Mercedes-Benz Reviews
Mercedes was founded in 1901, named after founder Emile Jellinek’s daughter, but merged with pioneer Karl Benz’s 1885 firm in 1926. The combination of expertise resulted in some magnificent and stately machines, such as the 540K - one of the world's most expensive cars - prior to WW2. After the conflict, Mercedes-Benz continued with upmarket and sporty models.
The 300SL Gullwing fittingly became world-renowned and widely regarded as the first true supercar, even if the term wasn't really coined until the late 1960s. The company forged a reputation as a maker of high quality and enduring vehicles with a touch of luxury; its 600 and S-class saloons were Rolls-Royce rivals while its long-running SL sports cars have always been successful and sought-after.
.jpg)
Good:
Elegant, imposing, beautifully-engineered
Bad:
Expensive to restore
.jpg)
Good:
Well engineered, capable of running at speed all day long, surprisingly good to drive
Bad:
Not exactly easy to find in the UK
.jpg)
Good:
Beautiful styling, unmatched engineering, gullwing doors
Bad:
Expensive to buy, run and restore
.jpg)
Good:
Solid build, elegant coupe and cabriolet, performance in 300 form.
Bad:
A little bit dull to drive in 190 form
.jpg)
Good:
Looks good and is beautifully made
Bad:
Doesn't go as well as it looks; is probably over-priced in relation to its abilities
.jpg)
Good:
Stylish, handsome and slightly unsporting default choice roadster
Bad:
Full restorations are not for the faint hearted, financially
.jpg)
Good:
Nothing else quite has the same road presence
Bad:
You might get mistaken for a third-world dictator
.jpg)
Good:
Big, solid, stately, and elegant in Coupe/Cabriolet form
Bad:
Expensive to repair and restore
.jpg)
Good:
Imposing, elegant, and very cool
Bad:
If you want a Cabriolet, be prepared to pay through the nose
.jpg)
Good:
Stacked-headlights looks great and are an instantly recognisable feature, still worth less than they should be.
Bad:
Rusty cars are financial suicide, unless you're handy with a Mig
.jpg)
Good:
Pillarless and offered with some great V8 engines
Bad:
Awkward stretched-SL looks
.jpg)
Good:
Elegant, iconic, long-lived and offered in many guises
Bad:
It's a bit of a cruiser, even in the higher-powered versions. Extremely rust prone.
.jpg)
Good:
Roomy, full parts availability, tough, and stylish - in a conservative way
Bad:
Parts prices can be high once you're looking at Heritage sources, standard models are surprisingly basic
Good:
Immense performance, acres of interior room, massive road presence, unimpeachable build quality
Bad:
Huge thirst and running costs, parts prices for 6.9-specific items are eye watering
.jpg)
Good:
Beautifully made, classy and practical, estate version useful too
Bad:
Undervalued, which makes expensive repairs financially unviable
.jpg)
Good:
Power, performance, and relatively low price
Bad:
These cars can rust badly, and spares are expensive
.jpg)
Good:
Stylish and effortless pillarless coupe
Bad:
Not quite as good to drive as it looks
.jpg)
Good:
Near unstoppable, off-road, rugged and capable
Bad:
Land Rover utilitarian for Range Rover money
.jpg)
Good:
Smart and compact Mercedes-Benz, excellent performance in six-cylinder form, and good value
Bad:
Cramped in the back, sluggish performance in diesel and basic 2.0-litre forms
.jpg)
Good:
Sports version of a very solid car
Bad:
Eventual rust, and by 2007 most survivors had seen an eventful life
Good:
Roomy and hard wearing inside, solid build quality that disguises miles well, still has class especially in estate and coupe form
Bad:
Rust on front wings can make a nice car look shabby in no time
.jpg)
Good:
Huge loading bay with the added advantage of optional seven-seater configuration, a very classless conveyance as long as it's in good condition
Bad:
Very condition-sensitive, good ones will cost a fortune, but shabby ones will always leave you feeling like you need to make them perfect.
.jpg)
Good:
Extremely good looking coupe and convertible, with nice pillarless side window arrangement, solid build quality that disguises miles well, good ones are still capable of turning heads
Bad:
The usual W124 problem of rusty front wings, look out for expensive examples that aren't as good as they might be underneath
.jpg)
Good:
Brutish performance without looking over the top, a brilliant Q-car
Bad:
Heavy thirst, hugely expensive to fix, specialist support an absolute must
.jpg)
Good:
Still looks good, even thought it's now over 25 years old, best bet is the 224bhp SL320 V6 with five-speed automatic gearbox from June 1998
Bad:
Heavy, separate hard-top, uninspiring handling.
.jpg)
Good:
Magnificently refined, luxurious and roomy, handles well for such a large car and cruises in hushed comfort, very well built.
Bad:
Feels very bulky on urban streets, heavy tyre wear.
.jpg)
Good:
Solid aspirational car in its day
Bad:
Inferior follow-up to the 190, over-light feel-free steering, uninspiring, rusts, ECU failure at 12+ years old scraps the car
Good:
Excellent build quality, terrific engineering and a very good crash test rating. Much better drive from 2000 onwards.
Bad:
Unrewarding steering, offset driving position and some problems with the 5-speed autobox.
Good:
Innovative sandwich floor putting occupants above many accidents.
Bad:
Disastrous quality and hugely expensive problems at over 3 years old.
