Quote:
Originally Posted by ILUVMILS
My point exactly, the Tech's aren't qualified to make that call. They can agree that it's a PITA but calling it a design flaw is way above their pay grade.
Believe me, I've seen plenty of Tech's question the engineers during training courses (sometimes through a translator) only to be given a very clear and polite explanation of the logic behind their thinking. It's actually quite impressive. The Tech's always get taken to school by the engineers. After that they rephrase their questions to a much milder tone. I've seen it happen many, many times......  |
Whether it's 'above someones pay grade' is a matter of opinion.
Sure, making something more difficult to service while eliminating a very effective spring mechanism (my 190 was 30 yrs old and the E300 was 20 yrs old) which had a very low failure rate and were simple to service makes perfect sense.
Putting a gas tank right behind the rear bumper is an excellent design.
Placing a fuel filter on the underside of a vehicle and require suspension removal to replace it is a really great idea (Mazda RX7).
Just a few that I can think of.
I get it. You like engineers. Great for you. More times than not they get it right. Screw ups now are less frequent due to auto CAD where they can see it in 3D and get input from people who work on stuff. They do still screw up. The head light fitting is a perfect example.
The idea that engineers, MB or not have a reason for everything they do is just foolish. That is like saying mangers have a reason for everything they do and that the labor just does not see the big picture. Utter nonsense.