Is merecedes too troublesome ? - Page 26 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Momo · #**376** 03-02-2004, 02:07 AM

I was surprised to come across the link below last week. While it is in French, the graphs are readable in all languages. The curves represent the number of breakdowns per 1000 vehicles per year. A breakdown means the TCS had to be called out. (The TCS is the Swiss equivalent of the AAA or AA.) While the data ends in 1999, the message is clear - over the period represented, breakdowns increased by 20% on average across all makes.

The upper graph is for makes with above average breakdown rates, and the lower one for the below-average (better) breakdown rates. The most spectacular decline is by Opel. Mercedes was the most reliable make in 1986, but has declined significantly since then, remaining better than average.

http://www.tcs.ch/tcs.html?/webtcs/TCSPubli.nsf/(DocByID)/(BE9473ADD4D4B0A4C12569DC0057781B)!OpenDocument&language=fr

plink49 · #**377** 03-02-2004, 09:31 PM

John.....I love the way you put things...I'm serious. You wrote:

"However, take our nearly 15 year old 190E. It costs a couple thou a year to keep in good shape. The AC blows cold, everything works, and it's in good tune."

Let's take it one step further. How long do you keep this up? When does it stop? My '86 300E (now at 18 years old) is a fabulous car with now 205K miles on it. The engine seems as strong as the day it was built and uses no oil at all. The paint is almost showroom condition and people who don't know MB think is nearly new. But, it's "book" value is somewhere in the area of $4000 US, and I am looking at some hefty maintenence this year in the neighborhood of $1200 (again, USD) or so for both mufflers and blower motor replacement. When does spending 30% of book value in a given year begin to give diminishing returns? Or is this a MB owner's thing where economics (or other opinions for that matter) have no place? Just curious on your thoughts. Do you think that keeping a car running in pristine condition is model-dependant (ie: S-class should be kept going longer than C-class) or is it something other than pure dollars and cents?

Interesting concept/thread going here.

suginami · #**378** 03-02-2004, 11:08 PM

Maybe I can answer for John.

I know that the most often used method in determining when to keep or give up on a car is when the cost of maintaining / repairing it is greater than its blue book value, but this method has never made sense to me for two reasons:

1. cars are a depreciating asset.
2. maintenance / repairs are low on the list of the expenses of car ownership as described by Intellichoice. Depreciation is by far the most expensive component of car ownership, far outweighing any other measure. Depreciation is more than the costs of insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, and repairs. If you go out and buy a new MB, you're going to spend somewhere between $47k and $50k USD. The average car depreciates by 50% every four years. At a $50k purchase price, in four years you will have spent $25,000 in depreciation cost.

This is where the cost of maintaining a car with little value comes into play. Which is more expensive? Spending a few thousand dollars maintaining a $4,000 car, or spending $25,000 over a four year period on a car that is continuing to very rapidly drop in value.

Your 300E is worth $4,000 now, and four years later will probably worth nearly the same amount. It is probably completely depreciated.

In another four years, the $25,000 Mercedes will be worth $12,500. You will have spent $37,500 on depreciation alone, not counting the significantly higher car registration.

How many repairs can you make on your Mercedes in the next 8 years that will total $37,500?

Heck, you could shoehorn in a brand new AMG 6.0 liter M119 400+hp monster of an engine for around $20K, and still have $17,500 to spare.

Which makes more sense?

Keep your 300E on the road and keep laughing all the way to the bank.

fahrgewehr2 · #**379** 03-02-2004, 11:20 PM

Suganami nailed it.

Its my belief that the reason depreciation is an ignored cost is that it is not 'felt' like repair costs are. Depreciation is an invisible cost, repairs are not.

blackmercedes · #**380** 03-02-2004, 11:39 PM

IT's all going to depend on the car. Let's look at the 190E in our drive:

The engine is tight and strong. The engine is a very costly thing to replace, and on many cars it makes no sense to do that. It would be better to take the thousands of dollars and invest in a newer car.

But, most MB's are not facing a demise of their engine. The bottom ends seem to be immortal unless abused.

Take the 88 626 we have. It's going to be towed away with the next repair and donated/crushed/whatever. Why? Well, it's past it's useful life. Things like wiring are beginning to rot. The tranny is going south. The engine will need a top end soon. The body is rusting. Suspension needs redoing again. The list is too long, and some things like the wiring are not solveable without huge sums.

The 190E is suffering none of these problems. It is possible to keep the car in good shape despite it's age. I think that might change in another 10 years, but who knows?

So, the idea of keeping and repairing a 15 year old car does not make sense to most people. It's because they don't own a Mercedes. They see cars literally rotting away after 12-15 years and the complete failure of so many components makes the car past it's useful life.

For me, the main reason why I buy a Mercedes has nothing to do with status and The Star. It's the idea that I can keep a car for 15 years and a quarter of a million miles or more and it's still repairable, comfortable and reliable.

There will come a day in the life of every car when it's just no longer going to serve it's purpose. It's just nice that with a Mercedes, that day is much longer from the build date than most cars...

suginami · #**381** 03-02-2004, 11:58 PM

After reading John's comments, I think my advice works in your case only because it is a Mercedes. It might also apply for a Jeep or Volvo 240D.

We're talking about a 16 year old car. If this were the average American or Japanese car, another 8 years of driving is not likely possible. Or rather, the car wouldn't be worth limping along for another 8 years.

But the build quality of a Volvo 240D or Mercedes is such that after 16 years they are still robust and solid. Another 8 years is not out of the question.

However, if you had a 16 year old Chevy Cavalier, we wouldn't be having this conversation....

Now, Let me get back to American Idol and then I have to put my twin babies to bed.

Jeff Hartmann · #**382** 03-03-2004, 09:31 AM

In reply to Peter Fearing,
He brings up the important point of poor lubrication of muffler bearings. We have found this is due to the earlier use of spring circlips to locate the diple pin in the diverter valve. When these fail,(unlike the later teflon retainers), oil at operating pressure is unevenly distributed to the muffler bearings causing possible expensive repair, and of course the obvious handling problems.

seiously... this thread has been better than comedy central, and I'm new and only halfway through.
My 190e 2.6 required replacement of the idler for the serpentine belt, and later the water pump bypass hose. I truly appreciate this car and my 97 E320 as machines. I do enjoy a maintenance challenge now and again.
PS I did change the pump and all hoses/belts when I changed the hose.
It was a 2 day project ( without a manual)
Thanks for the informative entertainment.
Jeff

#**383** 03-03-2004, 10:43 AM

the "added value" of durability, dependability, design, workmanship, superior materials, and other very tangible assets rather at odds with how much "luxury" the vehicle offered. A Packard, Lincoln, Pierce-Arrow, Rolls-Royce, Mercedes, and many other makes were approached with the idea that what was being purchased was a "permanent" car which had the potential of lasting as long as a house. With the right care, these cars would not simply "wear out". Their higher cost could be amortized over a period often lasting decades. The MB diesels of the early '80s were the last of the marque to be built with this philosophy.

I recently purchased an '81 240D in very nice shape, and had it ready for the road for a total investment of around $3,500. With care this vehicle could provide daily service for another ten or twenty years. I've had another 240 for around 10 years and it is just now reaching the point where it needs a major "refit" before going back to its' inexpensive to maintain, dependable self. I've put about 150,000 miles on this car, originally bought thirdhand for $6,500, and at this point it "...owes me nothing." An '83 300CD has not been such a model of thrift and dependabilty, but still has provided a relatively low-bucks "adventure."

The "value" of automobiles can be measued in several ways...but the ability for a fully amortized vehicle to provide presentable, dependable, economical transportation for an almost indefinite period of service can be viewed as one way of measuring what a vehicle is "worth".

When I look at my 20+ year old cars, I keep remembering the children's book "Mike Mulligan and (Marianne) His Steam Shovel," where Mike took "...such good care of Marianne that she never grew old." In a disposable society it's getting harder and harder to find things that will last if just treated with skill and intelligence, rather than just used up and thrown away.

blackmercedes · #**384** 03-03-2004, 03:58 PM

When I was on the road selling, I bought lightly used off-lease four cylinder 190E's for use.

People thought me insane! Why buy such cars? For piling on miles you need something with cheap parts!! Ha! Take my 1987 190E for example. I bought the car with low miles on it, and put TONS on. Over 100K-km's per year, sometimes WAY more. I hardly put any money into it. Nothing really wore out. On a cost per mile basis, those old 190E's were the cheapest driving I have ever had. They took little to keep them going, got pretty good fuel economy, and maintenance could be done by me. After putting 300K on it, I sold it and took a surprising small loss in depreciation. Even with over 400K-km's, they were suprisingly good cars.

When I landed in the office, I broke down and bought a new Mercedes. I had lost my mind! Nothing has cost more than that! The cost of operating the car have been low, but the depreciation has been immense! My car has cost me about $25,000 in five years in depreciation, and that's low compared to someone buying an E or S! So, with that heavy investment, I'm keeping this thing until my per-km cost comes down to a reasonable level. Since a 1994-95 C220 sells for about $15-16K (my 1998 retails for about $20-22K) I figure my depreciation curve is flattening out and this would be the worst time to sell it.

The only car I ever owned where the operating costs far exceeded the depreciation cost was my 911 Turbo. I actually sold the car for about the same as I paid for it, so take into account opportunity cost of capital and my depreciation charges were tiny compared to the thousands spent on maintaining and repairing the thing. In the scheme of life, it seemed like a stupid thing to have $60,000 tied up in a car, and that's why it was sold. I don't miss the car anymore, and I have the Hayabusa for times this summer when I feel like going fast...

Momo · #**385** 03-04-2004, 06:06 AM

Just picked up my new E320 4-Matic wagon. Lovely car. Had to sell my E280 4-Matic wagon (1999, 110k km.) to a broker, as the trade-in check revealed the need to change two shock absorbers, two catalytic converters and other items to a value of 8,600 Swiss francs, about $6600.

Momo

itb76 · #**386** 03-17-2004, 09:13 PM

Anyone see the latest Consumer Reports? None of the Mercedes are deemed reliable, in fact most European cars are not. Exceptions seem to be the VW Passat, BMW 3-series, and most Volvos. Of course their survey does not cover many 10 year old cars with 200,000 miles, but our ML has had a few glitches so far. Better than being seen in a Toyota, I suppose--have all their stylists gone blind?

BenzBob · #**387** 03-18-2004, 09:10 AM

Yes, I have seen Consumer Reports and am starting to question their objectivity. Did you notice that under certain categories, such as SUV safety, they do not even include the Mercedes ML?

I personally own a 2000 ML320 with 42,500 miles and have found it to be an excellent vehicle with very few problems and the problems I have had have been very minor. Yes, I have replaced the headlamp bulbs (I drive with headlights on all the time for safety), one taillight bulb and two dash bulbs. Mercedes also replaced the console lid when the cover started to bubble and also the brake light switch on the brake pedal. Before the vehicle went out of warranty Mercedes upgraded the crankshaft harmonic balancer, the idle pulley, the auxilliary fan wiring harness and the power window switch module with the upgraded parts even though these had not yet been problematic. So far I have paid NOTHING out-of-pocket for repairs or maintenance. I still have the original tires and brake pads on the vehicle and my estimate is that they will require refreshing around 50,000 miles. So Consumer Reports, how can you get much better than that! Maybe I had a couple of repairs for minor issues but total out of pocket was "zero" and I had a free loaner ML to boot.

Also, did you notice that they list the ML as a used car to avoid for model years 1998 - 2002 but show the ML had excellent marks for depreciation? Go figure.

In my opinion Consumer Reports is losing their objectivity and succumbing to more internal politics. Just look at their review of the Toyota 4Runner. They give it a solid red dot for reliablity and give it a check for "Recommended" but then in the vehicle summary state, "Tlhe V6 version's first-year reliability has ben poor; the V8 model's excellent." Sounds very biased to me. If this were Mercedes and the reliability of their V6 was "poor" and the V8 "excellent" they probably would have not recommended the model and would have given it a solid black dot for reliability.

Who are these people who compile this data and what are their credentials? I really do not put my utmost trust in their findings as I once used to.

Just my 2 cents worth.

hbofinger · #**388** 03-18-2004, 09:24 AM

I am now finishing the second year of owning a 560 SEL from 1989. Car has really been phenomenal considering the age and the purchase price. Of course all maintenance has been "scheduled" maintenance, i.e. preventative, never with a breakdown. Mostly done by myself (including chain and rails).

Frankly, the quality curve has shifted on all cars. What I mean by that is that almost any new car today will give you less trouble than 20 or so years ago. Many of us remember the 70's, notorious for being on the side of the road, looking for help.

I think that most cars do well for the first 80-90k miles, and then things change rapidly, with most cars being trash by about 140k miles or so (though I hear many engines are laid out for 200k). I would not be surprised if the curve has shifted the same way for the newer Mercedes. Maybe not as extreme (I am ignoring the ML), but more towards a "throw-away car" than towards an "eternal car" like the trusty W126.

I am intruiged by the Audi A8. It has an aluminum body, which puts rust in check. But I have no idea about the engine life, and (considering the picture I saw recently of the 5 timing chains on a V8) the ability to perform true high-mileage service on the engine. I hear for a chain replacement you have to pull the entire thing out.

Another car, by the way, that may seem eternal is the Mazda Miata. I still have not spotted any rust on one, and the engines are solid, easy to work on, and cheap to replace once they go at 200k or so.

Momo · #**389** 03-18-2004, 10:08 AM

Not so, I am afraid. As mentioned in a previous reply, this link shows that car breakdowns have increased 20% over the time period, at least as far as breakdowns in Switzerland are concerned. This goes for all makes. Opel is worst.

http://www.tcs.ch/tcs.html?/webtcs/TCSPubli.nsf/(DocByID)/(BE9473ADD4D4B0A4C12569DC0057781B)!OpenDocument&language=fr

Momo

hbofinger · #**390** 03-18-2004, 10:36 AM

Momo -

That is a really interesting article, and it tells you a lot. Of course, what is left out is the period from the 70's, since this starts in '81.

Here is what the pictures tell me: Accidental breakdowns were in a consistent band collectively for all makes from '81-'91, and then drastically zoomed up around '93.

But what are the major sources of breakdowns?

The second most "popular" item is in the cooling system, with 11.9%.

But what is the most popular? It's not mechanical! Then engines actually DO last longer, though this is not the discussion at hand in the charts or in that article.

The most "popular" is electrical, with a whopping 54.6%!!!

It's those d$%@mned chips, I tell you! They started running those engines on Windows 3.1, and the whole world went to hell! General Protection Fault at Address 0x847362849 in the fuel injection system! Abort, Retry, Fail?