1991 Mercedes 560 4dr Sedan Low Miles, Clean, Gently Used on 2040-cars

Auto blog

This or That: Mercedes S-Class 350SD vs. 2003 Jaguar XJR [w/poll]

Budget. It's a wretched word, whether you're going out to eat, shipping for a new outfit or, more relevant to today's discussion, buying a car. Massive marketing machines have convinced us, as a population, to buy the best you can afford, repercussions be damned – If you've saved up some money, spend it! All of it, on whatever it is that currently sits atop your personal Amazon wishlist, be it a Timex that takes a lickin' and keeps on tickin', a $17,000 Gold Apple Watch or a $60,000 Rolex Cosmograph Daytona. But what if the best you can afford is... say, $12,815? For that price, you can buy a brand-new 2015 Nissan Versa (including destination), assuming you're happy with zero options and a manual transmission. For that price, you'll get standard air conditioning, a CD player and... well, a warranty. Pretty sensible choice, Captain Frugal. But also ridiculously uninspired. And so that brings us to today's edition of This or That, in which two Autoblog editors pick differing sides of an argument and duke it out to see which one of us can convince you, dear reader, is better. Or at least less wrong. You be the judge. As a refresher, I'm two-and-two on these challenges, having lost the first and second editions before storming back in rounds three and four. Today, as alluded to above, we decided to throw our collective brainpower (oh lord, what have we done?) at what may be the single most difficult question currently confounding the best minds our planet has to offer: What is the best used used luxury car you can buy for the price of a 2015 Nissan Versa? Shall we meet our contenders? Allow me to introduce you to the most perfect luxury car money can buy (assuming the amount of money you're holding is equal to the amount of the cheapest new car currently sold in America, the Nissan Versa). My pick is the 1991 Mercedes-Benz S-Class. Not just any S-Class, but the legendary W126, which was produced between 1979 and 1992. And not just any W126, either, but one powered by a 3.5-liter turbodiesel engine. And with that, I send the argument to my esteemed colleague, Associate Editor Chris Bruce. Bruce: Jeremy, we had over $12,000 to budget for this challenge, and the best you can manage is a 24-year-old diesel Mercedes? I love oil-burners as much as any other auto writer with their mountains of torque and huge cruising range, but you're making this too easy on me. Also, you're really choosing a brown, diesel, German luxury sedan?

2016 German Grand Prix race recap: so-so racing, great questions

We can summarize the 2016 German Grand Prix in one sentence: Mercedes-AMG Petronas driver Lewis Hamilton started second on the grid, passed pole-sitter and teammate Nico Rosberg before the first corner, and dominate to the finish. In fact, Hamilton turned his engine power output down on Lap 3 and still took the checkered flag seven seconds ahead of Red Bull driver Daniel Ricciardo. Ricciardo's teammate Max Verstappen crossed the line another six seconds back. Rosberg fell to fourth at the first corner and couldn't find the pace to reel in the Red Bulls. His questionable pass on Verstappen didn't help when the stewards penalized Rosberg five seconds; the overtake reminded us of Rosberg's move on teammate Hamilton in Austria. That penalty turned into eight seconds when the Mercedes-AMG Petronas stopwatch didn't work in the pits. Ferrari pilots Sebastian Vettel and Kimi Raikkonen finished fifth and sixth. Those six drivers all started in the top six, too. Behind them, on Lap 28 of the 67-lap race the next four drivers were Valtteri Bottas in the Williams, Nico Hulkenberg in the Force India, and Jenson Button and Fernando Alonso in McLarens. Low fuel and old tires put the kibosh on Alonso's pace just four laps from the finish, allowing Force India's Sergio Perez to pass, rounding out the top ten. The issues up for debate during the four-week break are far more interesting than the weekend's race. As bad as Ferrari's day might have been – and we'll get to that – Rosberg probably took the biggest hit, losing the race before the first corner for the second weekend in a row and falling 19 points behind Hamilton. Rosberg won the first four races of the season, then the teammates tripped over one another in Spain. Hamilton's won six of the seven races since Spain, Rosberg's best result in that time is a second-place in Hungary. Hamilton turned his engine down on Lap 3 (!) because he's used his entire season's allotment of five turbochargers and five MGU-Ks. Those early-season gremlins now have him on edge of grid penalties. Unless Hamilton's momentum cools off in August, however, that reliability danger might be the only dent in his armor. Rosberg, who once led the Championship by 43 points, will surely drown in his thoughts – and maybe schnapps – over the summer break. Whatever the Italian word for "meditation" is, there'll be a lot of it at Ferrari during the F1 summer break.

European automakers overstate fuel economy by 40% on NEDC cycle

Volkswagen is apparently not alone among European automakers when it comes to giving out funny emissions or fuel economy numbers. It turns out that pretty much everyone across the Pond is doing it. So much, in fact, that, on average, the difference between European vehicles' fuel-economy and emissions figures and real-world driving results is about 40 percent, Bloomberg says, citing a report from Brussels-based Transport & Environment. Yes, 40 percent. Mercedes-Benz was the worst offender, as the Daimler division on average overstated its vehicles' fuel economy by 48 percent, said the study, which used data from International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT). That automaker isn't exactly a world-beater for fuel economy in the US. In fact, two of its models, the Mercedes-Benz G 63 AMG and the G550 (pictured), showed up on the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy's (ACEEE) annual list of cars that are "meanest" to the environment. "The information provided by manufacturers on fuel consumption is based on the NEDC test cycle, which is prescribed by law and conducted in a laboratory. Since real driving conditions generally deviate from conditions in the laboratory, the consumption figures can also deviate from the standardized figures. Since T&E has unfortunately not published the test conditions used in its study, it is not possible to provide a useful analysis of the test results," Mercedes-Benz wrote in an e-mailed statement to Autoblog. "The data pool used also does not allow a thorough scientific assessment. Mercedes-Benz emphatically supports the introduction of the WLTP (Worldwide Harmonized Light Vehicles Test Procedure). This is supposed to replace the NEDC with the aim of bringing the rated fuel consumption and the actual consumption closer together. We also actively support the dialog between industry (ACEA) and the authorities, and are in regular contact with the EPA and the ARB in the US." The ICCT is the group that helped spur the investigation that led to the Volkswagen diesel-emissions scandal we're all still talking about, so it shouldn't expect Christmas cards from the largest German automakers this year. This new study came from data taken from about 600,000 cars. That's a lot of funky air floating over Rome. The overstatements were pretty widespread, too. The fuel-economy of the BMW 5 Series was overstated by almost 50 percent, as was the Peugeot 308's.