I fail to see how VW's piss poor past reputation is helping them sell cars today. VW has changed a lot of things for the better to stay in business. If they didn't, I don't think they would be doing so well and have the money to invest in two new plants to build the Pheaton and Toureg.

Before actually owning a VW I was under the impression that they built quality automobiles. Several of my friends had similar ideas at the time (1997) which is why I bought the Golf. My dad use to tell me stories about his late 60's beetle that never had problems and how much he abused the thing, maybe that's where the reputation mumbo jumbo started? Either way as I said before my experience forever changed my mind about VW. Also note that several of my friends who also owned VW's were left with a sour taste in their mouth. If it was just me I'd think I had a lemon, when I see multiple people with the same problems I start thinking otherwise. When you hear the service manager telling you to stay away from VW's newer products sure makes you wonder how bad they really are. Too bad, that Golf was a blast to drive when it worked right. Sure makes me wonder if MB is following the same path.

__________________
Afshin

Current:
02 C32 AMG

Previous:
92 500E
84 190E 2.3 5 Spd

Not referring to you at all placo1, but I really hate when folks remember a bygone era of automotive simplicity and then compare declining quality to present-day circumstances...

We ALL remember the venerable old Beetle and it's reputation for reliability and solid build...sure! The engine was a marvel of simplicity! There were only about five components that could possibly fail on the motor!

But what about the rusting problems that seem all but vanished in today's cars? Those old VWs developed a reputation for poor cabin heat simply because the heater channels were exposed to the environment and rusted prematurely, thus sending the warm air out into the street!

Lets not EVEN discuss handling in those things! They improved a bit when VW went to independent rear suspension instead of trailing arms.

But when the EPA mandates forced VW to retrofit smog handling devices into the simple motor, that's when the Bug became problematic...the retrictive emissions equipment hampered the already anemic performance, while the fuel injection problems proved knotty and expensive to fix. So was the demise of the old Bug.

Add ABS, SRS, and a host of other present-day technology, and the rest is clear...technology is complicated, and no manufacturer has it down pat (except for the Asians).

__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car

I personally do not want to return to the "good" old days of carbs, points, rust and short lived engines.

I spent more time rebuilding carbs and adjusting timing and dwell than I did driving. Engines were good for maybe 100K-miles on most cars, and suspensions wore out several times during that time. Remember "rebuilding the front end" every so often? I sure do. Changing plugs was a frequent event indeed.

What about exterior body panels that were practically rusting on the way home from the dealer? Exterior trim that decayed just as fast. Cheapo interiors that rattled after days (not years)? Don't bother bringing ANY of that back.

I don't "pine" for the good old days for one second. Our cars now start EVERY day, run flawlessly, and require so little care it's staggering when compared to just 20 years ago.

However, I don't want smooth starting, non-rusting cars that have check engine lights that come on all the time requiring frequent trips to the dealer for the replacement of expensive parts. I don't want ESP systems that require $2000 throttle "actuators" to be replaced on a regular basis.

I want my cake, and I want to eat it too. I want the long lived mechanical systems of modern cars. I want EFI systems that give service for decades without a second thought. I want cars that car be driven in the "rust belt" without rusting. But, I don't want to be forced into being an early adopter of untested technology. Let COMAND be optional for years and years. Same for traction control and drive-by-wire. Let me have manual controls!

Give me a C270CDI with manual HVAC, no traction control, ETR's but no airbags, and a reliable driveline with a 15 year warranty attached to the CE light! I want a single in dash CD (changers break) and you can keep your COMAND and put it in someone else's car. Give me back the super-thick MBTex. Power seats and headrests? When I can't adjust the seat, I'm too feeble to drive!

I agree with everything you said. I know, I am from the dark side, but I do own a 98 Grand Cherokee. Although it has some nice luxuries like power seats and in dash CD, it is also built with much simplicity. I6 engine that dates almost 20 years, a manual 4wd system, solid axles, no ESP, TCS or other doo dads to go wrong. Sure, I get the occasionaly minor isssue, but I don't have a christmas tree of lights coming on on my dash.

Personally, I think the worst thing about all the new technology is the lack of ability to do the work yourself. With my "simplistic" Jeep, just about everything is a DIY job that doesn't require a computer to solve. New MB with ABS, TCS, ESP, ETS... are impossible to diagnose and fix without the dealer providing assistance. This adds to the cost and inconvenience of operating the vehicle. The joy of owning a driving a vehicle should include understanding how everything works and being able to fix them if needed instead of getting to know your local service manager!

As far as I can see, cars are being designed to last 100k miles (the fed's mandate this number for emissions stuff...) so more and more, carmakers making things cheaper...but just good enough to last the 100k miles...

I may have my head totally underground, but lets pretend that I dont...so why is this happening ? (if I'm wrong, point me in the correct direction, please...disposable MB's bother me =)

I can only assume 1 or 2 of 2 things..

1) The enviro-lobby is working to get all cars greater than X years old (You know, all those 'smelly old fuel inefficient cars') off the road- this creates a legal environment where newer cars are more desireable. Anybody else's state have emissions checks or inspections just to register the thing ? The loophole for cars older than 2X years is simply a numbers game to not annoy the rich guys who collect old cars. Not that inspections are bad in and of themselves (cars on the road SHOULD have functional brakes...).

^Don't be confused, I dont think that enviro-lobbyists are trying to get old cars off the road, they are just trying to clean up the air, but often this creates an atmosphere where older/dirtyer cars are an annoyance and new cars are not (guess where the manufactuers are gonna vote on this one...) I will not comment on whether or not it is the .gov's job to mandate this...


2) Car sales and lifetime numbers tell manufactuers that people will buy cars for $20-50k and keep them for 5 years and not care what happens afterward (or wreck them by then...). The bean counters see this as a opportunity to make and sell cars that only last 5 years...I mean, if most people dont care about having a car more than 5 years, and will buy a new one after 5yrs is up...why make anything last longer ?

(A woman in the office where I co-op told me the other day "I wouldn't WANT to drive the same car for 20 years"- I'm sure many people fell the same way...)

The market no longer asks for cars that last 20 years. I'd love one, but the numbers that get seen by those that make decisions don't point to this.

also: Maintenance and support costs are a non-issue to a manufacturer- If the manuf. were willing to make it worth the dealer's while to do the recall on your car (i.e.- compensate the dealer fairly for his/her time, repair man-hours and adminsistrative costs...), the dealer wouldnt give you any static when you ask them do perform a factory-mandated recall. Based on what I hear (caveat: heresay) from friends and relatives (getting a dealer to do a recall for you, moreso one of those "unofficial" recalls...)- is it NOT worth a dealers time to do a recall on your car if he/she doesnt have to.

Add all these up, and it points to disposable cars- big surprise that carmakers are putting out chintzy electronics that arent designed to last and not giving a damn about old products.

The only thing thats gonna turn cars away from 'disposeable' back to 'dependable' is the buying public...all of us- telling the carmakers what we think w/ out mouths and our wallets.

The Problem is: as long as "us" includes people that say "I wouldnt WANT to drive the same car for 20 years", this trend toward disposeable cars will not reverse.
...oh well...I'll just have to keep searching for MB diesels and parts cars =)

Does anyone see my logic here ?
-John

__________________
2009 Kia Sedona
2009 Honda Odyssey EX-L
12006 Jetta Pumpe Duse
(insert Mercedes here)

Husband, Father, sometimes friend =)

VW owners,

exterior trim oxidization:
is this covered by 12-year limited warranty against corrosion perforation
?


BTW, I heard MB offers 30-year corrosion warranty in some European contries.

People's ideals concerning cars has changed as John has pointed out. However, it's not the dramatic shift we might think. Heck, most cars have been junk by 100K-miles in the past. We're the only nut-cases that knew cars could be made to last decades instead of months.

My neighbour is a perfect example. She had a series of Dodge products, and each was complete junk by just over 100K-miles. But, she kept buying them, one after another. Then she bought her current 1997 BMW 528i from us. It's been "unreliable" by MB standards, but so much better than her out-going Dodges that she can't believe it. She drives lots, and the BMW is close to 100K-miles (about 155K-km's) now, and it's like new. She is just shocked that a seven year old car with 100K-miles would be in such condition. Typical "Domestic" long term product owner.

I think that MB customers have migrated over to Subaru. I meet no end of Subaru owners that don't hesitate to pile miles on their cars. They love the things and swear by them. Our own Subaru is a truly great car, but not old enough (years or miles) to truly gauge it's long term prospects.

Don't think the market demands reliable cars? Wonder why Toyota is stomping the living crap out of everyone?

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

http://img31.exs.cx/img31/4050/tophat6.gif

It's because Toyota can make a car that is TROUBLE-FREE for the five or so years that a typical owner keeps a car.

From some of the posts I've read, warranty or not, MB can't seem to offer a new product that isn't already fraught with an unusual amount of problems!

__________________
2009 ML350 (106K) - Family vehicle
2001 CLK430 Cabriolet (80K) - Wife's car
2005 BMW 645CI (138K) - My daily driver
2016 Mustang (32K) - Daughter's car

They want their product to become an annoyance to the owner as soon as possible so it will be replaced...AND they also want the cars to provide a constant revenue stream to the manufacturer and dealer service with a constant flow of non-warrenty-covered repairs that can only be done by a dealer using proprietary parts.

A friend of mine is the son of a Packard dealer, and has kept dad's set of Service Bulletins (beautifully written and printed, btw) Packard sent out to dealers. One notes that "...owners of older models may wish to retain them in service..." and then goes on to note which new (late '40s) engines and other parts will "refresh" cars built as far back as the '20s. Packard Motor Car Company died an honorable death, but not because of owner-friendly policies such as these.

Note to those concerned about MB quality. The Kuwaiti Government owns about 30% of DC and they have an active roll in making sure MB's are solid cars. They purchase over 1000 MB's per year. Don't know what they do with them but my experience so far is that MB's require very little attention.

Here's recall info on the BMW Z8

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24203

afford to treat Mercedes-Benz vehicles as disposable goods. Wonder why else they would require a thousand "fresh" ones every year. If these are being imported for use in the middle east, suggest SEVERE problems with fine sand, dust, heat, etc could mean a short service life for ANY vehicle.

Cars are being seen as a disposable good or even simply a service these days. One of the reasons why is simply the speed at which a new product can be developed, thanks to computerization. Which makes the car more of a fashion item than a mechanical asset.

It used to take Benz eight years to take a car from design and testing into production. I remember in the late 70's having school reading texts talking about the process (I am German, from Stuttgart, and went through the German schooling process until my junior HS year). This is no longer the case - the development cycle has been shortened due to market pressures to the point that Honda, Toyota, etc can produce a new model within months. It's part of the digital revolution.

Which takes me to the quality issue. I think the engine blocks for most cars today are laid out for about 200k or so, with everything else having a shorter lifespan. Within these constraints, most Japanese cars work very well. Sometimes there are some real jems - the Mazda Miata, for example, combined cheap production elements (check out that plastic, unpadded dashboard top of the first edition of the cars) with unbelievable reliability (those dashes never cracked, and with a bottle of armor-all you can make an old Miata look like new). Their engine wear was so slow that junkyards started piling them up from accidents, and since they would not move, you could get another engine to pop into your Miata for only about $800, after yours ran out at over 260k miles or so.

However, I don't think you'll see any manufacturer today go with the longlasting philosophy Benz has so beautifully represented over the years.

But let's look at more expensive makes. I recently checked out the new Audi A8. This is basically an aluminum car, which won't rust and won't corrode if properly kept. We're looking into the $80k's for one of these puppies.

At the same time, I found the picture below on an Audi website. What are you going to do about those timing chains at 125k miles? I count four of them. Are you going to pull the engine on a 10 year old car to replace the chains and rails?



When I look at the W126 (I have a 560 SEL) I admire the material choices. I realize that if I work on the car myself, I can run it cheaply, while keeping it close to perfect. I can do the chain myself, in the car, every 10 years or so. I can do the brakes. I can inspect the drive train, rebuild the steering (not the box) for under $300, get to everything. At the same time I can do 0-60 in just over 7 seconds.

So why was I eyeing the A8? Has anyone noticed that the alleged Snipers' car, a 1990 Caprice, looks almost the same as the one a friend of mine had bought in 1976? In comparison, today looks are being drastically redesigned every couple of years. And the 560 is starting to look, well, out of fashion.

All of the manufacturers know this. Hence the desire to make more "disposable" cars. In the end, it may be that the only differentiating element between the different manufacturers in a given price category will be the feel and handling of the cars, and will have nothing to do with the actual longlevity of the mechanics.

Oh yeah, maybe in twelve years GM will come out with their Fuel Cell vehicle, and all of our beauties will be obsolete...

__________________
Henry Bofinger
1989 560 SEL (black/black)
2001 Audi TT Roadster (silver/grey)

What if CR surveys reliability of cars much older than 8 years?