MB V-12's and depreciation - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

73MB280SEL · #1 06-21-2003, 06:41 AM

Howdy,

There seems to be quite a few V-12 powered MB's that are for sale for REALLY LOW prices relative to their list. And these are in super-low mileage cars. What's up with that? Man, these things depreciate worse than my '96 Camaro did (which I thought had to be some kind of record).

Are the V-12's just not good engines? What maintenance items would be that different from the "run of the mill" V-8 versions of the cars?

Enlighten me on everything MB V-12.

Sholin

#2 06-21-2003, 08:05 AM

I think the high repair costs are really what pulls the resale down on the 600's. But then again if you figure you paid 120k for an S600 new you drive off the lot and there goes around 40k off the value. Keep it for a few years and it keeps going down. Also I've noticed in Texas and FL all the v12's seem so much cheaper it's the same way with the 750il. But I'm sure if you took one to Nebraska it would be a diffrent story because of the fact there are not as many flagship models there

Just my 2 cents

73MB280SEL · #3 06-21-2003, 08:37 AM

Yeah, I hear what you say about high maintenance costs. I did a search and found that the leak oil like crazy and to fix the leaks you've got to about extract the engine. (Refer to posts by Dr. Diesel-an MB tech in Seattle).

Here's my problem: Why should any car 2 years old and < 100k need ANY maintenance, expensive or not. Even though the Z-28 depreciated like mad, it required relatively little maintenance. Until things get old (10-ish years) or worn out (> 120k mi), shouldn't about any car be pretty maintenance free.

My point is this. Here's a S600 that is the seller wants only $21k for:

ebay s600

That's Ford Taurus money. Heck I could part the car out and easily make $21k.

And look at that interior. Man, you S class guys are livin' large. Heck, I could extract the engine when I'm done and transplant into the '73.

Not that I'm going to do it. A search easily proved that even new low mileage ones can have alot of maintenance issues. But shouldn't MB be REALLY ASHAMED about that? Really, we've got to start expecting cars to be relatively maintenance and defect free WHILE THEY ARE NEW.

Sholin

420SEL · #4 06-21-2003, 11:12 AM

Most likely has nothing to do with repair costs at all. These cars would have been bought at the tail end of the market boom when stock options were plentiful and an even higher payout was just around the corner. People bought beyond their means and now are either out of work or the options are worthless and bonuses are nowhere in sight. Add that to the fact that the 2004 S600 is coming out in a few months and you have a powerful combination working to increase supply and lower demand. Prices will naturally fall. Untill just a few years ago the S600s held their value like nobody's business. A two or three years ago S600s went for no less than 10% less than a new one (in Toronto at least).

73MB280SEL · #5 06-21-2003, 02:59 PM

That's what I remember about the 560 series. The 560SL's were always the highest price, most depreciation resistant of the R107's. So were the 560SEL's.

Along that same line of thought, the 600 series V-12's of today aren't bought so much by the wealthy MB enthusiasts amongst us, but by rap stars and actors and sports figures. For them, it's only a fad and it's only useful until the updated Hummer comes in. Hummer or MB S600--equivalent--so once they are done with it, just dump the car and move on. In the mean time, the car (1) either didn't get driven much or (2) abused.

Just speculation here--I've never even seen an S600 that I've noticed.

Gilly · #6 06-21-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

My point is this. Here's a S600 that is the seller wants only $21k for:

Look again. It's had 33 bids as of this writing, and is up to $40,100.

Gilly

420SEL · #7 06-21-2003, 05:43 PM

If this is the car you are looking at

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6336&item=2420281070

there is a buy it now option of about $75k US. There is also a reserve price which has not been met below which the car will not sell. Obviously this guy did not plan on selling it for 21k

#8 06-21-2003, 05:56 PM

it's also a not a 6.0 it's a 5.8 everyone thinks that for some reason.
does the W220 hold the value like the w140?

blackmercedes · #9 06-21-2003, 06:47 PM

BMW wrecked it for V-12 sedan owners. The 88-89 750iL cars are such expensive beasts to repair and maintain that they usually sell for less than a 5-series or 735iL from the same year.

Jaguar sold V-12 cars that also emptied wallets faster a WorldCom CEO can deplete a company treasury.

V-12 Mercedes cars can be VERY expensive when it comes to major repairs thanks to complexity and hard to reach work areas. But, they are generally well made and not much more of a headache to own compared to their V-8 siblings.

This situation is bad for original V-12 owners, good for astute buyers. But, please be careful folks. Even if you do buy a 600 badged Benz for the same price as a Corolla, the Benz will cost ALOT more to maintain. If your budget is maxed on the purchase price, please go buy a Civic or Corolla.

#10 06-21-2003, 10:55 PM

I would think the cost of insuring a ~400HP v12 would be punishing.

Mike

Gilly · #11 06-22-2003, 07:59 AM

quote:"If this is the car you are looking at

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...item=2420281070

there is a buy it now option of about $75k US. There is also a reserve price which has not been met below which the car will not sell. Obviously this guy did not plan on selling it for 21k"

Jason, where did you get that link? Here is the car he was looking at, now has 36 bids, no reserve, $45,213 is present bid:

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6333&item=2420435077

Gilly

#12 06-22-2003, 09:04 AM

...of all the "great classics," only the Packard "Twin-Six" (first manufactured prior to WWI!) had any kind of fret-free service life. The Cadillac 12 and 16 of the '30s had lots of problems from the start, and the later Lincoln V-12 (as seen in the Zephyr and '40s Continental) was a low powered dog right out of the box. Rolls-Royce Phantom III another heartbreaker.

What was the rationale behind the early V-12? The people who first bought them were older (and richer) men who had come of age with the horse, not the auto, and early (thru the '30s) twelves and sixteens could comfortably be driven in "top" when the owners wanted to take the wheel.

Of course, all of these cars (and the several other brands that carried something beyond an 8) were very low volume items...as are today's. Expertise to repair them was hard to come by from the get-go, and almost no one can really do a good job repairing them today at any price. I remember in the late '70s the retirement of a mechankc at a Washington Cadillac dealer who had been distinguished as the shop's "Sixteen Cylinder Man," the last one around.

73MB280SEL · #13 06-23-2003, 07:28 PM

Jim,

Yeah, I can believe that. I'd hope that MB would make some parts compatibility between the V8's and the V12's. That's one good thing about the V10's sold by Dodge--they were initially based on truck engines.

There is one good thing about the rarity/exclusivity of the 12 cylinder cars. They will be worth more as "oddities" (maybe never driven) in 20-ish years. Just like the M100's. Too bad though that MB won't make a bullet-proof 12 cylinder car. I'd hate for GM to come out with a V12 Cadillac or Vette and THAT be the only reliable V12 car.

Sholin

p.s. Nothing is more expensive to insure than a Chevy Z-28. Depreciation + insurance + tires = small fortune.

c43amg · #14 06-24-2003, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by blackmercedes
Jaguar sold V-12 cars that also emptied wallets faster a WorldCom CEO can deplete a company treasury.

Not exactly true -- I had a '95 XJ12 before going over to The Dark Side (as Jaguar owners would say) -- the V-12 sedan, with all Jaguar options, including the upgraded stereo and the Connolly Autolux leather and Wilton carpets (like the Vanden Plas, but without the fluted grill and plinth) -- great car and would outrun either a 750 or a 600 as it was lighter and better geared.

While it was in warranty the whole time, I did not have any problems with the V-12 engine and would have kept the car had Jaguar been willing to deal at the end of the lease (only willing to sell at the original residual, which was high due to the factory-subsidized lease rate).

The last Series III cars ('86- '87 -- I also had an '86 XJ6) and the post-95 XJ cars (when Jaguar went back to the round headlights -- V-12s were available only in '95 and '96) are fine maintenance-wise and have scored well in consumer satisfaction surveys (certainly compared to the '92 - '96 140s). In fact, Jaguars have been relative bargains given the factory-subsidized lease rates and lingering consumer attitudes from the pre-'86 and '88 - '94 cars (the rectangular headlight models).

Everyone should own a V-12 at least once in their life -- it teaches the kids to be good spotters of cheap premium. I got only 10-12 MPG in the city and 15-16 on the highway!

G-Benz · #15 06-24-2003, 03:56 PM

Had a 92 XJS V-12...traded it for the SL we now have.

Truthfully, the V-12 was sound mechanically, but the electrical anomalies and A/C was what killed my appeal for the car.

It ate lamba sensors on a regular basis, had to replace the cruise computer, dash lighting, and replaced hoses, reciever, drier, only to be faced with a failed evaporator!

The only caution I received from fellow Jag owners was to NEVER let that V-12 overheat! It was well-documented that the engine would drop valve seats under that scenario!