I have been wondering if the costs associated with running an AMG model can far exceed the costs of running an non-AMG model? My 15yrs relationship with my first MB, a C230K 2000, purchased in 2005 is, I feel, coming to an end, probably sometime next year. I would like another MB because mine has proven utterly reliable and I could not entertain returning to a manual gearbox. But as a retired person I have to be careful with my pennies. I am presently looking for a C300/C350 of less than 10yrs of age. A good Mercedes could go on forever but choosing one is not easy. I went to a local motor show recently and not surprisingly saw many examples of older Mercedes, including several AMG models. I got into conversation with the wife of the owner of an SLK 55 AMG 'Black model', 2006, and she said its performance is simply staggering (though limited) although it is not as communicative as the sports model it pretends to be. I gather the deep rumble of the exhaust note is wonderful and its best feature. I have never been 'into' coupe models, instead preferring a true 4-seater. However, for a few minutes I was seduced by the possibility of owning such a powerful machine. Then I came to my senses and realised that AMG ownership is probably outside my financial resources. Or is it? I still think a C300/C350 is a better and more sensible choice. I only drive about 5,000 miles per annum. I have one further enquiry. From what year is a MB virtually corrosion proof? I live near the sea and the salty air can impact upon the longevity of a car's chassis. I am aware that around the turn of the century Mercedes made a big mistake with paint and corrosion resistance, which cost the company dearly. I hope that era is now a thing of the past.