

...and more realible



Warren
1992 300SD 158K
Columbus Ohio

Attached Thumbnails