I don't know who it is we are referring to as "knowingly purchasing a car with a bad harness and expecting someone else to pay for it", but I had never heard of the problem when I purchased mine 4 years ago and I dont ever think I would buy another that had NOT been replaced and the owner would have to show me proof! The fact that current owners of these cars do not pursue MB for replacement is rediculous. It also does not make sense that anyone would say that if you did not purchase the car originally, it should not be covered. Would it make sense for Ford not to cover dangerous vehicles just because you were not the original owner?? Second and third owners spend the same if not more on maintenance that original owners (I've said it before and I'll say it again; my immediate family ownes 13 mercedes benz, all except 1 bought second hand and all cars have nothing but Mercedes parts from local Mercedes Benz dealers in them. If mercedes were a little more reasonable (especially with issues like these) maybe these owners would spend more money at their local dealers instead of going to private mechanics or trying to fix them thenselves.

msethk--I'm the one who knowingly purchased the vehicle...though I've explained my position on pestering MB regarding the harness. The car was cheap enough when I bought it that I didn't mind shelling out for the harness at some point. However, after the car literally dropped dead on the road I figured I would be a pain in MB's butt. I wasn't looking for a coverage of costs, but would've accepted a labor reimbursement (read my posts earlier in the thread for my reasoning). I merely wanted MB to admit there was a problem b/c I'd like others who paid top dollar for their car who unknowingly ended up with the harness issue to get what they deserve, some help from the manufacturer. They continue to deny the problem even after the 10th time I've spoken to them, and despite Consumer Reports listing it as a common issue.

msethk

ever hear of a concept called "due diligence?" its mostly a business and law terminolgy but ti applies to life in general.

i'll quote the second definition from dictionary.com
theres this wonderful thing called the internet these days. people can go on it and look up all sorts of things before they buy something.

before i bought my 124 i made sure to find out all i could about them. so i knew going in that i would probably have to do a cylinder head rebuild if i bought one and it hadnt been done. should i sue mercedes coz my car blew the gasket and would have overheated if i hadnt been aware of he situation and prepared (carried a 2 gallon bottle of water in the trunk until ihad the head done.)

That's a very good point.... there's not so much as a tsb on this subject!!! Yet the manufacturer sees fit to issue tsb's on issues considerably more minor!

But back to the issue. Normally the answer here would be the infamous class action lawsuit - but I think there's two problems with that - 1) MB has covered a lot of people, and the lawyers are not really going to have a good feel for how large the case is, or maybe even how good the case is, and 2) the 190E court case a few years ago, in which the court ruled the car so old, and the case so frivolous, that the plaintiffs were stuck with several hundred thousand dollars of defendant costs or court costs or something. In any case it's sort of precedent that willl scare the bejesus out of the tort class action attorneys.

Sound familiar?
 

.

"THE DEFECT COULD MANIFEST ITSELF AS ILLUMINATION OF THE "SERVICE ENGINE SOON" WARNING LIGHT, CESSATION OF THE ENGINE WITHOUT WARNING DURING OPERATION, REDUCED ENGINE POWER, OR A NO START CONDITION. ODI HAS RECEIVED 29 COMPLAINTS FROM OWNERS OF MY 2003 NISSAN ALTIMA VEHICLES ALLEGING SYMPTOMS SIMILAR TO THOSE DESCRIBED IN RECALL 03V-455."

Sound familiar?

For those that insist it takes a fire or a roll-over to get the NHTSA to effect a vehicle safety recall, the above is "A RECALL QUERY HAS BEEN OPENED TO DETERMINE IF THE SCOPE AND REMEDY OF RECALL 03V-455 ARE ADEQUATE."

While this is in regards to a NHTSA safety recall of bad Nissan crank position sensors, the symptoms could just as well describe those of our bad Mercedes Benz wiring harnesses. And note, that the NHTSA Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) has received nearly five times as many MB wiring harness complaints (138) as those involved in the Nissan recall (29).

NHTSA Action Number : RQ06001
(type in the above number in the below link)
http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/defectsearch.cfm

MB Wiring Harness Failure
http://sites.google.com/site/infoage1/mercedes-benz-1991-1996-engine-wiring-harness-defect
.

My Car began to suffer electircal and operational problems. Over the course of a month, my car was at the mechanic almost every day with odd new problems. My worst fear had come true, as my mechanic had worned me. My car's wire harness had began to fall apart, even simply touching is would cause it to disinigrate which caused many problems for my car. My mechanic told me for the early 90's to 95 model years they have changed many of the wirehanesses on these car's. I contacted mercedes wanting to work out a deal for their defective wire harnesses, and was told no such problem exisited. Customer service was very rude to me, and it ended with mercedes accusing me of creating a false claim to extort the company. I was hurt by the way they treated me, and wowed never to buy a new mercedes again. I have my old wire harness, and you can't even touch some sections of it...it'll simply fall apart. In the end I paid $2000 dollars for a new harness, install...few days worth of diagnoisis time was added to the bill also, and the power surges caused my bulbs and some minor parts to blow, in total after taxes I was in it for $3000 dollars. Mercedes thinks I'm lying and this problem never existed...customer service was rude enough to tell me, its not their fault if I got ripped off...extactly ripped off buying a mercedes.

"few days worth of diagnoisis time was added to the bill also, and the power surges caused my bulbs and some minor parts to blow, in total after taxes I was in it for $3000 dollars".


A few days diagnosis time??? For a bad engine harness??? That's ridiculous. Bulbs blowing bacause of a bad harness??? Never heard of that until now!!! It stinks that MB treated you poorly, but let's get real for a minute. The harness replacement should have cost about $1000. It sounds as though your car had some unrelated issues and/or the shop that did the job has some explaining to do.

I have two thoughts on this.
 

1. How about making an expose about the wiring harneses and notifying Mercedes that you would give this to local television stations during weeks with slow news?

2. I wonder how Mercedes can continue to say they are not aware of these deteriorating harnesses when they are selling a disproportionate numer of replacement wiring harnesses to these model year cars owners.

Couldn't a lawyer have the courts demand the sale records on replacement wiring harnesses and point to this obvious fault?

If you choose to make biodegradable insulation for your wiring harness, it will degrade even before it hits the landfill. Whether this is a defect or a plus depends on your view of the big picture. My car had its harness replaced before I bought it, and it didn't cost a grand.

I doubt that you'll generate much interest in such an expose, but by all means, be my guest.

I wish someone would pay for my harness
 

I did absolutely all maintenance on time and no cost was ever spared to get everything just right. I have “perfect books” to prove it, but my car still leaks just about everything from everywhere and of course it also needs the wiring harness. Sure it will last, since I will most likely keep paying to keep it running, but it is just a bunch of s**t that these cars need so much at only 93K. Mine is still kind of cool somehow and it is gorgeous, but it leaks just about everything from just about everywhere.

Looks good in side profile, but leaks from all over the place
http://forums.mbnz.org/gallery/pics/W124_57782.jpg

You're clearly confusing a safety defect with an environmental issue. Priority number one when building a car is safety. Car manufacturers can't cloak a design defect in the name of environmental friendliness. To my knowledge there were no US regulations in place mandating biodegradable wiring insulation in the early to mid '90's. MB made this engineering decision unilaterally, which ironically is probably doing more harm to landfills had they not.

I doubt that your opinion was influenced at all by the fact that your wiring harness was replaced at no cost to you, huh?

I have my old wiring harness in my garage. Each bit of movement just makes it fall apart even more. If anyone wants to take action, call me.

MB Wiring Harness
 

There is a DIY article here on how to replace the wiring harness. It has step by step instructions and pictures. I can't recall for which engine it was. It seems like a fairly straight-forward thing to do, not any more difficult than changing plug wires.



Can you please give a link to the DIY article you mentioned. My 600 just hit the shop yesterday. Today they told me I need the harness and about $5,000 to fix it. WOW! I need some alternatives.

wiring harness(es) on the Sl320
 

I guess you guys haven't heard the "normal wear and tear" excuse that MB is using to keep from having to admit guilt that they screwed up big time.Another thing..what is this story about the dealers were paying to replace the harnesses up until 3 years ago.Not in Dallas.The only owners getting any assistance were original buyers of the cars.No one else.When I approached both dealerships in Dallas about this issue I was told that since my SL320 was 10 years old and because I was the 2nd owner,that there was nothing MB could do.What has either one of these reasons got to do with defective,dangerous wiring harnesses.Unless a lawyer starts a class action lawsuit representing all owners of the 1992-1995 Mercedes cars,nothing will happen.BTW where is Ralph Nader when you need him? I have replaced 5 harnesses so far with defective insulation.The funny thing is that MB was more than willing to take my money for the new harnesses.But when you want customer service,everyone disappears.I recommend that every owner who has harness problems write to NHTS and put in a complaint.I did last month.Maybe after 1000 complaints the government will force a recall.

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/problems/defect/defectsearch.cfm

1991-1996 Engine Wiring Harness Defect Nhtsa Complaint Summarie
 

A little update:

As of March 28, 2006, I had found, and snail-mailed, a total of 148 NHTSA wiring harness complaints to the NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigations (ODI), in three separate mailings.

This is far above the the original 62 complaints I first mailed the NHTSA's ODI back in July of last year (which did indeed catch the collective attention of the ODI). Just today, I found and emailed to ODI an additional 15 complaints. So the new total is 163 registered complaints.

Included in today's newly found 15 complaints, was a 1996 "C Class" wiring harness complaint. This is the third 1996 complaint I have found (2 "C" Class, 1 "E" Class) ---so that makes a trend.

Late last year, I found enough 1991 model year complaints to include that year as well. I have sent this new information to ODI, and updated my web site as well:

MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1996 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINT SUMMARIES

.

MB Never heard of it...
 

Some of the posts in this thread tell of MBUSA's customer service people saying they never heard of any problem with this or that. I contacted them last year about cracks in the top of my '98 E300's dashboard and yes, I was told the same thing...they never recall hearing of any complaints from any owners pertaining to cracked dashboard covers ever...imagine that, I am the first owner to tell them their plastic dash covers crack sometimes...

I doubt if anyone will have any luck with the NTSB unless the wiring harness causes a fire or an accident (in other words, I hope no one will have any luck).

I don't buy the "normal wear and tear" defense on this. I can take cheapsh** wire from Radio Shack, bury it underground for 20 years, dig it up, wash it off, and it will look and work great. I routinely see wiring on cars 20-30 years old in the junkyards with hoods up that is flexible and looks completely usable.

Very true!
That was before all the Treehuggers got involved, especially in Europe, since the early 1990's.
Do we have standards in North America, that mandate a certain portion of a vehicle has to be recyclable?

.

What is interesting, is that in talking to one of the NHTSA engineers currently investigating our defective harnesses, he made no mention of "biodegradability" being at all responsible for the wires disintegrating inside our harnesses. He simply attributed it to Mercedes-Benz making one of those poor manufacturer's decisions about where to shave costs. He said it was remarkable/unfortunate that Mercedes chose low-cost (cheap) wire in such a critical location.

My personal opinion is that the "biodegradability-green" story is, if anything, MB company disinformation slipped out as a "We were just trying to do the right thing for the environment" excuse for their blunder.

Strife, please read the below list; there have been a number of suspect fires that have been, and or could be, attributed to the defective MB harnesses:

http://sites.google.com/site/infoage1/mercedes-benz-1991-1996-engine-wiring-harness-defect

Even without the fires, note the recent Nissan recall concerning their Altimas with symptoms nearly identical to the most common complaints of the failing MB harnesses. And further note: the Nissan recall came as a result of only 29 NHTSA complaints:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/1105134-post90.html

As to the age question: Yes, it does make a recall harder to effect, but certainly not impossible. Witness the recent recall of millions of early to mid nineties Fords and Toyotas:

http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/991452-post48.html

.

I had a German friend visit earlier this month and mentioned the deteriorating wire harness issue to him and the suspected culpability of German "green laws". He said that this was nonsense as any such initiative would have to be advertised and voted on by the people and this did not occur (he was educated as a lawyer but has never practiced law). In light of this and further thought, I would be willing to bet that it was simply some combination of awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, poor design, weight reduction and German arrogance. One has only to look at the rear window regulators on 126, 124 and 210 vehicles to see these principles in practice. At least with the harness the problem can be corrected by purchasing a new and improved harness---no such luck with the window regulators and numerous other defective MB part groups. Mark

Then you better do some research on the subject.
I know for a FACT ( not suspicion ), of environmental laws that were implemented in Germany in the early 90's, whereas all car manufacturers are required to make their vehicles more recyclable-friendly.
It started with a small percentage of components and escalated every following year.
There are very stiff penalties for not complying.
These laws were also the reason why we ended up with "unpainted" bumpercaps, until the switch to waterbased paint was completed. ;)

Manny wrote: "I know for a FACT ( not suspicion ), of environmental laws that were implemented in Germany in the early 90's, whereas all car manufacturers are required to make their vehicles more recyclable-friendly."

I remember reading about it at the time in Auto Motor und Sport. But you should re-read what I wrote: "In light of this and further thought, I would be willing to bet that it was simply some combination of awarding the contract to the lowest bidder, poor design, weight reduction and German arrogance."

I didn't present my opinion as a researched fact. It IS a fact that Germany and other countries passed laws regarding the labelling of vehicle parts (just look at the back of every 80's and on MB plastic part which clearly identifies the type of plastic used) in order to reliably separate material types and avoid mixed stream wastes. To my knowledge, the German greenies did not legislate the material types that would be acceptable for use as automotive wire insulation (although nothing ever surprises me) and if they did, was this law repealed to permit the sale of the non-green replacement wire harnesses? Also, wouldn't every vehicle sold in Germany be required to use the same defective wire? Similarly, wouldn't a prudent manufacturer who sells vehicles in Germany be forced to use two different wire harnesses, one green and defective for Germany and the other non-green but good for all other countries? Again, stranger things have happened but this doesn't make sense to me. I suppose it is possible that Germany prohibited the plastic of choice for wire insulation and the wire suppliers simply chose a permitted but inferior plastic at the time and have now begun using a permitted and performing plastic. Frankly, whether cost concerns, green laws or aliens caused the problem the fact is that the wiring harnesses are defective, frequentlly create an unsafe condition and cost owners a great deal of money to replace. MB's insistence on blaming their problems on this or that doesn't cure the problem for the consumer---it simply serves to erode their customer base and drive their long-time supporters to other marques. It is also my opinion that it is way past time for MB to stop the denial and excuses in this and many other areas and get back to being the manufacturer (IMO) of the best vehicles in the world. Mark

Use your Resources
 

I have found that filing a legitimate complaint with a State agency (for starters) has been quite effective. I like using the State Atty General's office to get results. Normally, they forward your complaint to the business in question with their letterhead.

I usually end up doing this when I am not getting satisfaction from a business.

hookedon210s, excellent post.

There is an interesting post on the MBCA board whereas the poster claims that MBUSA is now admitting to some degree of defect, for some numbers of harnesses--not that they plan to do anything about it. Also, the poster notes that MBUSA is still being incredibly slippery, shifting and evasive in how it answers customer complaints regarding the wiring harness defect. Anyway, if true, it seems to agree with what we believe: That this isn't an "all things green" argument.

More simply, Mercedes made a serious mistake when they decided to hit the low-bid on these harnesses. That MB refuses to own up to its mistake, is where the problem is.

"Montvale denied everything to me as well ... then acknowledged the defect ... then said they only repair defects where/when known ... then said they only repair known defects based upon volumes (minimum of 5 repairs) ... then (after showing them the NHTSA files) said they only repair known defects on volume repairs, when other criteria was met. In essence, it was suggested that the wiring harnesses were defective, but only when supplied by SOME suppliers (uh - huh)."

http://mbca.cartama.net/showpost.php?p=66323&postcount=56


MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1996 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINT IMAGES

.

Maybe this should be posted elsewhere
 

I agree. Every manufacturer makes mistakes which can cost huge sums of money to correct. However, not dealing with mistakes timely and appropriately and permitting personal injuries to factor into the equation is when things can get very, very expensive and cost a great deal of the manufacturer's reputation and owner base. This is bad news for MB and us owners since engineering, reliability and exclusivity had historically kept resale values the highest of all makes. Now, the word is out on MB reliability from many sources and resale values have tanked (which also increases MB's lease program costs due to residual values). IMO, MB has done a terrible job since it was required (nee, decided?) to compete on a cost basis with Lexus and others in the early 90's. Until that time, MB built "the best engineered vehicle in the world" and could charge accordingly. Now, through the proliferation of smart cars, Baby Benzes, SUV's and various other vehicles, MB sells vehicles at all price points. This may have looked like a good business plan, but MB and its suppliers have done a terrible job of balancing cost vs. quality/reliability. For example, $380 fuel pumps that last 25-50K when the old Bosch units would go 150-200K, $400 MAF's that last 50-75K, $120 rear window regulators that require replacement every 4-5 years, $2-3K navigation units and head units that fail all the time (I had a total of 5 units fail under warranty in 2 cars over a 2 year period), software "fixes" that an MB shop foreman told me won't "run" out of the box half of the time, improperly sealed $500 transmission shift controllers that fail when liquid from the cup holder or sprayed preservative short it out, $500-2800 ETA's that fail in 8-10 yr old cars, and the list goes on. Until MB acknowledges that it has a serious problem with quality AND devotes significant energy and resources to solve this problem, I am fearful that the ship will eventually be lost. If the Japanese did it and the Koreans are doing it, so can MB. Correcting known defective products would be a good start and IMO be a better place to spend money (on its existing customer base and probable future customer base if it does the right thing) instead of on expensive advertising, disingenuous customer relations and product placement. Don't get me wrong, I have been an MB fan since my Dad bought himself a used 1961 220b when I was 10 yrs. old and I have owned many different MB models over a 30 yr. span. I have enjoyed most of those cars but I am finding it difficult to like the MB's manufactured over the past 10-12 years due to reliability issues. I sure wish MB would figure it out. Mark

I have never expected a high end car to be cheap to operate. If one wants a cheap car to drive well then a MB is probably not a good choice.

Oh yeah the old ones are real trouble free, I have only replaced $1,200 worth of parts since Jan on the SDL. Yeah they last forever sure keep saying that...:rolleyes:

Thank you!

I was getting ready to report to you guys a rather disturbing trend I've been noticing in the NHTSA complaints I've been compiling, and the thread was locked--again. Strange.

Anyway...

For those of you that have already replaced your harnesses, and think the Mercedes Engine Wiring Harness Defect no longer concerns you, and so, is too much trouble to file a complaint with the NHTSA:

There are a fair number of NHTSA complainants reporting (within their ODI complaints) that they are on their third harness (second replacement). Evidently, Mercedes-Benz is (or was) selling new-old-stock replacement harnesses. Talk about arrogance.

I just emailed the NHTSA's ODI a note to this effect, as well as remind them of the number of fires reported within the files...

My online "list" of NHTSA complaints is now up to 180, and I sent ODI a new, printed out, hard-copy batch of complaints last Friday. That brings the total I have sent--so far--to the NHTSA's ODI, in four separate mailings, to 175.


MERCEDES-BENZ 1991-1996 ENGINE WIRING HARNESS DEFECT NHTSA COMPLAINTS

.

Info...thanks for your efforts.

The images of the wires, snaking throughout the harness, with cracked insulation should give Benz reason to pause and make things right.

In my 1989 300TE, the outside plastic insulation (wherever two or more wires run together) has gotten hard, brittle and cracked at places. The actual wires, however, seem to be OK.

Was the problem due to Benz using the lowest bidder? Or was Benz forced to use biodegradable material in order to meet some German law that requires a certain percentage of each car to be recyclable?

I know that inmany sales brochures, Benz (and Volvo) brag about how green their cars are and what a high percentage of the car can be recycled.

In any event, however, Benz should do the right and honorable thing...shoot the guy who approved the harness bid. :eek:

1995 E320 wagon starter harness
 

My dad just came to visit and I had the opportunity to inspect his engine's wiring harnesses. The main engine harness had been replaced some time ago and looks fine but the starter harness is shot especially in the vicinity of the oil filter. MB would of course attribute this to rough filter changes (the oil filter tool will indeed contact the wires) but the insulation has clearly lost its plasticity and crumbles to the touch (much like friable asbestos). I would surmise that this harness is the one that really can and does cause fires since the un-fused positive battery cable which can carry hundreds of amps is a part of it. I recall seeing the aftermath of a 94 or 95 wagon that inexplicably burned to the ground a couple of years ago due to an engine fire--I wonder if this harness was the culprit. Mark

Does anyone know the total number of each model car Mercedes imported to the USA between 1991-1996?

If possible, I'm looking for the model year numbers as opposed to the number of cars actually shipped during the year. But either set of numbers would be of great interest.

Worldwide production numbers would be very helpful too.

.

[QUOTE=whunter]Any other view of the situation is IMO going to be impossible = as silly as trying to prosecute FORD because the wiring on a Model-T failed in 2006.

People need to be aware that vehicles are NOT designed/engineered to last one hundred years and millions of miles.


The wiring harness on the model t is probably still good!!! hahaha

There has been some discussion about how long these harnesses should last. It has been argued that the harnesses have, or that our cars' wiring has, an engineered "service life."

The below NHTSA complaint may be the earliest reference to how short a lifespan these harnesses can have before they fail. Note that the complaint concerns a 1995 129 (320SL), and the owner says his first harness that failed, an engine harness, was replaced in 1998.

The 320SL owner has since had to replace four different harnesses, all for the same reason. Mercedes told him what they told me, "this is normal wear and tear," and offered no assistance.

Also, check my web page for new complaints (183 and counting), and the images page for a new, very good image, sent to me of a disintegrating harness. See for yourself pictures of two different Mercedes-Benz wiring harnesses suffering from, so called, "normal wear and tear."

Remember, this is a problem that MBUSA denies exists...

http://sites.google.com/site/infoage1/mercedes-benz-1991-1996-engine-wiring-harness-defect


NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 129
Year: 1995
Date of Failure: March 16, 2005
Complaint Number: 10150787

Summary:
CHECK ENGINE LIGHT ON DASHBOARD, IDLE ROUGH, STALLING OF CAR. I CHECKED THE ENGINE HARNESS CONNECTOR TO THE AIR MASS METER AND GENTLY MOVED THE WIRES. THE OUTSIDE INSULATION BEGAN TO SMOKE, THEN MELTED FROM THE HEAT. I QUICKLY TURNED OFF THE CAR'S ENGINE AND CHECKED THE DAMAGE. THE INSULATION COVERING THE 4 WIRES INSIDE OF THE HARNESS HAD TOTALLY DISINTEGRATED, THUS CAUSING SHORT CIRCUITS IN THE HARNESS. THE HEAT GENERATED ACTUALLY MELTED THE OUTSIDE COVERING OF THE WIRES BOTH AT THE AIR MASS METER CONNECTOR AND UNDERNEATH THE MAIN ENGINE COMPUTER (ECU). I HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE LOCAL MB DEALER AND THEY SAID THAT THE WHOLE BODY WIRING HARNESS WAS DESTROYED AND HAD TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $1250 PLUS $600 FOR THE HARNESS. MB SAID IT WAS NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AND OFFERED NO ASSISTANCE. I FEEL THAT THE HARNESSES ON MY 1995 SL320 WERE MADE FROM SUBSTANDARD MATERIALS AND THUS DISINTEGRATED PREMATURELY PUTTING MYSELF AT RISK FROM A POSSIBLE CAR FIRE. I STILL HAVE THE HARNESS IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO INSPECT IT. ANOTHER HARNESS, THE ENGINE WIRING HARNESS WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE, CAUSING SHORT CIRCUITS, AND WAS REPLACED BY MB UNDER WARRANTY IN 1998. SO FAR I HAVE REPLACED 4 DIFFERENT WIRING HARNESS ON MY CAR, ALL SHOWING THE SAME DECOMPOSITION OF THE WIRING INSULATION. *NM

.

I wonder if $500 a harness is really making up for the negative feelings that many people are now having for the Mercedes nameplate. I don't think Mercedes should pay to have these harnesses fixed on a 10+ year old car but at the same time I don't think they should be making such a profit off of this. At $1200 for labor its a real cash cow for the dealerships.

I guess Mercedes is going to end up playing the same game that many American makers do blaming the customer and making themselves look bad when the news coverage starts to focus on them. Ford is a great example of a company that plays games like this. When you design a car thats dangerous to begin with and then put cheap tires on it your just asking for problems. When enough Mercedes cars burn up and eventually one is newsworthy enough Mercedes is going to have a nasty PR problem on their hands.

I absolutely adore the 07 S class but until Mercedes cleans up their act and starts standing behind their products I would not be able to even consider actually buying one.

I would say it is only a matter of time before there are deaths attributed to the failing harnesses. Given the larger numbers of cars that are only now showing symptoms, the chances of a defective wiring harness attributed catastrophe can only be increasing.

With an increasingly higher NHTSA/public awareness, all fires, and any accidents caused by stalling (or limp-home events), will have have a better chance of being fully investigated, and thus, directly attributed to this defect.

I believe this is what the NHTSA is struggling with internally. Given the very large number of filed complaints, they will look pretty bad for failing to have taken action.

----------------------------------

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 500
Year: 1992
Complaint Number: 514982
Summary:
ENGINE COMPARTMENT FIRE. I HAD DRIVEN TO WORK FROM HOME (75 MILES), STOPPED AT THE GATE TO OPEN. AS I RETURNED TOWARD THE CAR FLAMES BEGAN UNDER ENGINE COMPARTMENT. CALLED FIRE DEPT. 911

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: SL
Year: 1994
Complaint Number: 10151360
Summary:
TOTAL ELECTRICAL FAILURE, ENGINE STOPPAGE, DEACTIVATION OF ABS, ASD, SEAT BELTS, ELECTRIC DOOR LOCKS, LIGHTS. WHEN GOING OVER A RAILROAD TRACT, ROAD VIBRATION CAUSED DETERIORATED WIRING INSULATION (INSIDE A BUNDLE OF WIRES) TO FALL OFF CAUSING A MASSIVE ELECTRICAL SHORT CIRCUIT. APPARENTLY SEVERAL MODEL YEARS OF THESE CARS WERE MANUFACTURED WITH WIRE INSULATION THAT 'CRUMBLES' TO A POWDER. THIS CONDITION IS NOT VISIBLE DURING ORDINARY INSPECTION AND REQUIRED ONE TO CUT OPEN THE ENCAPSULATED WIRING HARNESSES. FAILED WIRING HARNESSES FOR THESE CARS ARE COMMON I LEARNED FROM SEARCHING THE MDZ BULLETIN BOARDS. I HAVE 6 FAILED ELECTRONIC THROTTLE ACTUATORS (AT $1800 EACH!!) EXHIBITING THIS TYPE OF FAILURE. ONE EXHIBITED UNCOMMANDED WIDE OPEN THROTTLE. THE OTHERS FAILED BY ENTERING THE 'LIMP HOME' MODE. MERCEDES BENZ NORTH AMERICA IS AWARE OF THIS SERIOUS DEFECT BUT REFUSES TO REPAIR OR WARRANT THIS DEFECTIVE SAFETY SYSTEM. I WAS SHOCKED THAT MY CAR SHUT OFF COMPLETELY AND A SMALL FIRE ERUPTED IN THE MAIN ENGINE WIRING COMPARTMENT HARNESS. *NM

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 190
Year: 1993
Complaint Number: 835649
Summary:
WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 20 MPH, WITHOUT NO PRIOR WARNING, THE VEHICLE DIED OUT. CONSUMER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED TO HER HOUSE, AND VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE DUE TO AN ELECTRICAL SHORT. *AK

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 420
Year: 1995
Complaint Number: 10033790
Component: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:WIRING:FRONT UNDERHOOD
Summary: AFTER PARKING THE VEHICLE, THE CONSUMER NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM THE STEERING COLUMN. AS A RESULT OF THE FAILURE, FIRE CAME THROUGH THE FIREWALL. THE LOCAL FIRE DEPARTMENT ARRIVED TO EXTINGUISH THE FIRE. *AK THERE WERE NO PRIOR PROBLEMS. THE VEHICLE HAD FILLED WITH BLACK SMOKE WITH THE IGNITION OFF AND THE VEHICLE PARKED. THERE WAS NO WARNING. *SCC *JB

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 320
Year: 1995
Complaint Number: 898986
Summary:
Component: ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:WIRING:FRONT UNDERHOOD
WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 30 MPH SMOKE STARTED COMING OUT FROM UNDERNEATH HOOD OF VEHICLE. DEALERSHIP EXAMINED VEHICLE, AND DETERMINED THERE WAS A POWER SURGE IN ELECTRICAL SYSTEM THAT CAUSED A FIRE TO START. *AK *YH

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 420
Year: 1991
Complaint Number: 706220
Summary:
Crash: NO Fire: YES

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 300SE
Year: 1991
Complaint Number: 10040933
Summary:
UNDER-HOOD FIRE TOTALED CAR. FIRE DEPT. REQUIRED TO EXTINGUISHED FIRE. FIRE STARTED WHILE CAR WAS BEING DRIVEN. CAUSE UNDETERMINED.

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 300SE
Year: 1991
Complaint Number: 10011882
Summary:
CONSUMER NOTICED SMOKE COMING FROM UNDER THE HOOD. THE VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE AND WAS TOTALED. THE FIRE INSPECTOR INDICATED THE FIRE WAS CAUSED BY THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. *JB

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 300
Year: 1991
Complaint Number: 511109
Summary:
ELECTRICAL WIRING OVERHEATED, CAUSING FIRE.

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: 190
Year: 1991
Complaint Number: 958826
Summary:
VEHICLE CAUGHT ON FIRE WHILE STOPPED, IT STALLED THEN BURST INTO FLAMES UNDER HOOD. TT

NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: E CLASS
Year: 1994
Complaint Number: 10128437
Summary:
1994 E320 HAD INTERMINTENT RUNNING PROBLEMS. CAR WOULD STALL WITHOUT WARNING, ESPECIALLY DURING A RAIN OR AFTER WASHING THE CAR. REPLACED MANY PARTS(MASS AIR METER, TUNE UP, OVP RELAY, FUEL PUMP RELAY, ETC) TO CHASE THE PROBLEM, NONE OF WHICH SOLVED IT. BEGAN TO LOOK ON MERCEDES FORUMS AND FOUND THIS TO BE A COMMON PROBLEM. BEFORE I REPLACED THE ENGINE WIRING HARNESS IT BEGAN TO SMOKE HEAVILY FROM UNDER THE HOOD. I HAD AN EXTINGUSIHER WITH ME AND STOPPED IT FROM CATCHING FIRE. MERCEDES COVERED PART OF THE COST UNDER THEIR "GOODWILL" PROGRAM HOWEVER I HAD TO INSTALL IT WHICH TOOK ABOUT 8 HOURS. THE FIRST OCCURANCE HAPPEND AROUND 125K MILES HOWEVER IT WAS MANY MONTHS AND MILES LATER THAT THE PROBLEM WAS FIXED.


NHTSA Complaint Summary
Make: MERCEDES BENZ
Model: SL
Year: 1994
Complaint Number: 10074940
Summary:
THE WIRING HARNESS TO THE ENGINE CONTROL SYSTEM DEVELOPED SEVERE SHORTS, STALLED THE ENGINE, DISABLED THE ABS, ASR,SRS SYSTEMS. WITH ENGINE STALLED, STEERING AND BRAKING WERE DIFFICULT AND RESULTED IN FRONT END DAMAGE FROM IMPACT TO ROADSIDE BRUSH AND DIRT. WIRING INSULATION INSIDE THE WIRING BUNDLES HAD CRUMBLED TO DUST IN MANY PLACES FAR REMOVED FROM THE SHORT/MINOR FIRE. CAR STILL NOT OPERABLE DUE TO OTHER MAJOR WIRING HARNESS SHORTS DUE TO CRUMBLING INSULATION ON THE WIRES (HIDDEN BY THE BUNDLE JACKET) DEALER RESPONSE "TOUGH IF YOU HAD BOUGHT IT FROM US, AND IT WAS NEW, MAYBE, OTHERWISE GOOD BYE!" *AK

Its greed pure and simple. If they can stick someone by charging them $500 for some wires and a few plastic connectors they are going to. Its just a function of the "free market system" that us Americans think is the best thing in the world. Its wonderful if your the one getting $500 for $20 worth of materials. It really sucks if your the guy writing the $1600 check for $20 worth of parts and 45 minutes worth of labor. :(

Unfortunatly in this case the greed in Mercedes case ultimately will end up as stupidity. Most of their current advertizing is based on the longevity of their older cars. When most of the 90's vintage cars burn up or get junked by owners sick of pouring money into a worn out car they will have to find some other horn to toot. That unfortunatly will be a sad day for all of us because they will probably at that point no longer have a reason to provide the parts support for the older cars.

In all reality the company Mercedes-Benz that made the wonderful cars we cherish so much went out of business in the mid 1990's. What's left is a greedy multinational corperation that is using the reputation of this dead company to make money.

My 126 has the signatures of the people who assembled it 24 years ago in its doorframe. My 140 is devoid of these signatures. Hmmmm Food for thought :)

Lawyers are concerned with precedent as in: "...if you do this one thing, it establishes a precedent and then you have to do it all the time."

We are also concerned with the slippery slope: "if you do A, then you are going to have to do B and then C and then D etc. etc. etc."

I am a lawyer. I was in-house counsel for an international oil company. I was also in-house counsel for another major institution. And I have represesented insurance companies. Trust me on this one.

People are quick to blame the bean counters. Bean counters are usually involved in the initial product design/cost allocations.

But when it comes to settling product liability claims, the lawyers have their hands far up the beancounters' butts -- they only move their lips when the lawyers let them.

Robert, when did they stop doing that? I had a 1967 250SE and a 1984 300SD, it sure would have been nice to seen their signatures. :D

You have a very nice 300SD and the Vovlo you own is a classic. I would not have bought the 2002 V70 for my daughter if I had been able to locate a 240 in decent shape like yours.

OK, I'll stop now. Don't want to cause this thread to be either locked or shipped over to the OD.

So you're saying my 95 E320, bought for $28K four years ago, and I have since only put on 20K miles, is ready for the scrap heap?... this also implies that I'm a fool for having paid so much money for such a car back then instead of (for example) a new Sebring convertible.

Your 124 will probably hold out longer than my '96 210 due to its more solid construction, but I'm not giving up on mine just yet. I only drove one 124 (300D 2.5 turbo) which drove rather well, but not as nicely as the 210 (IMO, of couse; they're different).

My '96 had a new engine harness installed before I got it.

I bought my 1994 c280 a few years back and it is my daily driver. I paid a premium for it and I could have been cheap and bought a lesser quality brand new car for less money. I could have bought an s-class but I dont want a big mercedes to drive in city/rush hour traffic. my "smaller benz" is the perfect fit. I bought a mercedes that as a 6 year old car should have been higher quality than a new car and shouldn't have a problem with a harness.
The point has been made these harness are 10 years old, but the problem is that all of these cars should have had the harnesses changed when the problem started and it wouldn't be an issue today. Mercedes can deny all they want there are not problems with these harnesses, but someone just this week noted they have a receipt from a car only 4 years old and the dealer recommended a change.

But there's plenty of precedents for recalls and campaigns for defective auto designs, including by MB. Perhaps the thinking is that this isn't going to kill anyone - which is itself a gamble - and therefore no need to fix the problem. I've had to buy two harnesses - one 104 and one 119. I called them on the 104 and their response was essentially that the government had not forced a recall so therefore they were not responsible. This struck me as an odd thought from such a once proud company.

It certainly wasn't in MBUSA's best interest not to have been a bit more flexible (and honest), when I called their Customer Service department.

As a direct result of my conversations with MBUSA Customer Service Supervisor, John Hart, and his (non)handling of the MB Wiring Defect, my girlfriend bought a Lexus RX440. She already has a 2005 Mercedes E320, and was very interested in buying a new Mercedes "R" Class SUV as a second car.

Given my experiences, and my advice, she bought the Lexus.

She just took the RX440 in to Lexus for her 20,000 mile service (which was free to her), and had nothing but GREAT things to say about the way she was treated. Mind you, she has her E320 serviced where she bought it, at Fletcher Jones, and she is very picky about things like that. She thinks Lexus customer service is superior to Mercedes.

btw, the Lexus has been rock-solid dependable, which is paramount, given the 30,000+ miles she drives each year. No regrets--she flat loves the Lexus--and her Mercedes is collecting dust. She's thinking of trading it in on a Porsche...:)

No I am saying its an 11 year old car. If the head gasket blew tomarrow MB would laugh at you if you wanted them to fix it.

Besides I think most of the W126's in those reports caught on fire because of leaves between the fire walls. W126's always had top quality wiring.

Heh heh

Thanks for the compliments. I love the 126 and the 240. While not as comfortable as my 140 they do have other qualities that are quite nice to have.

Im not sure when MB stopped doing signatures. But it really speaks volumes to how they feel about their cars. The current model AMG engines are signed as they are hand built but I think thats it.

I really want the old Mercedes Benz back. But unfortunatly they are long gone.

A comment about your legal comments. I agree with what you mentioned 100%. While not an Attorney I work in an industry that services the legal industry and see this all day long.

Its really just a shame that Mercedes does not admit their mistake and say ok heres the parts at cost and punish their dealers for overcharging for installation. While it would be a slight admission of guilt it would make things easier for the owners.

Sebrings are worse..... The thing is that the whole auto industry not just MB is creating "disposable" cars..... When these cars hit about 10-15 years old they become so expensive to service that its impossible to drive them..... My 24 year old 300SD is the CHEAPEST car I have ever owned..... I pay virtually nothing to keep it going year after year...... My 240 wagon is the same.....

Yep... Thats happening more and more to the Germans..... Their "attitude" about not making mistakes is killing them..... A friend of mine who is a Doctor bought a brand new 330 converitble with every possible option known to mankind on it and spent a lot on it..... He picked it up at BMW's performance center in SC and it started to rain and his wipers would not work.... He had to sit out the storm and drive the car back to the performance center for a repair only to be told that it was not a flaw with the car it was something that it was designed to do.... If they had just admitted they screwed up he would have been ok..... He owned the BMW for only a year before trading it in an a LS430.... He loves the LS430 and it has been flawless and he says even though he loves the european cars he wont be back.....

I don't care for his Lexus at all with its mismatched instrument cluster and cheap feeling suspension.... But what he is looking for is a comfy car that starts whenever he puts the key in..... I am more interested in the engineering and don't mind when my car does not work.... I understand cars are machines.... Most consumers today don't and look at simple problems as big issues.....

I actually still have a 96 Sebring convertible w/that cheap 4 cyl. that I bought as my second car years ago (spoken about in other posts). It has 113k hard miles on it (50k which are mine and took less than 2 years to put on) but it hasn't been driven regularly in 3-4 years. But, it still starts up and runs just fine, and repairs from my Indie are very very inexpensive. Right now the A/C needs a recharge but I'm in no rush as I drive the MB's now. The battery is hidden behind the wheelwell but takes all of 30 mins total to replace. It's sitting in the driveway hoping for some sprucing up...uncovered.

It isn't exactly an expensive car inside, but the 4 is big enough to move her quite well. She rides nicely and doesn't squeak or rattle or leak. And the car wasn't exactly well cared for either, the top is original as well. I've had nothing but good luck with 3 Chryslers. A really low mileage Lebaron that needed a tranny solenoid cleaned under 3 month warranty, then no problems before being totalled. A higher mileage Sebring that needed nothing when I drove it regularly other than an A/C leak fix. And a 300m that needed a tranny sensor replaced for 100 bucks and change.

The CLK is fine for now...the 300e is still a really nice car but needs a good bit of cosmetic work now (some bubbling around the windshield and A pillar. Perhaps what I appreciate most about it is the ability to easily adjust and tweak most things on it. I just adjusted the two front doors yesterday, the rears are still shutting like new. The harness cost was a joke, and I'm not sure where everyone is pulling $500 from. Several months ago I was quoted around $900 from Phil...I believe it was 900ish.

While I appreciate the 300 and could careless about keeping the CLK, I'm leary of newer MB's. I'm thinking about a 99-00 e55 for next year and dropping the CLK...but I don't know. One thing I'll never do is get a Jap car...

It's basic cost-efficiency (negligence 101) analysis that EVERY corporate manufacturer conducts when faced with a supposed "defective" product on the market, so I wouldn't single out MBUSA.

If the cost of taking a precaution is less than the probability and gravity of harm (for not taking precaution) the manufacturer has a duty to cure the defect.

While I'm not defending MB here, they've obviously run the numbers and have concluded that replacing the "defective" (I don't want to be conclusory) wiring harnesses would cost more than any potential future litigation costs.

There are other factors to consider that have been mentioned in this thread such as hit to their goodwill, which almost certainly has been factored into the equation also.

The fly in the legal ointment for MB is the NHTSA, of course, which can impose a duty to recall their cars regardless of any legal analysis.

The harness cost is a joke. A rude, tasteless, joke.

Someone with a C280 emailed me last week asking me about the $500 harnesses he keeps reading about, and if I could tell him where he could find one at that price...:rolleyes:. He said the dealer quoted him $1150 for a new harness. I gave him a couple leads, and the best he he could do from my suggestions was $998.

What percentage of Mercedes' quoted price of $1150 would anyone guess is MB's cost from Delphi?

Maybe, what, $50? $100? Certainly no more than $150.

No two ways about it; Mercedes-Benz is making an obscene profit from a problem they created. A manufacturer's defect, no less.

In my opinion, highway robbery--in the crudest sense.