The idea of cars morphing from being "goods" to being "a service" is an elegant
 

painful epiphany.

For those who can find a copy, Brock Yates' "Decline and Fall of The American Automobile Industry" (written in the early '80s) is worth reading.

The more technology there is in a car, the less reliable it will be, plain and simple. The older it is, the less reliable it will be, but less so than with technology. On top of that, the brand is a major factor in reliability, accounting for the era it's from. IMHO, the W123 benz is the most reliable car on Earth (I own 2), being not too old (ONLY about 20 years), and a Merceedes. It has just enough technology to make it not frustrating to drive (PS, AC) and it is built like a friggin tank. Diesel engine's built so tough it could survive a nuclear blast. The only way the car will EVER die is if it rusts - all you need to do is keep an eye out for rust and get to repairing it quickly. Even if you let it rust (like my 300D) it will still last longer than you.

If diesel isn't "you" then you can get a W126. They are about 95% of what the W123s are, having perhaps a bit more technology but VERY nice petrol engines (don't last as long but they can really haul arse).

My best friend has a VW. He hates it with a passion, although right before he bought it we both fantasized about how cool it would be and stuff. I think VW is in a transition phase, it will once agian make really sturdy, economical cars, but I don't think MB will ever make a truly reliable, long lasting car (like it used to) again. For luxury, longevity, and reliability in a NEW car I would stop dreaming. BMW is luxurious and reliable, but I don't know how long the new ones will last.

Just my 2 cents.
AA

"The more technology there is in a car, the less reliable it will be, plain and simple. The older it is, the less reliable it will be, but less so than with technology."

I think this principle only applies to some German cars, not Japanese cars. So I am glad it's not the end of the world yet.;)

Here's photos of a 5 year old Lexus involved in a front end accident where the airbags did not deploy.

No car company is exempt from problems ;)

http://www.seloc.net/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=520&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30

What's the story on that Lexus? Do you think that the bags should have deployed? Why? If the occupants were wearing their seatbelts, I doubt the impact was severe enough to deploy the bags. The front of the car is damaged, but lightly. The car is not twisted and the A-pillars are perfectly intact. That car has sustained little damage, and I bet the ETR's were more than sufficient to prevent injury. No injuries in the collision. How did the car fail to do it's job?

That car has more than sensors behind the headlights. There is an accelerometer (sp) that is located either under the seat or unde the console. It works with the front sensors in detecting rapid decelleration. Not enough force = no bag deployment.

Why does everyone think that their airbags should deply in every frontal collision? Top notch systems are only used when required. MB systems have a very high threshold, and it is raised when the seatbelts are in use. People have been conditioned by crappy domestic systems with bumper sensors that deploy the bags when you bump someone in a parking lot. THOSE are the "defective" systems.

I'm not an engineer, but I can make assumptions from another Lexus owner who also happens to be a Certified Auto Damage Appraiser.

....."Dude that's just nasty. I cant beleive that the air bags didnt deploy ??? Have Nuum check the sensors and report back to Lexus. Lexus is known for quality,but something just doenst seem right.
Granted if they did deploy,that would significantly increase the cost of repair to the point that it may get totaled even sooner. As part of my 9-5 credentials I'm a Certified Auto Damage appraiser.
From what I see from the pic I see frame damage(not too bad) or at the minimum engine cradle damage due to the mounting point of the swabar not being in the right place. R&R the bumper cover,substructure,radiator,radiator support,radiator catch container, driver fender,frame alignemt(if its before the motor mount pints its not so bad),engine cradle replacement,both hubs and brake assembly replacement(if you squish a rim somethig else attached is probably bent to),both front wheel replacement w/ tires. You dont really see all the uglyness until they take the parts off to repair."

The "myth" of safety...
 

Think airbags (especially side-curtain), ABS, and lots of other safety stuff can be more trouble than it's worth.

These devices are not foolproof, and they add both to the initial cost and cost of repair.

As a car ages, always the chance that something can go wrong. Aren't airbags supposed to be replaced once a car reaches a certain age?

All for safety and such simple changes as seatbelts and radial tires. But past a certain point we're talking mandated gimmicks that create a false sense of security.

I don't think that an appriaser is any more qualified to determine whether the bay should have deployed or not than most people that have rudimentary knowledge about those cars. When I was in the car electronic biz we had to learn about SRS systems to ensure that we didn't fire bags and ETR's off in the shop. The thing that I learned was BMW, Lexus, MB and so on systems are much more complex than Neon systems, much more reliable, and use redundant systems like crazy both to prevent accidental discharge and ensure proper deployment.

The car is totalled, and the front clip is damaged highly. However, look closely at the A-pillars and front doors. The passenger cell is pretty much undisturbed. The force of the impact was easily absorbed by the crumple zone. The ETR's probably fired, and since ALL (good for them) the occupants were belted, the bags did not meet the raised threshold for firing.

Do you think that the bags in the C230 in the pic should have deployed? Well, they didn't. That car went over three times, but the ETR's were more than able to provide the required restraint. Everyone that has seent he car thinks my Dad should sue Mercedes since the bags didn't deploy. What's his case? I got one tiny bruise on my elbow in a highly severe roll-over impact, but the bags didn't pop, so I should get money? Huh? The car more than did it's job.

So did the Lexus.

Rollover accidents are often not a severe impact -- as in a head on. They bags coudl have very likely functioned as designed.

They did! If you look at the front of the C230, it's damaged quite a bit. Most folks assume that it's ANY frontal impact that should set off the bags. It hit on it's nose, but not hard enough. Enough to severly damage the car, but not enough to deploy the bags.

I think that airbags should be yanked out. People sue makers like MB that make them part of an entire system that don't inflate unless required. Kids are killed riding in the front by bags that deploy in light impacts when installed using crappy systems with low thresholds. How do we win?

Ask the owners what injuries
 

- were inflicted?

blackmercedes is absolutely correct. If the seat belt is deemed enough to keep the person free of the steering wheel/ dash, the bags will and should not deploy.

The point as blackmercedes points out is that is the passenger is not thrown hard enough forward to match the release power of the airbag the airbag might just wind up hurting the passenger instead.

Trust me if you have a frontal and there is no need for the bag you would like it to stay put. It is not a soft cushy landing pillow as many might imagine.

Way to go Lexus for doing an intelligent job.

Jari

My benzes

-89 560Sel
-96 S500 , Sold when lease was up
-86 300SDL
-92 300CE , Sold but missed everyday
-70 280S

Obviously, the Lexus crowd thought they should have fired :rolleyes:


Blackmercedes wrote: "I think that airbags should be yanked out."

I disagree.

actually
 

I disagree with that too.

I still like the fact that I have airbags in my MB!

Jari

Practically every safety feature on modern cars was developed by Mercedes Benz This includes seat belt pre-tensioners.

Once Mercedes developed pre-tensioners they were able to raise the level of impact that would deploy the airbags.


Their reasoning was that if you should drive through a wooden fence into a brick wall, you don't want the air bags deploying when you hit the fence.

People tend to forget that Toyota/Lexus and just about everybody else are benefiting from Mercedes R&D and aren't having to pay for it (which gripes me no end).

Toyota does very little R&D other than for the implementation of features and ideas developed by the Germans.

Also remember that there are only two automotive manuracturers in the world that send teams to investigate accidents involving their products. Those two are Mercedes and Volvo.

These investigations proved that a frontal offset crash was far more likely and dangerous than a full frontal crash. So while companies like Ford were trying to get a five star safety rating from the US Federal government, Mercedes and other European manufacturers were designing cars to meet real world situations. We now have the Insurance Institute argeeing with the Europeans while companies like Ford are scrambling to make their cars truly safe.

As for American cars, I was talking to a guy on an airplane who was telling me about his daughter having an accident in her Dodge and the air bag didn't deploy. It turns out that Chrysler Corp had overlooked installing the bag on her car.

She had the car repaired and had Chrysler install an air bag in it. The girl had a second accident with the car. As she was sitting in the car after the accident, the air bag deployed.

As someone once said, you may not get what you pay for but you never get what you don't pay for.

Yup. I still think that airbags should only be sold as optional equipment, and only by makers that can prove that they have used the type of systems that MB uses.

Today I would NOT buy any domestic ("Big Three Brands") car thanks to their rush to install airbags, lack of development, and poor history of attention to detail. At least the Japanese thought "MB does it right, copy them."

The above example of the car going through the fence into the brick wall is terrific. Low-end systems would deploy at the fence. What good is that?

People have no idea of what a proper SRS system should do. Most can't cope with ABS, letting off the brake when the pedal pulses. Most think AWD, ASR or even front-wheel-drive "creates" traction no matter what is happening with the tires.

RE: Volvo bags
 

Info: my 96 Volvo 960 wagon has front & side bags, but they must be serviced or replaced in 10 years or they may fail. Is this the case with my 95 E320's bags? I know Volvo has an "insurance" policy on the 960 and (all?) cars: if I died in the 1st 40k miles on the car from a roll-over or frontal impact, Volvo will pay my family 250 grand. Pretty confident, huh?

One comment I will make though, is it wasn't until 1995 that Volvo added a 3rd headrest in the 2nd row seat as a safety feature, and it is not a plush one either. Mercedes has had them in their wagons since the early 80's.

Oh yeah...one more question. On the door pillar (the Volvo) a red label says the seat belts must also be serviced or replaced because some "pyrotechnic mechanism" will fail after that period. Anyone heard anything on this, and is it the same in the Benz?

Mercedes used to have a 10 year replacement period for airbags. They have extended the replacement interval to 15 years.

Re: RE: Volvo bags
 

The bags in MB's were originally labelled for 10 years, and that was amended to 15 years some time ago. No stickers in your car? Most folks have them.

The SRS system uses ETR's (Emergency Tensioning Retractors) that are basically explosive charges in the seatbelt retractor that fire to take up slack in the seatbelt during a collision and compensate for seatbelt stretch. Some experts think that better headrests, strong seat-back frames (don't break during a rear collision) and ETR's, combined, produce a much better system than airbags. So, Mercedes' systems rely primarily on those items, and use the airbags ONLY in the most severe instances.

People need to stop relying on the "star" rating system. While it's a good indicator of the ability of a car to withstand certain collisions, it means nothing in the event of roll-over, offset crash (IIHS test is good) or rear-end collision. It also has nothing factored on for active safety, where many "safe" vehicles fail. I would trade all the airbags in the world for superb brakes, great tires, predictable handling and other things like heated washer fluid, heated mirrors, and so on.

Now, Lexus, in it's wisdom, copied Mercedes. Mercedes used to hold the patent on many safety features now found in every car, but vowed never to enforce them. They actually encourage makers to copy their efforts. That GS sustained enough damage to write the car off (not that hard actually) but the cabin is intact. None of the pillars are even strained at all. The "appraiser" talks about the huge impact that moved the engine. The driveline in all good cars is designed to move, both absorbing impact forces (instead of deflecting them towards you) and keeping from jumping in your lap. I stand by my assessment (based solely on the pics) that the car did it's job, and did it well. No one was hurt, but the car. That's the desired result.

Speaking of active safety, when I lived in Germany the car dealers had a chart on the wall showing the relative visability of various colors. My BMW was orange but I think there was a yellow available. Germany also requires that any car manufactured there have tires that are capable of withstanding the performance of the car they are mounted on. Not so in the U.S.

In comparison, I simply reference the Ford Explorer or the fact that Walmarts doesn't sell a tire with an A heat rating.

European car companies rely on world class automotive engineers to solve safety issures. Too many others rely on government civil servants who couldn't get a job in the real world.

Mercedes Benz may have occasional wind burn from pushing the envelope too far but if it wasn't for MB, there would be far more people killed or injured worldwide.

just curious... how many in the north east region 'dared' to take out their w124's out in the snow this weekend ?
While I saw atleast 12 other benzes, S, C, E class stuck on the side roads refusing to go anywhere while the fwd cars were passing them right by. For the 8 I've put in the old 260E so far in the last 3 years, I could've easily have bought 3 old camries and rode them at different times all through the snow storm without having to worry about not being able to climb even the slightest street slopes ... oh well !
Perhaps I should now invest another 1200 in snow tires/wheels as I'm sure will be suggested at this point. or should i just go buy an old tercel for that money and not worry about it's maintenance ? :D

I really dont know what is so hard to getting around in a RWD car in the snow and ice. I had one for my first car and now my benz, and neither have any trouble. I pass FWD's and 4WD's:eek: in them. Especially my first car. Long story there...

You people who cant drive RWD cars in snow need to learn a little something about the laws of physics.

I drove my 1992 300D on snow the day before yesterday.

ABS seems to work as I expected.

I get some more slip on acceleration. Mine has no ASR.

That is due to F:R weight distribution:
typical RWD 50% : 50%
typical FWD 60% : 40%
So usually FWD has more traction. But if one has many passengers on rear seat and heavy luggage in trunk, RWD has more traction.

I also got some oversteer. Fortunately, I quickly responded to oversteer so that I could avoid my car spinning. FWD car might have had understeer, which may be easier to manage.

RWD in snow driving a "lost art"...
 

I live adjacent to a well-off area in suburban Washington...the winter "beaters" are spectacular...mid-'60s Benzes, Buicks, Oldsmobiles, Caddilacs...ALL big rear wheel drive tanks.

In the "old money" Baltimore neighborhood I grew up in during the '50s and '60s, there were still tons of prewar cars in daily use. One old lady kept a '38 Buick Roadmaster up on blocks in her garage, the tire chains on permanently.

Jim B+. I don't use my Mercedes in the winter in Wisconsin. By the the time it snows her I'm in Florida, where , naturally it works perfectly. With so little maintenace requried on the car I never take it to any dealer for "fixes". The car, with 200,000 ,mile so far runs just like it was new. The way I bought it. BTW, I never let the kids use it and I think this is important. What say you?

TROVERMAN,

When I was searching for a used car,

many MB's also had their SRS checked and air bag replaced at their 10'th year.

I could see a sticker indicating the airbag replacement on the inside of glove box or B pillar.
My 1992 MB 300D has such a sticker too.

When I first saw such stickers, I thought the car had an accident.
I called a technician at a Volvo dealer whether the replacement was likely to be due to regular maintenance or accident.
The Volvo technician annoyingly said he never saw such an airbag replacement sticker. Does Volvo educate people at Volvo dealer?

Took mine out to play the other day in the white stuff.

It was my SDL, with all season tires. The car never slides like my old '85 300D used to, but it can be hassleing to get it moving from a stop sometimes. Never, ever lose control of it. Its just too heavy.

The only better RWD MB in the snow is thas got to be the W124 wagon.


1st place W124 wagon (my sister's)

2nd place W126 300SDL + 350SD(mine)

3rd place W210 E420 (mine, and yes ESP does help a lot. But on the slightest grade, it gets stuck.)

4th place W124 300D turbo 300E(these car's have really light rear-ends! Absolutely nightmares to drive in snow without weight in the trunk.)

Mercedes E 220 CDI Classic
http://bilder.autobild.de/bilder/1/3414.jpg
Ähem, schon kaputt: Die Plastikhäkchen hielten nur kurz.


Poor build quality of 2000 MB E class under test by AutoBild in Germany.

http://www.autobild.de/artikel_automarkt.php?artikel_id=1227&artikel_seite=0&typ=1&merkliste=0&auswahlliste=1

honestly, I'd rather have cheap plastic in my W124 and have it "not" break down every month rather than the other way around !

RE: In snow, airbags, wagons, volvos
 

Found the sticker on the door for the airbags--15 year replacement date. The Volvo is ten. Living in NH, we got 25" of snow. Tried driving it (it is a RWD E Class Wagon) and it couldn't go anywhere. It needs Nokian tires, which will be bought this week, and it should go better. Made it home, almost spinning out a lot of the time, and brought out the vehicle which goes anywhere in snow with zero problems: THE RANGE ROVER (albeit @ 10mpg!)

I bought a 1995 S600 with 120,000 miles on it last April. I've wanted one of these beautiful beasts for a long time. I fell in love with it at first sight. It appeared very well taken care of, and I still think it was. However, it's been in the shop at least 3 times since I bought it. Check Engine light, SRS light, Steering Angle Sensor, and a broken heater line manifold. That manifold problem is probably what pushed me very close to the edge. I could see no way to change it without possibly pulling the engine. I decided to let the dealer handle it. The dealer quoted a reasonable price, and about 3 days to fix it. 10 days later, I finally got the car back. The dealer said they had at least 10 solid hours of work in the car, and at $120 an hour, that could have been pretty expensive (I have to say that the dealer, Loeber Motors in Lincolnwood IL was very decent about it. They honored their quote, and they always treat me good). I'm very concerned about the repair and maintenance issues on a car like this. It's like people say...when it's running good, it's an amazing car to drive. But when it's time to fix it, it hurts. As much as I love this car, I will probably sell it this summer. I am just not comfortable knowing that such high costs for maintenance are lurking around the corner.

Keep in mind that the V-14 W140 car was not designed with "ease of repair" or "economy of maintenance" in mind. This car was the flagship of MB's product line, and in Canada it carried a price tag of $200K with taxes. Only the richest needed apply.

The S600 carried every bit of technology MB had at their disposal. The original owners of the cars cared very little about long term operating costs. If so, they would not have bought the S600, they would have bought an E-Class.

S600 owners need a "frame of mind" that puts them in the shoes of the people that were the target of this car in the first place. "Money is no object" would be an apt phrase.

This is not to mean that the used S600 cannot be a great car, but they are frightfully expensive to repair out of warranty, and people seem to have unrealistic expectations of the car. Sure, it was expensive, but there is no direct relationship with respect to reliability and price. In fact, with most marques, it is an inverse relationship thanks to the piling on of technology in high-end cars.

Thanks to the reputation for expesive running costs (justified in many cases) that the V-12 cars have, they depreciate very hard. This means there are "affordable" used versions floating around. I know more than a couple people that stretched to buy a used V-12 German sedan and then become disappointed when they were required to pour more money into the car. The purchase price had driven to the brink, and there was little left.

When I still had the Porsche, I would meet young guys that bought mid eighties 911's and were soured on the marque. At that time, a 1985 911 was a $45K car used, and these fellows were maxed on the purchase price. They expected the 911 to be Corolla like, thanks to it's high price. "But I paid so much for the car, it should be well made." Well, it was never designed to be owned by a 22 year old waiter that had to finance it over 84 months and empties his piggy bank evey month just to make the payment. (This is not a jab at the above poster, just my own experience with some 911 owners...)

In the flagship world, the S600 Mercedes is the best of the best. BMW's V-12 cars have failed to hold their cachet and don't even come close to MB's bank-vault cars. However, anyone that has to pay attention to running costs should think about a different model....

It's all about perspective.

An S600 owner complaining about repair costs? If you can truly afford an S600, you shouldn't be worrying about the repair bills. A friend of mine has an S600 V-12 (sigh) and he just drops it off to the dealer for every maintenance scheduled and ponies up. Never heard him complain about the cost. That car is in a league of its own.

I've yet to see a 15-year old car that looks like my 300E. Still rust free, 300,000 Kms and looks new. People still ohh and ahh over my car (looks exactly like JCE's car).

I've never seen a Toyota, Honda, Ford or any other car look like that here in Canada. PERIOD. End of story. I've seen some Toyotas that have held up well in terms of chassis condition, etc. but they look like what they are - dated Toyotas. A friend recently mentioned how my car still looks "modern" given its age. It's part of Mercedes' classic styling. How many other car makers can claim this?

As far as the C-class, I don't think they're as good as other cars mentioned in that category but to me the C-class have never been "real Mercedes". They're an obvious attempt by a manufacturer to lower standards to enter a certain market niche.

The new E320s are gorgeous cars and IMO, worth the expense. Got a drive in my uncle's new E320 and it rocks!!! Everything about it is fantastic. How will it hold up? I don't know.

The G35s that everyone is raving about are pretty new. Yes, they're loaded with nice options and they're fast but I'd like to see what they look like and feel like in 15 years time and then I'll form my opinion.

Again, I think it comes down to perspective. Don't buy a 10-year old car and expect to never need maintenance. Don't buy a flagship Mercedes and expect repairs to come as cheap as a Ford Taurus.

P.S. I'll repeat my father's experience with his 1992 Ford Tarus GL wagon. 3 engine rebuilds - 3! - a tranny rebuild, AC toast, etc. And the clincher - paint actually FLAKED off the chassis. I've only seen this phenomenon on US cars. Paint FLAKING off. You could see bright chassis metal underneath - not even primer. Pathetic quality.

I'm loving my ever-faithful 300E. Think I'll give her a wash today. ;)

Zeus

Up yours too.
My signature is self-explanatory.

Whoa, easy there manny. :eek:

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not dissing C-class owners or their choice of cars. All I'm saying is that there's no denying that Mercedes lowered their previous standards to accomodate a market they didn't originally have a real stake in - i.e. to compete in the entry level luxury/sport sedan market. It was a bad move by them because, as others have mentioned, other manufacturers do it better and cheaper. I think the newer C-class are much nicer cars than the original ones, but I still don't see them in the light that I do the original models and the E and S classes.

Sorry, just my opinion.

Although the AMG C-class are in a different category altogether...;)

Zeus...I agree
 

Once upon a time, a quality car was UNDERSTOOD to be built to last as long as a house. But some have also required high maintenance as a matter of course. Ken Purdy said the Rolls-Rovce Phantom III was "...understood to require the services of a man and a boy full time." Yet the contemporary 25/30 "baby" Rolls is a user-friendly pussycat. The old 600 Mercedes was at the opposite end of the spectrum from the bread and butter cars so far as mechanical support went.

FYI, I grew up, literally " around the corner " from M-B & can tell you, the "real " Mercedes's came to an end in the late 70's, early 80"s.
I think that's about when plastic was invented. ;)
As for my lowely C-class, I will match it against any, out dated in 2 years, riceburner you care to name.
190 hp, 36 mpg, best ride imaginable, super solid structure, parts are 1/2 the price of my previous VW, build quality the best I've seen in my 40 years of vehicle ownership.
I could go on and on, but I have work to do..............not on my M-B though. :D

Glad you came up with a better response than your previous post. :D

Hey man, I agree with you - I'd choose a C-class over a VW, Honda or Toyota. But over an Audi, BMW or Infinity? Tough call.

All I'm saying is that I don't see them in the same light as the E and S class - which to me still look and perform like exceptional cars. But hey, just my opinion, I know you don't like it and maybe we don't agree. No worries and my apologies if I dissed you - not intended. Have a good one,

I never realized this would become such a huge post with almost 14K hits become the third largest post to be viewed in this forum. Well one thing's for sure, atleast now we know how trouble free our cars are :-D

The C-Class is all Mercedes. Outside North America, compact cars are held in high regard for not wasting materials, fuel, or space. Without such products, Mercedes would not be participating in their market against their competitors that all offer such products.

The C-Class has the highest reliability of any post 1995 MB product. The W202 cars have very high quality interior materials and are long lasting cars indeed. The M111 four cylinder engine is bullet-proof and in terms of gasoline engine "toughness" matched only perhaps by the M119 V-8 or the M103 six.


Quote:
All I'm saying is that there's no denying that Mercedes lowered their previous standards to accomodate a market they didn't originally have a real stake in - i.e. to compete in the entry level luxury/sport sedan market.

What a load. Mercedes played in the market for over 10 years with the W201 chassis. When MB penned the W201 they also created the W124 mid sized sedan and created some platform sharing. What standards did they bow down to? Engines? Structural rigidity? The W202 shared drivelines with the W124 and W210 E-Class cars. The W202 introduced MB customers to double A-Arm suspensions and retained the innovative five link rear suspension. What standard was lowered in that dept?

Maybe it's the interior? The switch gear is the same as the W140 S-Class. Guess that's not it. The doors close like no other car except another Mercedes. Guess that's not it, either. Safety? The C-Class got side bags right along with the other models, had ABS, etc. right out of the box. And so on...

Reliability? The humble little C is very well made. In terms of reliabilty, our 1998 C230 was light years ahead of our 1998 E-Class. Overall build quality on our W210 was barely to the standard of our W202. Paint! Is that it? Jeez, no again. Our E-Class' paint was no more durable and didn't gleam any brighter than that on our C's sheet metal. Talk to MB techs or browse CR or JD Powers. The W202 C-Class has the highest reliability rankings of Mercedes' products.

Okay, I'm at a loss to quantify the statement that the C-Class is indeed inferior to other MB products. It's not in the build quality. It's not the paint. It's not in the reliability.

Hhhmm. Tepic AC system? Our C230's air blew as cold as our W210's. The ACC system worked as well, maybe better lacking the fussy dual zone system.

The C-Class was/is a very profitable venture for MB. They have not had to bow their heads in the market. The C-Class has sold well and worldwide garnered high marks.

We need to stop obssesing on size.

Wow! I never thought a simple little statement would have C-class owners flying off their armchairs!! ;)

All I'm saying is put a C-class next to an E-class or S-class. Alright? There's a reason one is $40K and the other $70K CDN.

Geez...settle down people. It's only my OPINION...all I said was that's how I perceive the brand - not necessarily what I can afford at the moment mind you - just how I've always perceived the brand. Tell me you think I'm nuts, fine, it's an OPINION. I've respected yours, I'd hope you could return the favor.

And my comment is a 'load'? Er, you seem to agree with me on the fact that Mercedes dropped their standards a bit to create an entry level luxury sedan...apparently Infinity did it better. Steel wheels, mixed interior, no sunroof, alarm...all are standard on the E-class and up.

blackmercedes

I feel so vindicated. :D
If my next M-B is an E-class, it will only be for the extra room in it.
Completely agree with your rationale & descriptions.
Just because the "C" is the baby of the family, it does not make it less worthy to carry The Star on the hood. ;)

" In this particular instance, the driver's door hinge was popping off, and an A-pillar trim piece was egregiously misaligned; so much so that had we the inclination, we could have pulled the piece off with our hands."

Full Test: 2002 Mercedes-Benz C230 Sports Coupe
Edmund




"Around the skidpad, our C230 displayed an exaggeration of its left/right bias. . . . . . we have no explanation for the C230's counterclockwise 0.82g versus 0.75g."
Road Test Annual 2003

The C-Class has lagged behind some new players in terms of value, no doubt about it.

Standards to me has little do with equipment level. An E-Class had better have some with more equipment as it costs nearly double. However, in terms of engineering, quality, reliability, and other MB core values, the C-Class is not inferior to other MB products.

The Japanese have come on strong with exceptional products, all with high levels of reliability, build quality, and they've stacked some goodies on top for good measure, playing the "value" card. Is the C240 Elegance good value? Not at all! It's down on power, has many of the competitor's standard features as optional and is priced high in the segment. However, is it inferior to the E320? Guess what! The E320 is not a strong value player in it's segment! It faces many of the same challenges that the C does in it's market. It's priced near the top, is not a leader in the HP wars, and has many options that are standard on the competition.

Our C-Class had less equipment than our E-Class had. It's smaller inside and outside. However, as far as the "old-style" MB core values go (longevity, reliability, build quality, long legs) the C was easy the equal to the E.

What does the C-Class lack? The "prestige" of the larger more expensive models. Ironically, my neighbour couldn't really tell the difference in our E and C cars, and in fact thought the "old style" MB headlamps and grille on the W202 were more "stately" than the round headlamps on our E300. 99% of people had no idea that our E-Class cost that much more than our C.

I wish MB would stop playing the game and go back to charting their own course. Bring us a C270 diesel for $37,000 with Tex seats, no traction control, and steel wheels. No Comand, no integrated phone, no TeleAid. Maybe I'd be the only one buying one. That's the market for ya!

However, . . . .

in IIHS-HLDI offset crash test,

MB C and Audi 4 show least amount of intrusion.

Toyota, Lexus, Honda, Infinity are good in crash test, but do not match new MB.

The W203 has suffered from production problems and build quality issues. Here's hoping MB fixes that.

However, the W210 and W211 are in the same boat. At my dealer the W211 owners are constantly crowding the service dept griping about mirrors falling off doors, misaligned panels, constant CE lights, and so on.

MB needs to get it back in gear, and they better do it FAST. The W220 was not the great leap from the W140 it needed to be, and I see no end of them far sale now. The W211 is a superb car, but first year build quality was not been to the level it needed to be. The W203 was a dynamic improvement over the W202, but made no gains in build quality, reliability or customer satisfaction.

I am the first one to jump on MB for recent goofs, but the statement that the C-Class is not a real Mercedes is not backed up in any regard other than the fact that the car had lower standard equipment levels. In every other regard (ironically, in many markets the E-Class can be had in Classic trim with no sliding roof, cloth interior, wind up windows, and small engines) it is certainly worthy of The Star.

Well, in your previous post you stated that "there's no denying."

So I chose to deny.

And I stand by it.

It takes more than the lack of a sunroof or a CD player to drop a vehicle's price tag by 40%. Some big scheme by Mercedes to drastically overprice the E320 for "prestige" alone?

Suspensions are different, smaller engines, less refinements, less standard options, etc. all add up to necessary cuts to compete in that market when they should have stayed where they were, all in MHO of course.

I've enjoyed your posts John as they are usually tempered, intelligent and impersonal. Judging by your tone, if I've insulted you, my apologies. That's my second and last apology on this thread. Don't like my opinion, fine. Express it politely and I'll answer. Dismiss it as crap and I'll likely to fling some back and we become kids in a schoolyard. Goodbye.

A great deal of it is. The actual production costs for the E-Class are not that much higher, especially when comparing the W210 to the W202. Things like air suspensions add to the cost, but the W210 never offered such things. Pouring over both cars, I failed to see the $30K. The C wears just as robust (lots of W210 owners with failed lower control arm bushings and ball joints...) suspension bits, sheetmetal, etc.

Mercedes make no bones about the E-Class being a very profitable line for them. As a side note, think about those $85K Caddy Escalades. Huge profits! Often the "prestige" factor adds up to a dramatically higher sticker price.

As to the tone of my posts, I think that it's fine to judge the marque and even comment on your own experiences, but dismissing MB's largest Canadian customer base (E-Class leads in the US, but C in Canada) as somehow dull and not realizing that they bought an inferior product not worth of even being on the same showroom floor kinds gets my back up.

Example? I'm not a fan of the W203 CL230 cars. But, some people love them. It's not my cup of tea, is all. Maybe age has dulled me to the idea of two doors without a removable roof? Not sure. But, many MB nuts have bought them and since it wears the Star, they're in my club now. Mercedes readily admits that I'm not their target for the CL230's. They are desperate to get someone under age 120 in the showroom. Now that all the 35-45's have given back their ML's and leased RX330's, only the diehards and oldies are still around. David Morris in Edmonton had 60 (SIXTY!) 2003 models left over and had to discount many cars by $10K or more to move them. Wassup with that?

It's known by many that buying the entry level in a upmarket brand is often a smart thing to do. I saved tons of money, still get free loaner cars and other dealer benefits as well as all the MB goodness I have some to love over the years/kilometers. I get bulletproof engines, superb engineering, bank-vault struture, lots of safety gear, and so on. I really liked our E-Class (when it worked) by was the first to acknowledge that it was not as good a value as the C-Class.

I'm not dismissing. I'm debating.

My first benz was a 1976 300D. What a road warrior that car was and I took it to 250K miles before I sold it. The problems I had with this car were minor and being my first Benz I was in love with the drive, feel and yes, the 3 point star.

I next moved on to a 1985 380SE, bought it used and meticulously maintained. Ride quality, Superb! My only complaint about this car was that the small V8 sometimes felt a little underpowered. Had some idling problems that took a while to diagnose but other than normal maintenance and replacing the timing chain, she was pretty trouble free. I lost this car 1 year ago this past January in a freeway accident. Rush hour traffic had come to an abrupt stop and I was rearended at about 40 mph and slammed into the car in front of me. My car was totaled, I was fine, not a scratch.

I'm now in a 1992 500SEL, bought it with 70K miles on the odometer and the Jury is still out on the maintenance dollars. Haven't owned it long enough. As for the ride, it is a pure driving pleasure and a feeling of total safety on the road. I'll take higher maintenance dollars for comfort and security on the road any day.

Alright fair enough. You seem to have much more experience with the C-class than I have and more knowledge on the structural components and engineering, I'll admit that. I can only offer opinion on my own experiences, which, regarding the C-class have thus far left me less than enthused. My brother's C240 was not a shining pinnacle of Mercedes engineering and left him wanting. He sold it a few months after buying it. It was a 1996(?) I believe. It was sluggish, lacked detailing and style and had a cramped interior (we're both 6'+). I also got a ride in one from Toronto to New York and I was similarily not impressed. Again, strictly on a observation basis, I didn't study the engine manuals.

So, my impressions, though limited, have been poor and did involve earlier models. I also thought the early styling was terrible. As I mentioned, I think the newer ones look much better - a huge improvement.

However, if they're truly all the car you say they are, no real difference between one and an E320, then I stand corrected.