vroom

BMW and Mercedes have always had very poor depreciation in the upper series. I seem to recall someone saying it has to do with the market (upper crust types who buy them for two years then on to the next). These folks don't need a used car, and who wants a used 70K car that is really just a fancy appliance. So they fall to the folks who want to be seen but don't have the green. Instant 30K depreciation.

Porsches DO hold their value well. Shop a 993 TT. They have held their value. The pcar market is vicious - I've seen $55K 1996 non-turbo 993s! That was a car that started at $67K.

Sr2oD3

I'd buy one and get an AMG Lyshol and have fun!!!!

JonBoy

I've read previous articles that quote the CLK as one of the LOWEST depreciating cars, period, so this surprises me. On looks alone, I'd love to get a CLK55 AMG. Inside and out, it's a pretty nice car.

I have heard they're less than stellar in terms of reliability but man, that's a nice daily driver...

hirev

depreciation is not limited to expensive cars now adays...my 26,000 2001 ls miata cost me 22400 and i traded it two years later for 12,300. i had to, it was a lemon...and my 97 mustang gt convertible (also crap)stickered at 28,000, i paid 24800 and two years later i traded it for 16500. you keep for a short time and you loose.

jigga622

you are right about depreciation, cars drop like rocks....

but your thinking is wrong in that statement...

a) dealer will always low ball you...i mean they will give him $37K and in turn sell it for $50K.....thats how they make $

b) you selling your car for $21K and him trading his in for $37K are 2 entirely different scenarios....i'm sure he could sell his for more than $37K as well...if you tried to trade in your evo, they'd probably give you $17K

Daniel L

Go look up an M3, same year, same mileage. New, it'd probably be 20K less than that CLK and it's used value would most likely be higher.

derryck

Agreed...I was offered $38,500 trade in for my 03 M3 6 spd with about 35K miles on it and my car stickered at about $55K.

Scot

I looked up "trade in value" (and posted it above) on his CLK. It is the $37-$38k that they are offering....

Selling Privately doesn't seem to work well in my area......I have tried to sell 4 different cars (2001 S2000 w/ 16k miles, 2003 Cobra mustang w/ 10k miles, 2003 Silverado w/ 11k miles & 2004 F250 crewcab w/ 14k miles).... all were late models, low mileage and I could not even get the "trade in" amount when trying to sell privately. On all 4 of these cars I ended up trading them in and getting just as much as i would have if i had kept trying privately. I listed them in the paper for 2-3 weeks before I knew i was going to buy my new car(s).....

There is almost no way he could sell his CLK privately for much more than he is being offered. I do realize they will mark it up to $45k, then say it is "reduced" to $42k and make $5k on it......

If I thought I could make $ on his CLK i would certainly buy it and resell it....i would end up underwater in the end (in my opinion).

vroom

M3s have always held their value well within their generation. The E36s were holding in the mid 30s well into 2000. Then the E46's came out and they plunged into the teens. I knew guys who bought the car in 96 for 37K and sold it in '99 for ...37K. By then they were 44K and a low mileage used car was not a tough sell in the mid 30's. How's that for a 332 as we liked to refer to the E36 M3s.


///M is for marketing. I've still got my E36M3 -it's probably worth about 11K .

Scot

ya, so my boss could hvae driven a $20k less expensive M3 and been just as happy....then gotten the exact same trade in value.....

I have no idea how anyone could handle losing 50% in just over 2 years on a car like a CLK.

I have never heard of any car depreciating so quickly (other than maybe an Audi 5000 once they supposedly jumped into gear and drove into stuff back in the late 80's).