4.8 Vs Derv maintance?

[Cannondale]

Hi all.

Just been reading through a lot of very use full posts on here in my search for a new car. Found this site to be a great source on info, thanks

I am considering either a Dev or 4.8 and was interested in comparing routine maintenance costs for the two. Things like the cost to change cam belts etc. that I need to facture into my decision or any other big’ish bills that are common to each model.

Does any one know much about 2005/6 Merc ML 320 CDi vs ML 500 as well?

Thanks Rich...

[shadrack]

no cam belts on either of the them, if you can stand the mpg difference of about 10mpg (althought less with petrol been between 10-12ppl cheaper than derv) the 4.8 would probly be the safer bet, no turbo etc just big muscle style naturally aspirated raw power also your budget on a 4.8is should get a newer better spec than a diesel of the same money, other bits like brake discs will be slightly more, although the 4.8 lacks potential turbo probs it has all round air suspension BUT im of the opinion that the air is better and chances are unless you got a poverty spec diesel it would have rear sir suspension so the 4.8 would only have two extra air bags to break so i would go v8!! i would have loved to of got one but with the milage im doing i just couldnt justify it!

oh and one other point if getting a 4.8, drive a hard bargain as alot of dealers are having trouble shifting them, many of the ones for sale now have been up since i bought my diesel last may!!

[gobiman]

You need to do your maths with the key variable being mileage.
I bought a diesel facelift in 2004 new and then traded in 2009 for a same age 4.8iS costing me £2.5k.
However my car had done 46k and the one I traded it for was an immaculate 28k and better specced. Also it came with a BMW AUC warranty worth over £1k so "cost to change" was small.
My original car new was £45k but the 4.8 was over £70k with options.
The key point clearly is that big engined petrols depreciate far more than diesels and I think it is overdone such that there are bargains to be had.
However I do around 8k a year. If I did 18k I would probably have a different view and, at the time I felt 15k was the breakeven for me.
Also don't be seduced by official mpg figures - my real world like-for-like between the two cars turned out to be 20.5 mpg (4. to 26.3 (diesel).
In running cost (ex fuel) I don't think there is much difference. Slightly higher costs of some consumables (brake pads, tyres) is outweighed by , in my view, potential turbo issues with diesel.
On the Merc front, a close friend has just bought a 2007 ML 500 with 12.5k (old chap who didn't use it much), full MBSH etc for £17k. Equivalent diesels were approaching £25k.

[jaynana]

[quote=""Cannondale""]Hi all.

Just been reading through a lot of very use full posts on here in my search for a new car. Found this site to be a great source on info, thanks

I am considering either a Dev or 4.8 and was interested in comparing routine maintenance costs for the two. Things like the cost to change cam belts etc. that I need to facture into my decision or any other big’ish bills that are common to each model.

Does any one know much about 2005/6 Merc ML 320 CDi vs ML 500 as well?

Thanks Rich...[/quote]

man, here's the bottom line Connondale - ML has no character compared to the X!! that for me beats everything else. between the petrol and diesel options, if i could afford to run i'd have gone for a petrol, but i thought it was a bit beyond me.

[X5Sport]

One quick question here.....where are you finding evidence to suggest what you are implying (could be me misreading it, but...bear with me for the rest) is a common failure with the turbo on the 3.0D units in the E53? Personally I'm not convinced from what I've seen that this type of failure is either common, or prevalent on this engine - or at least not since 2004 post-facelift types came out.

From the forums I've read covering the X5 since 2004, it seems owners are far more likely to suffer issues with the engine breathers, valley pan gaskets and transmissions (the 4.8 and 3.0D have the same unit) than the turbo, along with suspension, battery, timing chain guides, water pumps, starters and the myriad of other possible failures that any vehicle might suffer from. Where reported turbo failures have occurred, there tends to be a different underlying root cause such as poor/unsympathetic driving style, incorrect oil in use, blocked oil flow, poor/incomplete maintenance etc rather than the turbo itself. And of course all of these will kill a turbo in any car fitted with one.

Just curious as to why there seem to be these specific comments about the turbos on the X5? It's a general question aimed at the forum, rather than anyone specifically. I've often seen it mentioned, but little actual example evidence of the numbers of owners suffering from it in the UK. I even asked my Dealers who supplied the BMWs we have owned since 2004, and none reported turbo issues EXCEPT on very high mileage cars when you would expect this sort of problem, particularly on components spinning at 100k rpm.

So what's the real story here.....?

Obviously now having an E46 330d, X6 40d (twin turbo) and the Mini all fitted with one or more hairdryer, it has to be of interest to me. Personally I've never had a turbo failure/problem on any vehicle I've owned with one since 1990. I also used to be a Fleet Manager and in our fleet of more than 100 all turbo diesel vehicles we never had a failure.

[gobiman]

On the turbo point, I think any search will bring up examples of turbo failure. I tend to agree that this is, in the vast majority of cases, down to mistreatment. I'm told that thrashing when cold and turning off immediately after high speed motorway (when the turbo is very hot) are particularly bad for it. However, when buying secondhand it is difficult to know how the car has been driven which is not always obvious from its condition.

[shadrack]

on the turbo point i think if you do a search for any problem on here it will yield alot of results, the forums are a place to gather and concregate doom!! all serious ness i come on here if ive a problem and so do many others. i have a 30d and know many who have had and i dont know anyone whos had a turbo, i just pointed out that it was there where the 4.8 has not got it, in terms of real world mpg where i live is very hilly and my 3.0d is averaging 29.9mpg my 3.0i what i sold was averaging 17.9 so on 25k miles a year you do the maths as to why i changed!!!

[snipez999]

However, when buying secondhand it is difficult to know how the car has been driven which is not always obvious from its condition.

Same goes for naturally aspirated petrol engined cars. I knew of an M3 CSL which was for sale with 'only a few k' on the clock. But little did the unsuspecting purchaser know that each and every single mile on the odo had been racked up banging against the rev limiter on the track. Can't be good.

I'm now on my 3rd successive BMW diesel - 330d, 535d and now X6 40d, and have in the combined 8 years of ownership only had one turbo issue which was a failed mounting bracket on the 5 series. In fact, over the lasxt 20+ years I have owned a number of turbo vehicles, both petrol and diesel, and only had one turbo ever fry on me, That was in the Renault 5 GT Turbo which I had tuned to f**k.

Word on the street is that a turbo diesel is only just getting started when it hits 70-80k. Must admit I've never had one that long, usually exchanged before I hit 40k.

[shadrack]

my td is on 103k and pulls like a train!

[X5Sport]

It was just intended to be a general question to see if there is an issue with turbos generally, or even specifically and thanks for the feedback folks

[Cannondale]

Thanks all, I was just wanting to get some real world info on any possiable big bills for each model.

The car wil be a second car for the wife to use and a weekend toy for me as well as pulling a caravan, I would guess about 7K miles a year so MPG is not too big a facture.

I would think I can get a cleaner lower mileage V8 with more toys for the same money as a derv? Just worried about the resale and any big bills the V8 might have.

Rich..

[X5Sport]

Usually these things are pretty bombproof from the the engine and body viewpoint, but have a look at the buyers guide on this Forum to give you a clue about the most common issues that owners have found.. It's pretty comprehensive and written by owners from experience with real cars.

Some niggles are cheapish to fix - well as cheap as a luxury car can be! But you are still looking at things costing more than a Ford or Vauxhell.. If, and it is only an if, you get a transmission failure then you need to have a couple of £k spare to rebuild it.

[gobiman]

I think that the 4.4 facelift (with 321 bhp) is a great car-
- not much less powerful than 4.8iS (360 BHP) with 6 speed box and reasonable mpg
- facelift so (in theory!) some of the bugs have been ironed out
- usually some good one owner/well-specced cars around with low mileage (often cherished by their owners) and not thrashed
Also if you look at 2004/5, you will avoid the CO2-based car tax hike of a little over £200 which came in, I think, in 2006.
That's what I started looking for before coming across a particularly nice 4.8.
Only downside is resale but if you are keeping it a while, I would go for the saving upfront in terms of lower like-for-like purchase cost.
Having said all that, the diesel is a better all-rounder but pricier.
Good luck and interested to hear you get on.