Is there a way to find out what these cars sold for when they were new? - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

nhdoc · #16 03-19-2008, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobybul

on the ave, the 300Ds ran bet $30-35K and the SDs where high $30s-low $40s.

Yes, this is my recollection too. As someone who actually has owned and driven them since the 70's I have a decent idea of the range of original costs of the cars.

coolerelmo · #17 03-19-2008, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-townbenzoboy

I have a copy of an ad for a 240D from 1983 that states the 240D cost in the whereabouts of $20,000. That's close to $42,500 in today's money. The 1983 240D was the equivalent of today's base C-class, so the equivalent base US spec MB today starts off at $32,425, nearly $10k less than the adjusted for 2008 price of the 1983. So, does that mean the 1983 240D was built better and to higher standards than the 2008 C300 because it cost $10k more? Or am I starting trouble between the owners of classics and current models?

The up to the 90's MB are built a 100% better than todays MB. Steel versus plastic

. I wonder who wins?

2.5Turbo · #18 03-19-2008, 02:24 PM

Purchase paperwork in the glove box says my relatively base (for the US anyway) '90 124 was about $42,000.

nhdoc · #19 03-19-2008, 03:00 PM

When you watch a show like "How its made" you can clearly see why you can have a better car today for less money (in constant dollar terms) than you could 20-30 years ago.

When robots machine parts they are practically perfect and identical and you aren't paying $20,000 a year in health insurance premiums to cover the robot's family.

It's amazing that nobody remembers the days when cars consumed oil from when they were new. Today, you can easily drive a car 100,000 miles and service it every 10K or so and never add a drop of oil to it...why? Because oils are better and the engines are made from superior materials and machined to much tighter tolerances than any person could have done in the 1970s.

The "good old days" were OK, but frankly, today's engines, transmissions and drivetrains are better than what was made back then. And they are cheaper too, in constant dollars because of automation, not because they aren't made as well. Automation is why the cars are cheaper today than they were back then.

coolerelmo · #20 03-19-2008, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

When you watch a show like "How its made" you can clearly see why you can have a better car today for less money (in constant dollar terms) than you could 20-30 years ago.

When robots machine parts they are practically perfect and identical and you aren't paying $20,000 a year in health insurance premiums to cover the robot's family.

It's amazing that nobody remembers the days when cars consumed oil from when they were new. Today, you can easily drive a car 100,000 miles and service it every 10K or so and never add a drop of oil to it...why? Because oils are better and the engines are made from superior materials and machined to much tighter tolerances than any person could have done in the 1970s.

The "good old days" were OK, but frankly, today's engines, transmissions and drivetrains are better than what was made back then. And they are cheaper too, in constant dollars because of automation, not because they aren't made as well. Automation is why the cars are cheaper today than they were back then.

The only problem with the robots, is that robots put "us" out of work. Would you like a robot to take over your job?

In todays car market everything is made cheaper, and it cost allot more. My 1981 240D has over one hundred thousand miles on it, everything is very simple , there are no computers, airbags,side airbags. In todays cars you got all these computers and airbags to protect you.

speace · #21 03-19-2008, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

I vaguely remember a friend who bought a (240D?) Mercedes back in 1972 or 1973. I think she said he paid $7,000 for it. That was a lot of money back then. The car was new.

1974 was the first year for the 240D. I bought mine new for $9,999.00
We drove it for 20 years and was allowed $2,000.00 in trade for the 87 300E.

On the other hand, I have the window sticker from my 92 500SL showing it was $99,500.00 - Glad I didn't buy that one new!

coolerelmo · #22 03-19-2008, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speace

1974 was the first year for the 240D. I bought mine new for $9,999.00
We drove it for 20 years and was allowed $2,000.00 in trade for the 87 300E.

On the other hand, I have the window sticker from my 92 500SL showing it was $99,500.00 - Glad I didn't buy that one new!

Back in 70's did MB ever have a 8-track option. Every MB I have owned never had anything but a radio or tape player.

#23 03-19-2008, 04:05 PM

Look on your registration card.

AdvisorGuy · #24 03-19-2008, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

When you watch a show like "How its made" you can clearly see why you can have a better car today for less money (in constant dollar terms) than you could 20-30 years ago.

When robots machine parts they are practically perfect and identical and you aren't paying $20,000 a year in health insurance premiums to cover the robot's family.

It's amazing that nobody remembers the days when cars consumed oil from when they were new. Today, you can easily drive a car 100,000 miles and service it every 10K or so and never add a drop of oil to it...why? Because oils are better and the engines are made from superior materials and machined to much tighter tolerances than any person could have done in the 1970s.

The "good old days" were OK, but frankly, today's engines, transmissions and drivetrains are better than what was made back then. And they are cheaper too, in constant dollars because of automation, not because they aren't made as well. Automation is why the cars are cheaper today than they were back then.

Drove my 86 Jetta like I stole it for 225,000 miles. Didn't burn a drop of oil. Ask me how many newer Benz' and Audi's I see needing oil every 3-4,000 miles. Some are great. Others on the other hand........

Dee8go · #25 03-19-2008, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by speace

1974 was the first year for the 240D. I bought mine new for $9,999.00 . . . .

I don't know what the model was, but that was the year. What would the predecessor to the 240D have been?

zeke · #26 03-19-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H-townbenzoboy

I have a copy of an ad for a 240D from 1983 that states the 240D cost in the whereabouts of $20,000. That's close to $42,500 in today's money. The 1983 240D was the equivalent of today's base C-class, so the equivalent base US spec MB today starts off at $32,425, nearly $10k less than the adjusted for 2008 price of the 1983. So, does that mean the 1983 240D was built better and to higher standards than the 2008 C300 because it cost $10k more? Or am I starting trouble between the owners of classics and current models?

I thought w123s are equivalent to the E-class and C class was derived from the 190?

#27 03-19-2008, 04:46 PM

The window sticker for my '82 300D is $31K and change.

rocky raccoon · #28 03-19-2008, 06:42 PM

$64200.00. Reference www.oursl.com. Strange but true.

Hatterasguy · #29 03-19-2008, 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nhdoc

When you watch a show like "How its made" you can clearly see why you can have a better car today for less money (in constant dollar terms) than you could 20-30 years ago.

When robots machine parts they are practically perfect and identical and you aren't paying $20,000 a year in health insurance premiums to cover the robot's family.

It's amazing that nobody remembers the days when cars consumed oil from when they were new. Today, you can easily drive a car 100,000 miles and service it every 10K or so and never add a drop of oil to it...why? Because oils are better and the engines are made from superior materials and machined to much tighter tolerances than any person could have done in the 1970s.

The "good old days" were OK, but frankly, today's engines, transmissions and drivetrains are better than what was made back then. And they are cheaper too, in constant dollars because of automation, not because they aren't made as well. Automation is why the cars are cheaper today than they were back then.

Yep, its amazing how little work new cars need. My moms new Rav4 doesn't call for anything other than a few air filter changes until 100k miles, and even then all you have to do is the spark plugs and fuel filter. The new engines burn so clean the oil stays perfectly clear, and you can probably get away with never changing the spark plugs. I bet you can go 200k+ miles on the original plugs and not notice a difference. In another 10 years you probably will never have to change them.

babymog · #30 03-19-2008, 07:28 PM

Window sticker on my '87 300D: $43,125. My '91 300TE 4matic was a tick over $74,000 new, the most optioned Eclass my dealer had ever sold. Later when the 4matic was re-designed and re-introduced in (I believe) '97, the sticker was again around $74,000. I didn't like the new 4matic system so I didn't trade, in fact I sold the car shortly after as it had become problematic.

The big change is that Mercedes-Benz was through the early '80s run by Engineers, and through the mid-'90s the vehicles were priced using a "cost-plus-margin" formula. The Engineers designed and built what they felt the car should be, then they calculated the cost to build it, added a margin for profit, that was the sticker price. In the late '90s the current management decided to price and design the cars based on what the Marketing department felt would sell, which adjusted the prices significantly downward (along with the designs IMO).