The part of that article that talked about the A Class indicates to me that whoever wrote this article has a hidden agenda.

The A Class debacle was misstated in the article and goes back several years to the rollover test in Sweden. (Let me see what carmaker that competes with MB is based in Sweden?) The rollover test was later proven to be impractical, but in spite of that, MB put the traction control technology on the A Class to prevent the rollowever even in these absurd conditions.

The other thing that makes the articles suspect is the way that they compared 296 problems per 100 to a competitor with a mere 285 problems per 100. Wow what a dramatic difference, slightly more than 1%!

I can't remember the tag line in JCE's standard signature, but it is something to the effect that you should be very careful about believing everything you read.

Additionally, these criteria are problems per 100. They are not stating the gravity of these problems. With statistics like this a tire with low pressure carries the same weight in these statistics as a blown engine. This does not properly indicate the long term durability of the car. Let's do some research on problems per 100 vehicles left on the road at the 300,000 mile mark and see how it comes out.

Have a great day,