How can I value and sell a very low mileage E500 estate?

[gIzzE]

Oh, 1/4 miles times, I was trying to work out what 14.5 and 15.2 was in MPG terms.

I think the main difference is the overall feel, the V8 will feel very special in a way no diesel ever can. And that will be worth it to many.

 

[whitenemesis]

I think the 55k drives similarly to the diesel engined car, masses of low down grunt. Unlike the diesel though it just keeps going and going. The diesel runs out of breath by 3k rpm.

Now the n/a 6.3 v8 is totally different, needs to be wound up to 5k before it really pulls.

 

[merc85]

That's easy for you to say!!

Sorry, I have read that sentence a dozen times and still can't work it out?

sorry should have made myself clear doh

 

[merc85]

I think the 55k drives similarly to the diesel engined car, masses of low down grunt. Unlike the diesel though it just keeps going and going. The diesel runs out of breath by 3k rpm.

Now the n/a 6.3 v8 is totally different, needs to be wound up to 5k before it really pulls.

My Derv runs out of puff at around 4,400rpm

 

[whitenemesis]

My Derv runs out of puff at around 4,400rpm

Runs out of revs, power drops off before that..

 

[merc85]

No power drops off at 4,400 as that's how it was mapped

 

[mct_cars]

Really? i beg to differ a e500 1/4 is 14.5 my derv did a 15.2 not that much in it really is there?

And yes i got 52mpg yesturday at 60mph over 40miles

Which is quite a big difference in 1/4 mile times. Try it over 1/2 or 1 mile and see what happens. 320 might have more torque but over a much narrower band. 500 puts out 90% of it's torque just over tickover - 320 doesn't even get going till 2k revs and is out of puff by 4k where the 500 is still growing.

Totally different character to both cars with the 500 being much much quicker however you try to justify it.

 

[MD5]

Also there is no SBC 'problem', its a service item. One owners need to be aware of certainly but it shouldn't be described as a problem

It's a problem if you don't want to spend £1k + on a car that may only be worth £4k (not in the op's case)!!

Sorry, but even if the diesel was quicker, I'd prefer the smoothness, quietness and burble of the V8.

 

[merc85]

Which is quite a big difference in 1/4 mile times. Try it over 1/2 or 1 mile and see what happens. 320 might have more torque but over a much narrower band. 500 puts out 90% of it's torque just over tickover - 320 doesn't even get going till 2k revs and is out of puff by 4k where the 500 is still growing.

Totally different character to both cars with the 500 being much much quicker however you try to justify it.

We will have to disagree then, But i do agree the petrol will have more top end power.

 

[merc85]

It's a problem if you don't want to spend £1k + on a car that may only be worth £4k (not in the op's case)!!

Sorry, but even if the diesel was quicker, I'd prefer the smoothness, quietness and burble of the V8.

And so would i given both car's were the same in price and condition and spec

 

[mct_cars]

We will have to disagree then, But i do agree the petrol will have more top end power.

It's not about disagreeing it's about facts.

1/4 mile and 0-60 is no real measure as the 500 will be far more traction limited off the line. I've driven both, they are both quick cars compared to some, but the 500 is just in a whole different ballgame to the 320. They're quite special (the later 5.4 must be even more so). An 04 will have the 7 speeder too which will take even more advantage of the power. Oh, and bigger brakes to cope with the power.

Not saying your car is slow by the way, far from it. The straight six is a great engine, It will no doubt beat the pants of my SL.

If you wanted torque, you should gone for a 270 as it puts out more than the 320 much lower down the rev range, especially when chipped.

 

[merc85]

The 500 doesnt make its peak power till 5,600rpm its gotta rev there 1st, as for torque it max's its 459nms at 2,700rpm

My e320 has nr on 566nms 2,800rpm, like i said we will have to disagree, or simply i disagree with you.

 

[mct_cars]

The 500 doesnt make its peak power till 5,600rpm its gotta rev there 1st, as for torque it max's its 459nms at 2,700rpm

My e320 has nr on 566nms 2,800rpm, like i said we will have to disagree, or simply i disagree with you.

E500 has 90% of that peak torque at less than 1000 revs. That's around 413Nm. The E320 has 100Nm till about 1500 revs and manages around 200Nm by 2000, maybe 250 if chipped. (by comparison, a 270 makes around 350 by 2000, 450 if chipped).

It's not all about peak numbers, it's about how much for how long.

In a small capacity petrol, like a rice rocket ,those peaks are very peaky with little out of the "power band". Much the same for any TD, which usually manages 2000 revs of power, maybe 3 at a push with up to date modern tech. The 500 manages that power for 5000 revs. Maybe less Torque, but more overall power.

 

[merc85]

as ive said there wouldnt be much in it imo, i will leave it at that since this is also straying from the Op's original thread and we dont agree.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

That's a multi-car Aviva policy

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

Petrol v Diesel and "more power..."

I love powerful cars and I've had a long succession of 300+bhp motors, both petrol and diesel, but I don't get the detailed argument on specs.

I really struggle to remember ever seeing anyone "giving it the berries" here in England. Germany and Italy: Yes; France: occasionally. But UK: not really. A few 911's, the occasional M3, the inevitable supercar going for "the noise" in a 200 yard blatt... Away from the track, isn't it just about having "enough" for what you need to do - which is never about a second or two, here or there?

And then there's the petrolhead thing. Diesel torque is great, but if it's that great why don't Aston and Ferrari use them? Then there's engine reliability which shouldn't, but does, catch people right across the size range, from Golf to BMW 7.
Regardless of cost, V8 burble is great....

SUV's? Who pointed out that the E500 is faster than a Cayenne Turbo on the quarter mile? (chuckle....) With more comfort, better handling on roads and a third more luggage space.

 

[gIzzE]

SUV's? Who pointed out that the E500 is faster than a Cayenne Turbo on the quarter mile? (chuckle....) With more comfort, better handling on roads and a third more luggage space.

I can say without any doubt our X3 handles far, far better than my S211 Avantgarde did, I know for a fact I could I could lap Snetterton much quicker in my mapped 20d xDrive than I could in my Brabus E320cdi even though it had 20% more power.



And don't agree on the Cayenne Turbo 1/4 mile either, every report you read has the Cayenne at nearly a second quicker, which is almost 10 car lengths, some even more than that. Even if you find someone who has managed to knock over half a second off the official 0-60 time of 6.3 seconds.
Plus the Cayenne is also a damed comfortable car.
Who did point that out anyway? I must have missed that post.



But....still think my S211 is my favourite all round car, and I have owned a few, so not knocking it, but be realistic.

 

[MikeInWimbledon]

I was quoting Car and Driver's review of the 2004, rather than the faster 2008, Cayenne:
Porsche Cayenne Turbo - Road Test - Car Reviews - Car and Driver

But, as I said at the beginning, I don't really get the stats arguments. I looked at four privately sold Cayennes before settling on the E500, and all of them were wives family cars, being sold in Central and South West London - and it was obvious that no-one had ever pushed the foot to the floor in them. They were all "lifestyle things."

Agreed about your X3 being a better handling car than the S211. Size matters. Comparisons only work within the size. We'll save an X3 versus 335i touring conversation for another day. I used to have a birds suspension 335i and I loved it to bits, but it was just too small for Familienwagen duties - and maybe still a bit hard for comfortable proper long distance driving.

It's been interesting to look back through the posts this morning as a whole. I'm coming to the conclusion that I really just need to buy another garage. Something the size of Alan Clark's garage at Saltwood.

 

[219]

On the subject of useable performance , I like to have enough that I can overtake safely on A roads when caught behind a slower moving truck or suchlike , but otherwise am content to pootle around mostly within the speed limits ( might very occasionally have a bit of fun on a quiet , twisty road ) as I like keeping my clean licence .

For me at least , I feel that my 300SL-24 has 'enough' performance for my needs ( mostly cruising along , top down , on nice days ) and has the added benefit of returning close to 30mpg , which I wouldn't get with a 500SL , the extra performance of which I wouldn't use . Similarly , with my 190E , I'm putting in the 2.3 engine next week , which should see it go decently enough ( the present 1.8 engine is definitely underpowered to the extent that overtakes are often not 'on' ) but should not incur the heavier fuel consumption my 190E 2.6 ( lovely car that it was ) did ; nor do I need the extra performance or maintenance regime of the 16 valvers , so I think the 2.3 8v will be the 'sweet spot' for me .

While I'm not always obsessed by spec , I do like some toys : hence I will get round to sorting the non working a/c on the SL , not bothered that the 190 doesn't have it as that will primarily be my winter car , and will be retrofitting cruise control to both cars when I get the required parts ; beyond that I can live with the cars as they are but not averse to retrofitting any other genuine options I might come across .

 

[HB]

On the subject of useable performance , I like to have enough that I can overtake safely on A roads when caught behind a slower moving truck or suchlike , but otherwise am content to pootle around mostly within the speed limits ( might very occasionally have a bit of fun on a quiet , twisty road ) as I like keeping my clean licence .

For me at least , I feel that my 300SL-24 has 'enough' performance for my needs ( mostly cruising along , top down , on nice days ) and has the added benefit of returning close to 30mpg , which I wouldn't get with a 500SL , the extra performance of which I wouldn't use . Similarly , with my 190E , I'm putting in the 2.3 engine next week , which should see it go decently enough ( the present 1.8 engine is definitely underpowered to the extent that overtakes are often not 'on' ) but should not incur the heavier fuel consumption my 190E 2.6 ( lovely car that it was ) did ; nor do I need the extra performance or maintenance regime of the 16 valvers , so I think the 2.3 8v will be the 'sweet spot' for me .

While I'm not always obsessed by spec , I do like some toys : hence I will get round to sorting the non working a/c on the SL , not bothered that the 190 doesn't have it as that will primarily be my winter car , and will be retrofitting cruise control to both cars when I get the required parts ; beyond that I can live with the cars as they are but not averse to retrofitting any other genuine options I might come across .

My uncle had a 190e 2.3 in Florida. Brilliant all round package. You've hit the nail on the head with this idea. It will just be perfect.