Pulled in at dealer service and had two wealthy patrons circling my car
 

I really got a kick out of what happened yesterday.

I pulled into the dealer service counter to get my four wheel alignment done and was sitting outside on a bench waiting with my two year old daughter for my wife to pick me up.

I was getting my daughter's stuff out of the trunk and some guy waiting on his new car being brought out from service walks over to mine to check out the German road rallye badges. When he pulled off, I saw the German tags on the back of his car. I think he was German.

After he left, over walks this well dressed, apparently well off looking patron driving a W140 to talk to me about my old 300sd. He compliments my car and starts to talk about how he has been fortunate to own these cars for 30 years. He has two W140s and had brought in his wife's SL to be serviced.

He says, "Now this was real German engineering! Not the hybrid crap Mercedes is now of German engineering and Japanese bells and whistles." He went on to say that at least this car had real wire and not fiber optic cable. He said, "You ever tried to find a nick in fiber optic cable?"

He talked to my daughter a minute and headed off. I guess the moral of the story is that newer is not always better, even if you can afford it.

I think JD Power
 

Rated the Korean Hyundai as being more reliable than any new MB. But, of course that is a stripped down econo-box. MB does have some current QC issues. :confused:

I think MB reached a pinnacle in design in the 80's, sort of like Chrysler in the early 60's and Cadillac in the 50's, where they seemed at one point to get things really cohesive and reliable. Of course, all companies have made progress since then, but the focus is on other things rather than the best car they could make even if it cost a bunch more

MB quality
 

The latest Automobile has a pretty article on MB quality. Basically said the W140 was the last of the overengineered cars (I gathered that when they said it came out over budget and late to market as it was created by engineers). Then they go on to say later MBs were built to a price, not to a engineering standard. They point out that gizmo-envy / gizmo-one upmanship with other brands have bit them in the rear.

I must admit the glitches on my CLK55 confirm this. Love the power of the '55, but I love my 300SD for it's pure mechanical robustness as well!

One of the reasons that I bought my W126 300SDL is that it is (along with the 350SD-L) probably the last of the M-B S-Class Diesels that were practical for DIY maintenance. The W140 is a nice car and was still built by engineers and not bean-counters, but it is overly complex for most home mechanics and the cost of some parts is mind-bending compared to a W126.
I have worked on many cars in my time including BMW's and Porsches, but I think the W126 is probably the best engineered of them all. :)

The newer cars are OK and have lots of convenience & gizmo features, but I certainly wouldn't want to be paying to keep them on the road after 18 years and 200k+ miles. :eek:

sub contractors
 

One last thing the article mentioned which seemed to make a lot of sense was that Mercedes used to design / engineer a lot of their sub-assemblies (transmissions etc). Now they use more suppliers. The article said the japaneese auto manufacturers have more experience using this model / better relationships with their suppliers and the german maufacturers are just now getting better at it...

I agree the W140 is a huge step up in complexity compared to the W126, but there is something I just like about that car - probably the double wall glass and the car's visual heft that makes me think "vault-like."

What is wrong with the gizmos as far as DIY goes? I can still DIY it because I have a scanner that I use for all my other cars. By law, you have to have OBDII codes advailable so what is the difference?

CAN Network
 

I was more thinking of the "Controller Area Network (CAN)" that I think MB started using after '95. There might be hacks or tools that allow you to trouble shoot this system vs. a trip to the dealer. Just something that your average DIY'er won't have in their trusty toolbox.

http://www.can.bosch.com/

That the one that controls things besides the engine function like the presence of a CD changer or Phone? Sounds like when FI first came out. People were screaming that they would have to pay big bucks to fix it. It was true when it first came out but I think it has settled down a little when people started getting the hang of working with FI. I wouldn't want to go back to carburators. I try not to fool with a carb. If I had to, I'd farm it out to some old timer who does. Besides, I enjoy just turning the key and getting it to start in whatever temp it is and not have to pull the choke and dance with a chicken on my head at midnight to get it to start in the morning. They warm up faster and have no issues when it comes to running perfromance engines. I know someone with a carb that has to switch carbs in the winter and summer to get max power out of it. Much easier with FI to change pulse width and spark advance tables AT A CERTAIN POINT instead of with carbs.

A lot of old timers used to say the same thing about Fuel Injected cars. You;d get the "Bah, Humbug" when you mentioned an 80s car with FI. Remember the automatic transmission when it was first introduced? People hated it. It would break often and be expensive to fix, etc, etc. Now the reliability is up and most cars are auto. Old timers would just scoff at the foolishness of the "young ones" in getting a troublesome auto. You'd hear how it would never last and that the auto tranny would soon be obsolete because of all the issues. Today, you still hear the old timers tell you that to be fast, you'd need a stick. Well, a lot of drag cars are using autos that built properly, would hold the power in spite of what the nay-sayers were spouting. Same thing with FI. It was too complex (for them anyways), have too many parts and wires, etc, etc. More things to break and you will never keep the running for long either. Well, things changed.

Newer is not always better. However, neither is older. It depends on the circumcisions.

The codes will only help with fault diagnosis PROVIDED the computer system is working as it should. Over time the multiple computers in modern cars will degrade as their hardware ages and then you are stuck with computer module replacement until you luck-out and find the right one. Servicing the computers will also be a problem as very often chip manufacturers obsolete chips long before they fail in service, so when you try to get a replacement you are SOL.

The basic vehicle hardware will still be repairable but all the electronics are going to be a real PITA 10+ years down the road. I work with industrial electronics, so I have nothing against high-tech, but the idea of paying a tech 9 hours labour at dealer rates just to re-programme the computers in a BMW 7-Series once they are out of warranty is just plain scary. M-B's current products are no better from a servicability viewpoint and I predict these cars values will drop like stones once they start to exhibit electronic problems.

Just my $0.02

How would that be a reality? Where all systems fail at once? I don't follow. You should be able to diagnose it without having to do trial and error. I mean, take my PC for instance. I should be able to diagnose what is wrong with it without replacing every circuit till I hit paydirt. How would the car be different?

That is what the old timers have said time and again about EFI. It will be a nightmare to diagnose, how will you know which part failed without changing things till you get it right, etc, etc. I have dealt with some indies that fix cars by trial and error too. I avoid them like the plague.

Oh boy I can tell you CAN diagnosis is fun (!!!!)

to the guy with the CLK55- check your drains under the hood! those cars (and W220 S class) are known for getting them clogged and then flooding out the right side of the car... right where one of the main CAN blocks is. Water + CAN = major problems.

ask me how I know this :)

Planned obsolescence engineering...
 

The sensors, computers and wires are durability tested until they pass ten year/100K; then they begin removing material until it fails as close to ten year/100K as is possible.
I have seen many massive system failures in the field, and there is only one fix, replace everything broken.
I have been involved with far too many cars where module #1. dies on January/1, module #2. dies on January/15, module #3. dies on February/3, etc, etc, etc, until almost every module and sensor on the car has been replaced, every component was tested and proved bad, a total system test was done after every repair.
I see a massive system failure many times every year, all are over ten year and/or 100K.
The suppliers are giving the automakers what they ask for, "NOTHING" more, and they are getting better at planned obsolescence engineering every year.
All of the cars made today are disposable, and have that design/engineered into them.

That I can accept. What I was questioning was DERVMAN's statement which gave me the impression that when they fail, the fail to the point that no diagnosis is possible and you have to replace stuff till by luck you run into the solution.

What I was trying to say was that if the diagnostic system relies on codes in an on-board computer, how can you rely on the codes if that computer is malfunctioning? Maintaining an EFI system is only easy if the on-board computer is still working OK.

And don't think that the manufacturers are going to keep stocking replacement computers beyond the required 7 years. My daughters 1989 Ford Ranger had its OBC fried by a well meaning jerk who crossed the cables while trying to jump start the truck. This was 3 years ago and Ford could not have supplied me with a replacement computer even if I had wanted to ante up the $600 asking price. It was no longer made AND there was no later model replacement that would work, due to firmware differences. I ended up having to scour the wrecking yards to find one with exactly the same firmware code.

That brings up a whole new nightmare scenario. Manufacturers change the software and firmware all the time to correct bugs or because different features are supported. Who do you think is going to support and maintain that firmware and software database after the warranty period has expired? Even for a simple '89 Ford Ranger there were different firmware/software combinations depending on Engine, Transmission, 2WD or 4WD, A/C or no A/C, oh and it changed according to certain date codes as well. :eek: Can you imagine the permutations for a BMW 7 series that has nine, count them 9, seperate computers!!!!

Like I said Hi-Tech is fine for as long as the warranty is in place, but whunter hit the nail on the head, built-in obsolesence is a reality for most consumer goods and it is fast heading that way for cars. Nobody bothers to fix a $50 VCR when the tech charges $55/hour + parts but 20 years ago when they cost $300 nobody would dream of throwing one away without trying to get it fixed. 10 year old cars are being written off today because the airbags deployed in a minor fender bender and it isn't economic to replace them. In 15 years time older cars with obsolete sophisticated computer systems are heading down the same path. :(

I know the Ford and GM dealers don't have parts for cars older than 7 yrs old. However, at this point, I still have faith that MB will have the parts past 7 yrs seeing as how you can get a part for a 30 yo car. Or is my faith misplaced?

fwiw, the majority of MB's control units that are in their cars now are upgradeable.

Thats good to hear.
I do have a LOT more faith in M-B supporting their products beyond the required 7 years, but my experience in the electronics industry has proved that you are ultimately in the hands of the "chip" manufacturers who obsolete chips at will and often without warning. Sometimes there is a suitable replacement but not always. Without these chips you cannot make the replacement parts and probably could not justify a re-design for an older unit. Unless they have guaranteed component sources, M-B (and everybody else) will face the same problem. I hope I'm wrong, but experience tells me otherwise.

I love the security, comfort and convenience that much of the new car technology offers, I am just not convinced it will be as serviceable over the long term.

People are always critical of new stuff, especially when the old stuff worked well enough for them that they see no reason for a change. However, the engineers at Mercedes-Benz aren't stupid while everyone else is intelligent. Of course economic conditions and business strategies come into play in determining what is produced but still these engineers aren't stupid.

I'll take any newer MB over an old one any day. I just have to do my research properly to determine if it is a car I want to own without a warranty or not, and also to determine what the car's general weaknesses are and be prepared for them. The convenience features and excellent crash structures / safety airbags that these cars have these days are incredibly effective in doing what they were made to accomplish. You just can't beat that.

Real question
 

The real question is whether or not the average DIY'er can fix it himself/herself without needing the extended warranty, high payments, high property taxes and his or her own engineering degree from an acredited university.

When I was in architecture school the first year they made us learn the KISS principle. We had to repeat it over and over. "Keep it simple stupid." I have seen the old Mercedes cars smashed to pieces without air bags and electronic stuff and other than the w140 Princess Diana got buggered up in over in France, I have seen most people walk away.

If I can afford to pay all those high payments, taxes etc and can afford to only touch a wrench when I want to not because I have to, I'd go for it. I'm not saying the older cars aren't safe, if that were the case I would never have purchased any of them. I saw crash test videos of W126s with and without airbags and both performed very well. They were best in their day and today they still rank as average. The new cars are just much, much better. Plus, you can't get many of the convenience features (what people call "gadgets") on the older cars. I happen to like those features so they are a plus to get a new car for me.

You will need a scantool for the engine part and as far as the other computers go, you are probably stuck there.

I have gotten T-boned by a smaller car right in the driver side. My 202 driver seat was about a foot wide at the end of the day. Side airbag deployed but the others didn't, as it should be. Worked out fine and I walked away with a couple of fractures.

:stunned: Now apply that progressive thinking to alternative fuels and you will be logically consistent!

If I had the money I would have a 2006 S400 CDI sitting in my drive way. And I would never get my hands dirty or even have to pop the hood to check the oil! :D Sounds pretty good to me. I'd keep the SDL for weekend fun.

I wouldn't buy the new CDI either. I will give it a chance but someone has to prove it first and that someone won't be me. IOW, not on my dime. Remember the 98 M-class? I generally don't buy an item the day it comes out. I'll give it a chance before dismissal but not with me as the test subject. I don't want to be cutting edge but I will not be way in the back either.

As to alternative fuels, they reduce emmissions in fleets which is wonderful for them. They have yet to prove it improves MY bottom line. IOW, based on MY concerns, SHOW ME THE MONEY. My 99 E300 has shown to improve MY bottom line when I tally up the fuel bills. Now, if the maintenance is about the same for that car as other cars of it's type, it will decrease MY car expenditure. I used B2 because by going 4 miles out of my way, I saved 10 cents a gal. That comes to about $4 a week. That is an alternative I can live with. If I had to go 30 miles out of my way, that is a whole different story. My first concern is cost. It costs more than regular diesel and the returns have yet to be shown in the lowered maintenance bills for passenger cars to offset the higher cost. Fleets, maybe so with their consumption levels being much higher and the cost of their maintenance, it might work out. Passenger cars, not yet. If it is going to be billed as an alternative, make it an alternative. IOW, advailability and price has to be about the same. I'll allow for a higher price IF I can see returns in the maintenance department to offset the higher cost. Like I said before, price it similarly and make it just as advailable and that will be a true alternative.

I'm generally in favor of computers in cars, since I'm a 'computers in everything else' sort of guy (hell, even my rebuilt vintage bikes have computer controlled lighting now).

However, I think for it to be something that is easy to deal with, some level of standardization is necessary. OBD codes were a good step, so you don't have to have 10 scanners to work on 10 different models. However, in the end, some sort of standard 'sensor / control system interface' computing standard needs to be agreed upon. Just like the standards for your home computer. AT, ATX, Mini-ATX etc for motherboard form factor, 3.5", 5 1/4", 2.5" standard drive form factors, and better yet, the interface standards like ATA, Serial ATA, SCSI, etc. PC100, PC2100 for memory, and so on.

If manufacturers could agree on things like this, then the hassles of a computer control would not be so bad. Your diagnostic scanner wouldn't have to just expect the onboard computer to be functioning, since it could be a computer of its own, you could have a big terminal block that all the sensors come to, then you just plug your diagnostic computer into that terminal block, bypassing the onboard computer completely. Since you've got a standard communication protocol for all your sensors, the diagnostic computer can directly look at the problem. If the onboard and diagnostic computers show different results, you know the onboard computer is dead, in which case you install a generic computer and load it with the software for your particular model of car.

It would be just like working on a home PC.

Problem is, car companies don't think of their cars as computers, they think of them as car parts. People are out there R&R'ing their control computers, which is silly. Do you R&R your home PC when the mouse stops working? No, you just swap out the mouse, or better yet, test the mouse with a different computer to see if its a mouse problem or a computer problem. But without standards, we can't do that sort of thing.

Anyway... Computers in cars can be very good, digital control can be 1000X more flexible than mechanical control, and can improve every aspect of an engine's performance, but it has to be done right, otherwise its a major maintainence hassle.

peace,
sam