Will Mercedes ever build another engine like the 617 - Page 5 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

lupin..the..3rd · #61 02-23-2011, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyqnola

this thread basically touches on the way the global market is going: cheaper construction = more profit.

look at houses built a year ago compared to houses built 100 years ago. the size and quality of the lumber used and the quality of the fixtures and hardware pale in comparison today, as opposed to what was used back then. now, sure... the insulation and energy-efficiency levels are now much higher. but what does a maintained masonry townhouse built in 1898 look and feel like, compared to a 1975 vinyl-sided ranch?

i just bought a 3-room brick house built in 1890 for $33,000 that only needed plaster repair to be move-in ready. per my insurance, the cost to rebuild this house today if it were destroyed would be $210,000! of course, it was a foreclosure and we are in a down market, but even 5 years ago during the boom it only sold for $70,000.

today, there just isn't the quality in materials or construction of anything--housing, cars, furniture, etc--that there was "back in the day". we have sacrificed quality for quantity and low cost.

i'm not stubborn: latex > lead paint. vinyl sewer pipes > cast iron or clay pipes. hardie board saves trees, and double pane glass saves dollars. but quality and longevity just don't sell to the current market anymore. shiny, fast, clean, and disposable things sell.

Well put, you hit the nail on the head.

babymog · #62 02-23-2011, 01:22 PM

Agreed.

Further, the same things apply to automobiles.

As an Automotive Engineer beginning in the early '80s, I saw much of this slide in the automotive market.

Blame the "bean counters" and the stock market, as return on investment is much more important than a good product or than employing Americans.

Blame Marketing, as automobiles are designed from the target market and price backward to the design phase.

Blame the international competetion as cheap labor and a quick copy or "benchmark study" of a Mercedes will produce a product that is a good enough substitute for many buyers.

Blame the Lawyers and the court system for the many safety systems that fill our standard equipment lists.

Blame the EPA for changing fuel formulations and requiring cars to meet standards that sometimes cause it to burn more fuel with less performance and certainly add complexity to the engines.

Blame the buyers, as buying the next new car is more important than buying and maintaining a durable used one, or for looking for rediculous power and 0-60 times that we never use.

There are many reasons that things have changed, but as a company, Mercedes-Benz had to. In the '80s, they were headed by a real Engineer, were the only major automaker in the world that designed, built, then sold their cars using a "cost plus margin" formula. They basically built the cars the way that they felt that a car should be built, added a margin, there's your price. They were the best, and buyers arrived at the Mercedes dealership doors to buy the best, whatever it takes. The amortization of the cost in more years of use justified it for some, having the best did for others.

By 1987, that had all changed. The new head of Mercedes-Benz was a marketing guy, new designs were being churned out based on marketing not Engineering decisions, pricing was based on Marketing analysis, new high-end offerings from the Japanese were less expensive, well built, and due to the Japanese's ability to cut corners where corners wouldn't be missed, their costs were much lower. This also was the year that Ronald Reagan called "the year of the automobile" in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Automobile/Mercedes-Benz.

Since then, many things have slowly made their way into automobiles to create more cost, many of them mandated by the NHTSA and many by marketing: Airbags by the score, traction control, back-up cameras, power windows/sunroof/seats/locks/etc., navigation and electronic comfort systems, entertainment systems with video, many more that draw Engineering and development dollars from the car to its features and no mid-line car can sell without them.

The Auto industry has "evolved". Automobiles have gone from the design life of 60,000miles in the 50s & 60s, to 100,000miles, to today where modern oils and fuel-injection will allow a decently maintained engine to top 300,000miles. Rust used to consume American and Japanese cars of the '70s and '80s within a few short years, now even in the rust-belt it is common to see 10-20 year old cars running around without rust!

Unfortunately, the rest of the car is not able to make those miles economically. As the rapidly increasing reliance on electronics, servomotors, sensors, and other expensive (and usually buried) components fail, the cars are soon not worth their repair costs. In the case of Mercedes-Benz cars (and other expensive automobiles), it becomes a paradox as the car is too "valuable" to junk, yet the repair costs can be more than a used car buyer will be able to afford. We've seen this in the W140 for example, an excellent car in many ways, yet we're seeing apparently un-damaged V-12 S600 cars in junkyards!

Another point that I'd like to make is one that seems irreversible: The auto industry has become (long ago) dependent on obsolescence (waste). If we don't throw away the old ones, the only market for new ones is to replace destroyed ones and to feed the growth of the market. The sooner the old ones leave the roads, the sooner it must be replaced with a new one. The longevity improvements in the late '80s and beyond has slowed the demand for new cars. Don't believe for a minute that this has no effect on the decisions of automakers. Go to a meeting at GM with Product Planners and listen to what is important in "quality". It is liability, and warranty cost. Once the car is no longer in warranty, who cares. In warranty, there is a certain amount of cost (failure) calculated that is acceptable. This is common.

So how does Mercedes-Benz compete in this milleneum? Do they make an Engineer's car and sell to a small contingent among us who: can afford to spend a lot on a car that has limited features, will spend a lot on a car with limited features and keep it for many years regardless of its outdated styling and marginal comfort, put up with regular maintenance in a specialty shop, trade durability for performance and economical operation.

In the '70s, this was Mercedes' market. I had a Prof. who bought a 240D new, it was to carry him for years and into retirement, a good financial decision. There weren't many of him then, and aren't now. Today, you can't be a small automaker and survive, and a large automaker needs to share parts/Engineering/etc. between platforms to stay competitive and stay in business.

In the '80s, the hood-star was Mercedes-Benz's best selling feature. In 1987 Mercedes-Benz was one of the top selling nameplates in the state of CA, outsold Volkswagen even. Who were these buyers? Remember the word "Yuppie"? Today a Lexus badge means as much or more to these buyers than a star.

The past is gone, the 617 is gone, the 123 is gone. The best that you can do to keep it alive, is to keep yours alive. For what one would cost new today, you can find a very very nice used one, replace everything that has any wear, stash additional spare parts for future service, and run it for the next 30 years.

I too am obsolete. I love the way that cars were designed, the way cars were created before Diane Steed and the NHTSA, before Ralph Nader and the swarms of TV-advertising personal-injury Lawyers, before Wall Street and an army of MBA-toting Product Planners took over the automakers.

But I don't have to give up my old car hobbies yet.

Dieselkraut23 · #63 02-23-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyqnola

this thread basically touches on the way the global market is going: cheaper construction = more profit.

look at houses built a year ago compared to houses built 100 years ago. the size and quality of the lumber used and the quality of the fixtures and hardware pale in comparison today, as opposed to what was used back then. now, sure... the insulation and energy-efficiency levels are now much higher. but what does a maintained masonry townhouse built in 1898 look and feel like, compared to a 1975 vinyl-sided ranch?

i just bought a 3-room brick house built in 1890 for $33,000 that only needed plaster repair to be move-in ready. per my insurance, the cost to rebuild this house today if it were destroyed would be $210,000! of course, it was a foreclosure and we are in a down market, but even 5 years ago during the boom it only sold for $70,000.

today, there just isn't the quality in materials or construction of anything--housing, cars, furniture, etc--that there was "back in the day". we have sacrificed quality for quantity and low cost.

i'm not stubborn: latex > lead paint. vinyl sewer pipes > cast iron or clay pipes. hardie board saves trees, and double pane glass saves dollars. but quality and longevity just don't sell to the current market anymore. shiny, fast, clean, and disposable things sell.

EXACTLY and alot of people still dont think our resources are running out yet when you buy GERMAN made parts from germany for TOP dollar they are looking more and more like chinese crap.

A perfect example is Meyle. They use to be OKAY when they were made in germany.....they were the "cheap" german part. Stuff would fit just fine and last about half the life you would expect ....NOW they are made in china and taiwan and last about a 1/4 of the life they should. And they dont have that nice fit.

If you rebuild a om617 and get top dollar german made OEM parts the metal just isnt the same it use to be.....yes even if its from the factory.

They make the parts to the same specs, but not the same quality of metal......its a damn shame.

Some thing i do wonder though is how those om616 turbos hold up that are being made in india? I heard of some guys in germany buying some of the motors to put in trucks and w123s that had n/a om616s.

Anyone else have info on that?

s38junkie · #64 02-23-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Agreed.

Further, the same things apply to automobiles.

As an Automotive Engineer beginning in the early '80s, I saw much of this slide in the automotive market.

Blame the "bean counters" and the stock market, as return on investment is much more important than a good product or than employing Americans.

Blame Marketing, as automobiles are designed from the target market and price backward to the design phase.

Blame the international competetion as cheap labor and a quick copy or "benchmark study" of a Mercedes will produce a product that is a good enough substitute for many buyers.

Blame the Lawyers and the court system for the many safety systems that fill our standard equipment lists.

Blame the EPA for changing fuel formulations and requiring cars to meet standards that sometimes cause it to burn more fuel with less performance and certainly add complexity to the engines.

Blame the buyers, as buying the next new car is more important than buying and maintaining a durable used one, or for looking for rediculous power and 0-60 times that we never use.

There are many reasons that things have changed, but as a company, Mercedes-Benz had to. In the '80s, they were headed by a real Engineer, were the only major automaker in the world that designed, built, then sold their cars using a "cost plus margin" formula. They basically built the cars the way that they felt that a car should be built, added a margin, there's your price. They were the best, and buyers arrived at the Mercedes dealership doors to buy the best, whatever it takes. The amortization of the cost in more years of use justified it for some, having the best did for others.

By 1987, that had all changed. The new head of Mercedes-Benz was a marketing guy, new designs were being churned out based on marketing not Engineering decisions, pricing was based on Marketing analysis, new high-end offerings from the Japanese were less expensive, well built, and due to the Japanese's ability to cut corners where corners wouldn't be missed, their costs were much lower. This also was the year that Ronald Reagan called "the year of the automobile" in commemoration of the 100th anniversary of the Automobile/Mercedes-Benz.

Since then, many things have slowly made their way into automobiles to create more cost, many of them mandated by the NHTSA and many by marketing: Airbags by the score, traction control, back-up cameras, power windows/sunroof/seats/locks/etc., navigation and electronic comfort systems, entertainment systems with video, many more that draw Engineering and development dollars from the car to its features and no mid-line car can sell without them.

The Auto industry has "evolved". Automobiles have gone from the design life of 60,000miles in the 50s & 60s, to 100,000miles, to today where modern oils and fuel-injection will allow a decently maintained engine to top 300,000miles. Rust used to consume American and Japanese cars of the '70s and '80s within a few short years, now even in the rust-belt it is common to see 10-20 year old cars running around without rust!

Unfortunately, the rest of the car is not able to make those miles economically. As the rapidly increasing reliance on electronics, servomotors, sensors, and other expensive (and usually buried) components fail, the cars are soon not worth their repair costs. In the case of Mercedes-Benz cars (and other expensive automobiles), it becomes a paradox as the car is too "valuable" to junk, yet the repair costs can be more than a used car buyer will be able to afford. We've seen this in the W140 for example, an excellent car in many ways, yet we're seeing apparently un-damaged V-12 S600 cars in junkyards!

Another point that I'd like to make is one that seems irreversible: The auto industry has become (long ago) dependent on obsolescence (waste). If we don't throw away the old ones, the only market for new ones is to replace destroyed ones and to feed the growth of the market. The sooner the old ones leave the roads, the sooner it must be replaced with a new one. The longevity improvements in the late '80s and beyond has slowed the demand for new cars. Don't believe for a minute that this has no effect on the decisions of automakers. Go to a meeting at GM with Product Planners and listen to what is important in "quality". It is liability, and warranty cost. Once the car is no longer in warranty, who cars. In warranty, there is a certain amount of cost (failure) calculated that is acceptable. This is common.

So how does Mercedes-Benz compete in this milleneum? Do they make an Engineer's car and sell to a small contingent among us who: can afford to spend a lot on a car that has limited features, will spend a lot on a car with limited features and keep it for many years regardless of its outdated styling and marginal comfort, put up with regular maintenance in a specialty shop, trade durability for performance and economical operation.

In the '70s, this was Mercedes' market. I had a Prof. who bought a 240D new, it was to carry him for years and into retirement, a good financial decision. There weren't many of him then, and aren't now. Today, you can't be a small automaker and survive, and a large automaker needs to share parts/Engineering/etc. between platforms to stay competitive and stay in business.

In the '80s, the hood-star was Mercedes-Benz's best selling feature. In 1987 Mercedes-Benz was one of the top selling nameplates in the state of CA, outsold Volkswagen even. Who were these buyers? Remember the word "Yuppie"? Today a Lexus badge means as much or more to these buyers than a star.

The past is gone, the 617 is gone, the 123 is gone. The best that you can do to keep it alive, is to keep yours alive. For what one would cost new today, you can find a very very nice used one, replace everything that has any wear, stash additional spare parts for future service, and run it for the next 30 years.

I too am obsolete. I love the way that cars were designed, the way cars were created before Diane Steed and the NHTSA, before Ralph Nader and the swarms of TV-advertising personal-injury Lawyers, before Wall Street and an army of MBA-toting Product Planners took over the automakers.

But I don't have to give up my old car hobbies yet.

Great post! This pretty much sums it up for me, which is why I've choosen one epic car from each of our favorite German car makers to take me into the next decade.

BimmerBenz · #65 02-23-2011, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Sorry, should have mentioned the 601. Personally I feel that the 602t was the replacement for the 617, same number of cylinders, roughly the same horsepower & torque, just a newer design. It too had the early head issues in '87, and the early vacuum-pump bearing, corrected later in production.

I agree.
The 602 family ran through into the 2000's and was replaced by the 612/647 which is still pretty much the same engine with modifications to the intake, injection, head, and electronics. All three are just as durable and strong as the engine they replaced, including the venerable 617.
Although a fresh slate was used in the 602's design (and the subsequent 612/647's based on it), in reality the 617 was simply modified to adhere to the stricter emissions and efficiency standards and was only discontinued in North America in 2006. Up to that point it powered Jeep products as well as the T1N. Outside of North America these engines powered the E and C among others.
I run a 2004 T1N for work and the only thing that ever failed over 200k was the $60 turbo resonator.

Fulcrum525 · #66 02-23-2011, 02:37 PM

Everything babymog said and...

Quote:

Originally Posted by babymog

Another point that I'd like to make is one that seems irreversible: The auto industry has become (long ago) dependent on obsolescence (waste). If we don't throw away the old ones, the only market for new ones is to replace destroyed ones and to feed the growth of the market. The sooner the old ones leave the roads, the sooner it must be replaced with a new one. The longevity improvements in the late '80s and beyond has slowed the demand for new cars. Don't believe for a minute that this has no effect on the decisions of automakers. Go to a meeting at GM with Product Planners and listen to what is important in "quality". It is liability, and warranty cost. Once the car is no longer in warranty, who cares. In warranty, there is a certain amount of cost (failure) calculated that is acceptable. This is common.

Ever notice how Dodge transmissions from the 90s always seem to pop around 90,000-100,000

chasinthesun · #67 02-24-2011, 10:02 AM

Babymog ,that was a great post.It really makes you think to what we will be driving in the future, will it be cars with an "Expiration Date"? In the year 2020 will this be the new word for "Warrenty" "Im sorry sir ,your car shows that the expiration date is up ,its time for you to come in a buy a new one".

lupin..the..3rd · #68 02-24-2011, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chasinthesun

Babymog ,that was a great post.It really makes you think to what we will be driving in the future, will it be cars with an "Expiration Date"? In the year 2020 will this be the new word for "Warrenty" "Im sorry sir ,your car shows that the expiration date is up ,its time for you to come in a buy a new one".

No, they'll just design them such that they're due for a critical 100,000 mile maintenance.... and that maintenance job will cost more than buying a new car. They're clever like that.

vstech · #69 02-24-2011, 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johnnyqnola

this thread basically touches on the way the global market is going: cheaper construction = more profit.

look at houses built a year ago compared to houses built 100 years ago. the size and quality of the lumber used and the quality of the fixtures and hardware pale in comparison today, as opposed to what was used back then. now, sure... the insulation and energy-efficiency levels are now much higher. but what does a maintained masonry townhouse built in 1898 look and feel like, compared to a 1975 vinyl-sided ranch?

i just bought a 3-room brick house built in 1890 for $33,000 that only needed plaster repair to be move-in ready. per my insurance, the cost to rebuild this house today if it were destroyed would be $210,000! of course, it was a foreclosure and we are in a down market, but even 5 years ago during the boom it only sold for $70,000.

today, there just isn't the quality in materials or construction of anything--housing, cars, furniture, etc--that there was "back in the day". we have sacrificed quality for quantity and low cost.

i'm not stubborn: latex > lead paint. vinyl sewer pipes > cast iron or clay pipes. hardie board saves trees, and double pane glass saves dollars. but quality and longevity just don't sell to the current market anymore. shiny, fast, clean, and disposable things sell.

another reason I love my 1899 home! it's built from trees from my yard! it's been through 7 hurricanes uncountable tornadoes, and it's got an aluminum roof that as long as I keep up with fastener maintenance, it'll out live my grandkids...

markg612 · #70 02-25-2011, 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vahe

I have a nice and clean 240D manual as well as a 2011 BlueTEC, the BleTEC is an amazing performer but it is too complex for any service beyond its 50K/4 year warranty period, after driving the BluTEC the 240D drives, sounds and performs like a riding lawnmower, but there is a certain charm to this primitive diesel that can not be denied. The BluTEC is really a throw away car, just open the hood and look at what is under there, scary.

Vahe

Well put; I've always said tractor over mower, but same difference.

You're W212 comment is more true than you can believe, I have an 05 W211.026 and changed the thermostat yesterday, the boars for the bracket bolts were not threaded, the bolts did the threading. The radiator hoses are clipped in, the amount of plastic under the hood is disheartening and the complexity of the electronics will send these cars to the crusher long before any 124 ever went. UGH.

Don't get me wrong, I love driving my 211, but I can't see running it out 15 years with the same reliability I'm getting from my 285000 mile 124.131, it just keeps going and is cheap to maintain. (could use a valve job though, a little recession going on in 2 cylinders.)

mach0415 · #71 02-25-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renntag

Bring back the Model T. Simple and with real floor boards.

Haha! LOL. Except I would have to hold up traffic, backing up some of the mountain roads around here because of few hp and torque to pull up a hill in a forward gear. Hey we can have the best of both...a 1925 T with an OM617!

Sort of like this old/newer tech stuff, but still an old reliable mill - albeit modified: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGHOzTYd0Fg&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czV3fwZ73gc&feature=related