RE: Mercedes-Benz C63 AMG: PH Buying Guide

[Lost soul]

KryptonKid09 said:

thought I gave that information in my post?! Or at least the second part of your question.

Regardless, PP = Performance Pack and was fitted to specific to the 2008/ 2009 cars. PPP = Performance Plus Pack cars and was fitted to specific 2010 - cars.

From the outside, both PP and PPP cars can be identified by the carbon rear lip spoiler. A further identifier of the PPP cars is the red brake calipers. The PP cars have the 'usual' silver brake calipers.

Paul

was probably brain fade speed reading

thanks

[KryptonKid09]

irfan1712 said:

After spending the weekend with my customers red C63 coupe last summer(non pp/ppp) I have convinced myself, I am absolutely adamant, that after Christmas I will change my R32 for a 63 Coupe with PPP.

I have never fallen in love with a car so much ever, (except my R32) that V8 is so addictive and has so much brute force at the flick of the throttle. and the noise, its vicious.

In my eyes cars big daft N/A engines need to be enjoyed now before the turbo generation takes over, leaving it too many years would mean only high milage or abused examples are left (similar case now with the B7 RS4) and as I found myself looking for a mk5 R32.

I currently own a Mk5 R32 so can give you a direct comparison between it and the C63's cost of ownership. Essentially, apart from fuel bills (the R32 is practically economical in comparison), the costs are broadly similar. Both cost circa £500 to tax for a year, insurance costs don't appear to be much different and servicing, even at MB, isn't horrendous. The wife's just went in for an A5 service with brake fluid change and it came to £335 odd. The R32 would cost around £230 for a similar service I believe. The C63 takes 8 litres of engine oil so that's some of the extra cost. The rest is probably made up of more expensive labour costs at MB. I have a DSG version so have extra overheads of servicing that and the Haldex which you wouldn't on the Merc. The LSD cars do require more attention than non LSD cars though.
Rear tyres are around £50 each more expensive than the R32 equivalent. And the fronts would be £10 or so more on the C63. That's with the 19" wheels too.
The C63 does use oil to the tune of up to 1l every 1000 miles whereas my R32 doesn't use any. However, if you sign up to one of the MB clubs, they'll top you up for free, up to 1l every visit.

When she bought hers, I went through all the sums to see what she should expect during her ownership. The only point that worried me was when she needs to replace the front brake discs as that's probably a £2k visit to the dealer (front discs, pads and labour). My feelings overall are that it's an exceptionally reasonable car to run, financial, considering what it offers.

Coincidentally, I was going to buy a C63 and up until recently still did plan to. The R32 was a stop gap as I couldn't get the £30k or so together at the time (I'm not a saver!). That's moot now however as I have access to hers with none of the running costs penalties!

Paul

[Lost soul]

KryptonKid09 said:

currently own a Mk5 R32 so can give you a direct comparison between it and the C63's cost of ownership.

When I lived in Sweden I ran a Golf 4 motion alongside an XKR Jag , the golf always cost more to maintain than the Jag both using official dealerships VAG servicing is not cheap

[ghibbett]

KryptonKid09 said:

The C63 does use oil to the tune of up to 1l every 1000 miles

After the running-in period where my C63 used 0.75L, it never used a drop over the following 14k miles.

Oddball RS said:

although these are auto only so will never really be a 'real drivers car'

Strange comment. Does it make the car worse? If you take that logic further, then the C63 having ABS, TC and ESP also make it less of a drivers' car, much like everything else on the road.

[KryptonKid09]

Lost soul said:

When I lived in Sweden I ran a Golf 4 motion alongside an XKR Jag , the golf always cost more to maintain than the Jag both using official dealerships VAG servicing is not cheap

Having come from an Evo, I find the R32 is very cheap to maintain/ run. As it's just a Golf with a big engine, all the 'lower' range parts fit. And even OEM parts are dirt cheap in comparison. Main dealer servicing costs are very competitive with my last being only £10 more than the cheapest independent I found.
The only significant running expense with the R32 is the VED. Even a major service isn't that expensive!
I wouldn't want to take the C63 to an independent (I don't know of any 'good ones' near me) so in my opinion that would limit any cost savings you could make at servicing time, which admittedly could be significant on these.

Paul

[KryptonKid09]

ghibbett said:

After the running-in period where my C63 used 0.75L, it never used a drop over the following 14k miles.

Yours is an exceptionally rare case though, I'm sure you'll agree.

ghibbett said:

Strange comment.

Agreed. That's very much from the Jeremy Clarkson black book of phrases.
Plus not having to worry about gear changing gives you the extra concentration you need to keep the thing out of hedgerows!

Paul

[MarshPhantom]

I do like these, coupe especially, MPG is probably mot much worse than my current 24v W124, but with nearly twice the power.

[Lost soul]

MarshPhantom said:

I do like these, coupe especially

they really are nice to look at

[gigglebug]

Bladedancer said:

gigglebug said:

Yep but it's still money you'll never see again. Another poster might have it spot on by saying that second hand prices might keep rather keen seeing as they will be the last of the N/A engine versions

I wonder what the overall expenditure would be on a 2 year old car if run for 24 months?

Edited by gigglebug on Monday 30th March 19:53

While I do agree those 24k are, as you say, "money you'll never see again" I don't think it is fair to include that as "running costs". IMO it creates a very bleak image of what looks like a reliable car.
If you just say "it costed me 30k over 2 years" I think most people will think "it's a heap of junk that kept breaking down and costed 30k to keep on the road and I'm staying clear of that".

Nope I don't think it suggests that at all and it certainly isn't implied. I would think that most buyers (excluding the very rich maybe who don't have to worry) are savvy enough to factor in depreciation when purchasing a new car especially if they plan to upgrade it every 2-3 years as many do. The fact is if you spend 60K every 3 years on a new car and the one you trade in/sell is worth only half of that you've still got to find the other 30K to buy the new one haven't you?

[Bladedancer]

gigglebug said:

Bladedancer said:

gigglebug said:

Yep but it's still money you'll never see again. Another poster might have it spot on by saying that second hand prices might keep rather keen seeing as they will be the last of the N/A engine versions

I wonder what the overall expenditure would be on a 2 year old car if run for 24 months?

Edited by gigglebug on Monday 30th March 19:53

While I do agree those 24k are, as you say, "money you'll never see again" I don't think it is fair to include that as "running costs". IMO it creates a very bleak image of what looks like a reliable car.
If you just say "it costed me 30k over 2 years" I think most people will think "it's a heap of junk that kept breaking down and costed 30k to keep on the road and I'm staying clear of that".

Nope I don't think it suggests that at all and it certainly isn't implied. I would think that most buyers (excluding the very rich maybe who don't have to worry) are savvy enough to factor in depreciation when purchasing a new car especially if they plan to upgrade it every 2-3 years as many do. The fact is if you spend 60K every 3 years on a new car and the one you trade in/sell is worth only half of that you've still got to find the other 30K to buy the new one haven't you?

I wouldn't know. Never bought a new car and I don't plan to ever do so. Not unless I'm forced to and there is no other choice. Or I win the Euromillions :P
I don't fancy loosing thousands just by rolling off the forecourt

I do factor in depreciation and it is the sole reason for me not ever wanting to buy a new car but I don't see it as a "running cost". For me running costs, or "car costing me money" is everything apart from depreciation and fuel. In fact none of my friends would see depreciation as a "running cost" and if you told them that a car costed you X they would immediately assume, like me, that X was spent on repairs, tuning etc.

But evey one to his own and we each do our own maths to justify purchases of our dreams.

[chiefski26]

C63 PPP discs and pads £1k -


http://pages.ebay.com/link/?nav=item.view&alt=...

[Lost soul]

Bladedancer said:

But evey one to his own and we each do our own maths to justify purchases of our dreams.

Like you I would not count depreciation in running costs , I know its there but I decide to ignore it in running costs

[magnum555]

Minus ghibbett depreciation which is to be expected for a new car, the running costs look reasonable for the type of car. If you are worried about the running costs don't buy the car

[moffat]

ghibbett said:

KryptonKid09 said:

The C63 does use oil to the tune of up to 1l every 1000 miles

After the running-in period where my C63 used 0.75L, it never used a drop over the following 14k miles.

Oddball RS said:

although these are auto only so will never really be a 'real drivers car'

Strange comment. Does it make the car worse? If you take that logic further, then the C63 having ABS, TC and ESP also make it less of a drivers' car, much like everything else on the road.

+1 on both points. My car didn't use much oil after the service either.

[moffat]

Lost soul said:

MarshPhantom said:

I do like these, coupe especially

they really are nice to look at

I miss mine

[Lost soul]

Lovely looking , I can imagine you do

[gigglebug]

Lost soul said:

Bladedancer said:

But evey one to his own and we each do our own maths to justify purchases of our dreams.

Like you I would not count depreciation in running costs , I know its there but I decide to ignore it in running costs

I don't think I've once described the depreciation as a running cost either and certainly haven't implied it but rather described it as a factor contributing to the overall expenditure of a vehicle over a certain period of time (basically what Glibbett has done in his blog) which it is no matter what way you choose to look at it but I guess this would effect different people in different ways depending on their car buying habits. I've bought 2 brand new (ish as both were pre-registered) cars in my life. The first was a small 2 seater which didn't last long as my partner decided that getting pregnant was a far better idea than having motoring fun so it had to go the spoil sport!! Luckily we didn't loose anything on it as we got a massive discount on it in the first place. The second we knew was going to be around for as long as possible so depreciation wasn't really a consideration either and 10 years later I would have no idea of it's value and what it's lost, I just know that it will probably/hopefully last another 10 years and by that point won't owe us anything. I do however know a lot of people who change/upgrade their cars quite regularly (every 2-3 years) and factoring in the depreciation and what the car will be worth when trade in/sale time is a real factor if only so they know how much extra capital will be required. The extra money to upgrade in this way has to be budgeted for, none of them are wealthy enough to brush it under the carpet unfortunately

Edited by gigglebug on Thursday 2nd April 14:04

[gigglebug]

Lost soul said:

Lovely looking , I can imagine you do

Luckily if your in the position to be making the choice between the three body styles they all seem to have their merits and look pretty damn good so it would appear to be a no lose situation which ever you ended up with. I'd personally like to see one with a simple 6 spoke wheel ala Cosworth Evo II, was anything like this ever an option? The only one that I don't like so much is the Black Series funnily enough as it looks a little over styled this time around compared to the previous version which for me struck the perfect balance between subtlety and aggression.

[Lost soul]

gigglebug said:

I do however know a lot of people who change/upgrade their cars quite regularly (every 2-3 years) and factoring in the depreciation and what the car will be worth when trade in/sale time is a real factor if only so they know how much extra capital will be required.

Exactly, depreciation is only real when you sell the car

[moffat]

I leased my car so depreciation was pretty irrelevant to me, with the monthly cost and deposit the only two real key points.

My deal was pretty epic at the time:

£1,800 deposit
£600 x 23 months
£25 x 23 months (19" alloys + intelligent lights)
So total cost = £16,175 (£673.96 per month over 24 months average)

Running costs over 22k miles were:
Rear tyres (Michelin Pilot Super Sports) @ £450 fitted
Front tyres (Michelin Pilot Super Sports) @ £390 fitted
1 x service @ £350
1 x VED @ £490

I returned the car before the second service was due and the rears were on 3mm - I didn't have any lease return fines etc.