I have a lot of 80's eurpean cars including Volvo, BMWs and my 500SL. I have found that for the most part these cars stand up well to time and are easily servisable. I was looking at the new Volvo's at one point, and they sure do not seem to be the over built cars that they once were. For instance the s40 only has one hood strut holding up the hood. Not very impressive to me. Going on to bmw, The '83 633csi that I bought not to long ago has been a good car to drive and work on too. The On board computer did not work when I bought it, and I inquired and was told that it would cost $1300 to replace it. It was just and accesory and was not a big deal to me. I did futher research and found that it was just a hidden fuse. The issue is that the new bimmers have idrive with lcd screens that controll heats, stereo's etc, and then need to work for the driveabilty of the car. People my not spend the $5000 to repalce this thing on a 20 year old car, so one can say that these new cars are desinged to fail. Not much experience with the newer benz products, I'm hoping for the best!

The BMW cars seem to be just as cheap as a kia......... I love the old ones.. but somewhere in the 90's they became crap!

yes

__________________
1979 240D- 316K miles - VGT Turbo, Intercooler, Stick Shift, Many Other Mods - Daily Driver

1982 300SD - 232K miles - Wife's Daily Driver

1986 560SL - Wife's red speed machine

If you consider modern cars with computers and electronics as disposable because you can;t fix them with a standard socket set, then yes.

Think about this for a second. MB produced 100's of thousands of W123s worldwide. They are worth nothing (except on ebay when they get 40 mpg). Whats the difference between that and say a modern Cadillac CTS?

I predict that a new type of shop is going to open up. People will specialize in plastics and electronic modules. Things evolve, we must as well. Let me assure you OEM's don't design a car to fail after a certain point. If anything modern cars should last much longer then the past.

__________________
Adam Lumsden
(83) 300D
Vice-President of the MBCA International Stars Section

I have to disagree with you on this one. While they don't sit down at the design meetings to say "let's specifically make it so that it falls apart in 5 years", they do design it to a lesser standard of quality than in the past. The OEMs are now designing cars with leasing in mind, as opposed to owning. This is especially true with higher-end vehichles, as more and more of them are being sold on a lease payment. This is a completely different business model than the old one, where the car was actually "owned" by someone.

Leased cars only really need to be trouble-free long enough to last through the lease, which in most cases means 48 months and perhaps 50-60,000 miles. At that point the car is typically returned to the dealer and flipped into a new lease. This is where the manufacturer makes all their money: moving the new car off the lot every four years *and* providing lease financing for the new driver. Manufacturers really don't care what happens to that car once it has been returned and then sold to a second owner. They don't make money off the second owner.

MB (along with many other high end makes) figured out a long time ago that they don't need to put the same degree of quality into their cars. In fact, it is counter-productive for profitability. If people replaced their cars every 10 years how would they expand production? They've been trading on a reputation for quality that was earned a long time ago, and they're using this brand image to move cars of lesser quality to people who couldn't have afforded them new even 10 years ago.

Leasing is more responsible for lower long-term quality/longevity than anything else.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

Remember that a new vehicle lease is essentially financing the estimated depreciation of a vehicle over the course of the lease term. Given that a major factor in the cost of a lease is residual value, it would be counterproductive to intentionally design an automobile that won't hold up after a few years. The word will get out, resale value will suffer and lease costs for new versions of that vehicle would significantly increase.

All three of these things have already happened. The word is out, on all the makes. Resale values have dipped significantly in the past decade, not just because of quality but also because leasing has created a larger inventory of vehicles in the marketplace. Finally, prices would have gone up more except the historically low interest rates we've had in recent years or so are helping to keep monthly payments down.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)

While I think the previous statements accurately characterize the U.S. market, they are not universally true. My older brother works at a marketing consultancy in Detroit, most of the business is automotive related. He just returned from a conference in Madrid. One of the tidbits he dropped on me - I always get Merdedes trivia from him - concerned E-class buyers in Germany. Currently, most E-class cars sold in Germany are purchased by private buyers, some are company cars. The average buyer keeps the E-class 94 months - that's about 8 years. And of course, that being the average, there are many who keep them longer. My point being that in Germany at least, buyers still like MB for their traditional values of durability, reliability, etc.

- JimY

New ones seem to hold up fine. My Aunts 2006 X5 is a nice truck, nice as anything really. Who cares if it breaks its BMW's problem.

My friends 98 E300D with 160k+ miles on it still rides, drives, and looks like new. Its almost a 9 year old car, thats pretty good.

Seems like if you take care of it you should get 15-20 years out of a good MB, can't really expect much more than that.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Hmmph, try posting that sentiment on the vintage or the diesel section.

Or voicing it in Beirut, ( you can see 115, 123, 124 all over the place there)

__________________
1991 560 SEC AMG, 199k <---- 300 hp 10:1 ECE euro HV ...

1995 E 420, 170k "The Red Plum" (sold)

2015 BMW 535i xdrive awd Stage 1 DINAN, 6k, <----364 hp

1967 Mercury Cougar, 49k

2013 Jaguar XF, 20k <----340 hp Supercharged, All Wheel Drive (sold)

After that point its either infuse thousands of dollars into it to fix all the age related crap, or drive it into the ground.

Nothing lasts forever, some people have un realistic expectations.

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

If they could get their electronics right they wouldn't be so potentially unreliable.

__________________
1985 CA 300D Turbo , 213K mi

There are too many parameters to keep track of when dealing with electrical engineering. Newer cars have far too many printed circuits that are unique to each car. When they are no longer working, they cannot be repaired and the entire unit must be replaced.

For the first 10 - 20 years, most new cars should be relatively reliable and offer excellent service. After the hours have been clocked, and age and weather have taken their toll on all the hundreds (perhaps thousands) of processors, a cascade of failures will undoubtedly occur rendering the vehicle useless and worthless.

Mercedes of vintage status have not worn out to that effect since they have none of these items to associate with. That, coupled with proper maintenance insures a Merc that will last for a near indefinite period of time.

Most of us have not owned these older cars since new, and it is unfair to state that the "all Mercedes fall apart after a certain age". Lack of care is likely responsible from the previous owner(s) of the vehicles.

I think this is so true. I don't think there is necessarily planned obsolescence, but I do think there are quality decisions and what I would call "sub-contracting" or outsourcing decisions that effect quality that are based in part on the leasing business model. Most warrantees last about as long as a lease term with a few exceptions including Hyundai and GM's new desperate plea for consumer faith (w/ the 100K warrantee).

I just leased a Jetta the other day and did a bit of research into the nature of a lease. Yes, you are paying for the use of the car and its consequent depreciation based on predictable mileage. It seems to me you can pay for that or you can eat it if you buy it. I don't think the dealer makes all their money off the initial lessee. There is plenty of more profit to be made on the second buyer, who may opt to finance and then also to purchase a warrantee or any number of other dealer "added values".

It seemed to me that auto leasing was a pretty sophisticated market solution, actually. It works for me personally. I've never bought a new car or leased before. Leasing sure makes it easy to move cars off the lot. The qualified consumer can avoid putting anything down and have a new car every 3 years. I'm already looking forward to the end of this lease when I get a lease on an Alfa Brera Coupe. Then we'll be talking.

Also, it is possible to accrue equity on a lease depending on the residual and the mileage you drive, but then again, you can only use the "equity" if you turn it over for a new lease with a discount, sort of like imagnary "dealer money". I don't mean to hijack the thread and turn it into a leasing discussion.

__________________
1984 300D turbo, 250K
1971 MGBGT, 101K
2007 VW Jetta, 4K

I had said the manufacturer doesn't make anything off the second owner. The dealer is another story, and you are absolutely right on that point. Dealers typically make 3x the profit off a used car sale than they do with a new car sale. So the lease returns are almost "double dipping" because they make money leasing the new car, and selling the trade in. But the finance agreements and extended warranties, etc. are all aftermarket when it comes to a used car. The manufacturer doesn't make a dime off them.

__________________
Jonathan

2011 Mazda2
2000 E320 4Matic Wagon
1994 C280 (retired)