Hey zafarhayatkhan! Don't ever say that Mercedes quality is similar to Ford quality. Ford is able to produce reasonably decent looking bland cars with overall good drivetrains, but they are JUNK!!! Owning a 1996 Ford "Exploder" Limited, the TOP model Explorer for $35-40k new should get reasonable quality, right? WRONG! It has 132k on it and it still runs, but I don't no how much longer. Almost 50% of the dash and instrument lights have failed, and replacement means dash disassembly in most cases. Check engine light on since purchased, high octane gas, O2 sensors, wiring checks have all failed to extinguish. Runs rough some times, brake pedal has gone to the floor several times, and now the headlights (w/fancy auto on/off & delay!) do not work except on high beams. No idea of why, Ford says could be any number of expensive things which are not DIY jobs. Have replaced the rear passenger inside plastic junk door handle about 5 times, it is currently broken. Exiting requires putting the window down and opening from outside. Also have replaced rear gate power lock (Electric, not reliable vacumn) about 5x too. Currently broken, too expensive to fool with more. The factory key has broken, the keyless system no longer function even with new batteries. The horn has not functioned for 50k miles, and the alarm, once audible, is now a "passive" system. Cannot shut off the "PREMIUM" JBL / Ford Audio system, as the volume knob is broken. CD Changer skips intermittently, even on new CDs. Auto-dimming mirror flops around as mount is cheap and has failed. The seats, never comfortable despite "PREMIUM" leather (which has cracked and looks terrible) and power lumbar, have now collapsed on the driver's and passenger's side. They are awful to sit in for anything other then short jaunts. The power lumbar no longer works, either, and for such a "limited" truck, it has no power seat backrests. The finish is peeling on the dash, and the power antenna broke twice, fixed once, curently broken. Rear neon high-center brake light functions intermittently, way too expensive to think about fixing. It rattles horribly, and the ride is terrible. The fog lights, pitiful when new, no longer work. Of course, all the fuses and relays are fine for all of the stuff. It is just cheap, american junk. Under the hood just changing spark plugs is very hard to get at, an on the freeway beware of going over 70mph. Honestly, the thing is really tipsy, and very unstable. You can just tell its cheap, and the E320 feels absolutely rock-solid. Yes, it has its problems, like the leaking gaskets and such, but I find the electrical connectors to be solid and well constructed. It has quirks, which give it character. You can tell that it was a well thought out car, though, with many nice "touches" only found on a Benz. I think it WILL last forever, despite what other people are saying. When I bought a Range Rover Classic many people said they were unreliable expensive junk, but now with 186k on and still unstoppable they were wrong. People need to put maintenance in their cars, and appreciate them for what they are. They are high-quality, high-performance, luxury Greman cars. Do not ever put them in the same league as Ford.

_____________________
1995 Mercedes-Benz E320 Touring, 42k
1992 Land Rover Range Rover County, 186k
1996 Volvo 960 Wagon, 105k
1996 Ford "Exploder" Ltd 2wd, 132k
1982 Volvo 240 GL Diesel (now gas) 157k

The C-Class and E-Class cars do not compete for the same dollar. Mercedes has made a compact sedan since 1984 and the W201. This has been a successful strategy for them. They introduced a car that is priced below the larger sedans, offers economical drivelines (in North America, no fours in bigger cars) and captures a customer they didn't have.

You don't think they need the C-Class? Right now the "entry level" luxury market is the most crowded segment. This is cars like the BMW 3-series, Audi A4, Infiniti G35, and so on. There is a strong demand in this range, and profits to be made. MB would be foolish not to sell the C-Class in a lucrative segement.

As to family appearance, this is another long standing Mercedes tradition. The W201 and W124 were based on the same platform and from more than a few feet away, many people were hard pressed to tell the difference. This did not discourage W124 sales, but did enhance W201 sales.

It's funny how most people place the "don't buy one past this year" cut-off at the year of the car they own. While I'm not a fan of the COMAND and all that stuff, I think there are decent late-model MB's to be found. The W210 didn't get many gadgets until the 2000MY and beyond. There are many folks that feel the W210 is indicative of everything that is wrong with MB, and here's a fellow that loves his. It's all a matter of perception.

And that is why MB is at the bottom of the heap on the surveys. They went out and attacked the market with the ML and brought a ton of non-MB customers into the showrooms. These people had been raised on Accords and Camrys and expected cars to work like their solid-state radio: flawlessly. What they didn't know is that MB cars have NEVER been that way. They have always been leaders in the heaping of technology in their cars, despite claims to the contrary. Among the first with airbags, ABS, and so on. MB cars had complex systems for decades.

Look at a W124 in it's day. Stop comparing it to a new car. In 1986 it was a technical tour-de-force. And guess what? Stuff broke. People love to think of the W124 as "perfect." They're not! Evaporators, ACC-PBU's, head gaskets, wiring harnesses, and so on.

People used to buy MB automobiles for their bulletproor drivelines and superb driving experience. We could fix other stuff, but who likes to replace an engine at 100K-miles? Then the ML customers came. They exposed MB for what they have been for decades: a maker of superb cars with incredible drivelines that often has troubles with gizmos.

So Mercedes has dug their own hole. And you can't unring the bell. They're just going to have to bite the bullet and create cars that are both superbly engineered and have reliable electrical sub-systems.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

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

I would not compare a Ford to an MB. To make a point, I probably said something like "Ford's: Quality is Job one, MB's: Engineered like no other. Both claims leave a lot to be desired, especially Ford's.

From an engineering standpoint, Lexus LS430 is the Bench Mark for the automotive industry, although it maybe not be as satisfying to drive as say an MB.

What bothers me most is the MB's design issues with mechanical components like gaskets, radiators, AC components, transmission components and crankshaft balancer etc. after 100 years of automotive history.

Similarly Chey's: Like a rock; They rattle, shake and twist on rough roads, far from "Like a rock".

Even Toyota has sludge probelms with it's 3.0 V6 engines.

__________________
Zafar
94 E320 58000 Miles

Roll a good sized rock down a rough road. It bangs and crashes itself down the road. Just like a Chevy.

John: I did not mean to give the impresssion that the C series has not done well. However, something has to give eventually. I just got my Nov 2003 edition of Mercedes Enthusiast where they have a feature this month called "Range Review 2003". If I can quote from them on the C series:

"Saloon, Estate and Sport Coupe versions are available with the four cylinder kompressor, V6 and 4 and 5 cylinder diesel power....C-class spans a wide gulf. You can have an entry level C180 for not much more money than a high-spec Golf GTI, while the C32 AMG offers near superior performance at nearly double the money. In between, you can have a 'compact S-class' with the ultra refined 2.6 liter or 3.2 liter V6 engined cars". {I am not even going to talk about the CL and CLK models since they are coupes}.

The huge range of C class models as described above has to lead some competition between the E and C models.

I do agree with most of the points in your post in terms of what MB did with their models and demographics. Perhaps that is why the interior styling is starting to use materials that look more like what you find on American cars as opposed to the original expected design features.

- Jon

__________________
- Jon E320 210.055

90 Wrangler
77 Mustang 307,000 mi
63 T-Bird [fully restored]

Guys: Perhaps the question regarding MB, quality etc. can be summed up by the word, Chrysler. Oh, and notice the stock price of DMB before the merger. Something really BIG has happened to a once good manufacture. The people who run MB are nuts as they will never understand our culture. We may be used to buying junk but they will pay for their mistakes in trying to fool you and me. What say you?

I don't think that the C-Class and E-Class model dynamic will play any role in MB's future success. If anything, the C-Class in it's top model formats is too expensive, and the E-Class might bleed the C sales in luxury car markets like the US where car size and luxury are linked. In many parts of the world, size matters, but the other way around. In many European nations, the C-Class is a full sized car.

What we need are the greater choices available to Mercedes customers in other parts of the world, but that would only make me and a few of us happy. Generally speaking, MB's customer base in North America is different than in many nations. They are trying to reach a larger audience with cars like the CL230, but that's not where I want them to go. I want to be able to buy a four cylinder C-Class without COMAND, manual seats, no traction control system at all (half the posts in the tech section are "ASR" related) and maybe even manual AC controls. But folks like me are a minority here. Thanks to the short term expectations of car owners, they mostly value trinkets over things like double row timing chains.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

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

To sum it up, EVERY manufacturer has issues. The problem is deeper then that. If I buy a Chevy or a Ford it can be expected that it will have a few issues along the way. I expect the dash to be made of cheap plastic and I expect a few rattles. Lets be real, you get what you pay for. The perception that most people have is that mercedes is luxury, it is a high end vehicle only available to well-to-do people. Now all of a sudden Mercedes is marketing their vehicles to a younger crowd and they are building lower cost vehicles. People see an affordable Mercedes and buy it thinking that they are getting the same quality as found in an S600. What people forget is that you get what you pay for. If you buy a cheap Mercedes, then you are getting a cheap Mercedes.

My Father owned a 1999 ML320. He bought it brand new to own as a 10 year vehicle. I bought a used 1998 Grand Cherokee. He laughed that I would buy such junk saying it was a throw away vehicle. Well, my Grand now has 110,000 miles on it and I have replaced one sensor ($15) and a power steering pump ($125). With only 55k on it he had a tranny sensor replaced and a power window module failure replaced... up untill something under the dash shorted out and it was completely gutted by fire just last week.

Looks like in the end I have the last laugh. His high end Mercedes ( the first high end vehicle he ever bought) is now sitting in a junk yard with only 55k on it. Talk about a waste. Luckily, no one was injured in the incident.

zafarhayatkhan

Point taken. I agree that things seemingly as basic as head gaskets and a/c should be perfected by now, but overall you have a very solid, quality car, at least the w124. Glad you clarified on the MB-Ford thing. I used to like Fords above many brands, now only above American brands. I have found that in any good car, there are compromises. Personally, I hate Lexus vehicles. A rebadged Toyota?? Sure, the company is smart with platform sharing and all, but does it really hold the cachet that MB does? I know one owner of a '96 LS400 who traded to an '03 E320 4Matic. He sees 2 advantages the Benz has over the Lexus, and one is AWD, the other is image. Now it seems that all the former great car companies are heading down the drain: Mercedes quality is dropping and image too will as the result of the DC merger. Jaguar has lost it by becoming a Ford Mondeo / Lincoln LS rebadge, (although the current XJ is nice) Land Rover will lose it as soon as the Discovery is based on the Explorer (due in 2005), Bentley and Rolls Royce as a result of their respective takeovers by Volkswagen and BMW, BMW itself with awful styling and poor electronic design, Porsche with the pitiful Cayenne (Car & Driver says the "Porsche of SUV's" is the Infiniti FX45) and Volvo and Saab by their takeovers by Ford and GM. A Subie-Saab? Disgusting but probably more reliable. That's my 2 cents

__________________
________________________
2002 Mercedes-Benz E320 4Matic
1995 Mercedes-Benz E320 Wagon
2005 Land Rover LR3 V8 SE
1999 Audi A8 4.2L quattro

Just between the Big three, GM has good transmissions and engines, Chrysler Styling and Ford body integrity (less rattles).

I have driven products from all three, they leave a lot to be desired.

Nissan was probably the most reliable brand until the turn around plan, harsh ride thou. Toyota saves money where average customer cannot see. Honda has wind and road noise issues and is average in almost all respects. Mitsubishi does not have anything of interest either.

I had a VW, not only is that unreliable but the drive is not any good either.

Suzuki, Kia etc. are still learning and trying to copy the big automakers. Maybe 10 years down the rode they maybe worth a look.

My W124 may have to do for now!!! Even with all the reliability issues with below average in quality, but above average in price dealerships.

__________________
Zafar
94 E320 58000 Miles

I read this article over a year ago and recently pulled it out of the Toronto Star archives.

Toronto Star
WHEELS, Saturday, August 31, 2002, p. G06

Luxury lasts longer
Size, price, quality factors in longevity

Mark Toljagic
Special to the Star

Canadians are a sensible, modest bunch. For one thing, almost a third of us drive vehicles that are more than 10 years old.

Mercedes-Benz has the largest proportion of 11- to 15-year-old models still operating on Canadian roads. The German automaker leads a pack of luxury marques that enjoy considerably greater longevity than economy car brands.

Many things, besides quality, determine automobile survival rates, according to the report's author, Dennis DesRosiers, of Desrosiers Automotive Consultants Inc.

His interpreted Canadian registration data collected by Polk Canada Inc., market researchers.

DesRosiers points out that high-priced vehicles are kept a lot longer than lower-priced vehicles. This is partly because they are better built, but they also last longer because they: have body-on-frame construction; accumulate fewer kilometres; are looked after more diligently, and are owned by older drivers who can afford the maintenance and are less likely to write off cars in accidents.

Then there's the matter of price. If an owner has invested $60,000 in a new vehicle, or $35,000 in a used vehicle, he or she has a powerful incentive to look after the investment and spread it out over a longer period of time to amortize his or her purchase.

The top-ranked vehicles (in order) are Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Volvo, Cadillac, Lincoln, Acura, Jaguar and Saab. (Lexus and Infiniti were not yet marketed in 1989, the last model year the researchers tracked.) Between 70 per cent and 90 per cent of these premium-brand cars sold in Canada between 1985 to 1989 were still registered and had plates in the year 2000.

The top mass-market brands on the list are Toyota and Honda, followed by Oldsmobile and Chrysler.

That Chrysler-branded cars ranked so high, while similar Dodge models fell below the industry average of 49.7 per cent still on the road, supports the theory that expensive cars enjoy a pampered life.

Luxury cars enjoy an enviable status few high-volume cars achieve. "Driving a 15-year-old Mercedes-Benz is cool," says DesRosiers. "Driving a 15-year-old Pontiac is not."

DesRosiers draws three main conclusions from the data:

Larger, more substantial vehicles last longer than smaller, lighter cars.

The vehicle's price is a strong determinant of longevity.

Quality plays a role in longevity, especially among Japanese vehicles.

Buyers of new cars can't really rely on the data, because the vehicles have changed substantively since 1989. Hyundai's products have improved considerably since the early 1990s and would not rank the same way today.

The longevity data is really of value to those buying older, used vehicles.

"Absolutely the best value for the money is a five- to 10-year-old Cadillac," says DesRosiers.

"It may require more maintenance than a Toyota, but what else can you buy for 20 per cent or 30 per cent of its suggested retail price that is bound to last for another decade?"

Copyright © 2002 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved.

Uh, can anyone think of a Mercedes CAR (not counting the ML) in the last 20 years with that type of construction? Or a BMW? I think they might be a tad off-base on that particular notion.

__________________
John Shellenberg
1998 C230 "Black Betty" 240K

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

Back in the day, it was:

GM had good engines and trannies. Good styling.
Chrysler had EXCELLENT engines (see Slant 6 and the venerable 318, as well as Cummins Diesel), and great styling. Trannies sucked usually.
Ford If you treated them well, you might be good for a period of time. One thing that would never fail you was that 9" Ford rear end.

They all were capable of building great cars and failures. Everyone is.

__________________
http://comp.uark.edu/~dmgill/signature.jpg

one of the economies practiced by the rich in the early auto age was to buy cars built to last as long as a house. The high price paid for a Packard or Pierce-Arrow reflected the "value-added" of premium materials, workmanship, engineering, conservative style, and other factors which would allow these cars to continue to serve for decades. Mercedes-Benz had this philosophy up until the start of the computer era (say 1985). Those Mercedes built since will, like all other cars of any price niche, start to wear out after five years as expensive and complex electronics wink out, and can't be replaced inexpensively...making the cars a nuisance to maintain just at the point where they should be getting "broken in." I'm now up to three early '80s MB diesels, hope to find enough of the same so that I never have to drive anything else.

The last car I bought that had a body on frame type was in '78. My 63 MGB was unit (monoquce) construction. Who ever made that comment about frames and bodies has been way out of town for a LONG time.