What are the generally acknowledged "bad years" for MB..?

[NLB]

Starting to think about replacing my “other German big RWD car”, and Mercs, possibly an estate of some sort, are on the list. To the non-initiate, the period when they went from “hewn from granite”, to rust-buckets, and then back to acceptable, is a bit unclear. Mid-‘90s to early 2000s, ish..? Suggestions as to the years to avoid would be very handy. Thanks.

[GarryA]

1996 - 2006 as a rough guide.

[va1o]

GarryA said:

1996 - 2006 as a rough guide.

Yeah that's about right. The worst offenders where the first ML and A-Class, both rubbish. Also problems with early pre-facelift W203 C-Class and W211 E-Class from the same sort of era.

However they have really improved massively and the current range A to SLS is excellent, and Mercedes as a brand are finishing very high in the latest JD Power customer satisfaction surveys, 3rd in 2009 and 4th in 2010 out of about 30 manufacturers.

[Killwilly]

va1o said:

GarryA said:

1996 - 2006 as a rough guide.

Yeah that's about right. The worst offenders where the first ML and A-Class, both rubbish. Also problems with early pre-facelift W203 C-Class and W211 E-Class from the same sort of era.

However they have really improved massively and the current range A to SLS is excellent, and Mercedes as a brand are finishing very high in the latest JD Power customer satisfaction surveys, 3rd in 2009 and 4th in 2010 out of about 30 manufacturers.

I don't think that timescale only applied to Mercedes. My previous car a 2001 BMW E46 was showing signs of rust at 4 years, only minor, but they were there.

I read an article once which claimed the rust problem encountered by Mercedes was due to an inferior batch of steel they purchased from Fiat.

[horacethefrog]

I think this may have a bearing on the rust issue.

[NLB]

Killwilly said:

va1o said:

GarryA said:

1996 - 2006 as a rough guide.

Yeah that's about right. The worst offenders where the first ML and A-Class, both rubbish. Also problems with early pre-facelift W203 C-Class and W211 E-Class from the same sort of era.

However they have really improved massively and the current range A to SLS is excellent, and Mercedes as a brand are finishing very high in the latest JD Power customer satisfaction surveys, 3rd in 2009 and 4th in 2010 out of about 30 manufacturers.

I don't think that timescale only applied to Mercedes. My previous car a 2001 BMW E46 was showing signs of rust at 4 years, only minor, but they were there.

I read an article once which claimed the rust problem encountered by Mercedes was due to an inferior batch of steel they purchased from Fiat.

Yes... The car I am starting to think about replacing is a 2001 530: it had two little rust spots developing on the rear lower panel, under the top edge of the bumper. I had them painted when the bumper was off to to have a new PDC sensor fitted, and it has been fine otherwise - but I still didn't think it "should" have had any rust. The worry is that some Mercs of that era seem to have new panels left and right, and big holes... spots I can get peeved with, but tolerate, panels/holes... no.

Thanks for the info, all. I will concentrate on 2006-on, and see whether there is anything I like for a price I am prepared to pay, as you do.

[simonrockman]

lanes why my 1993 190E is all OK.

[NLB]

And why part of me at least thinks that instead of 2006-on, I should be looking at this:

300TE

[jw golf mk4]

only 75,800k miles! snap it up mate! these are reliable beasts i've seen some in the flesh and on forums with 250,000-300,000! also new Mercs, or the period 96-06 have alot of electrical gremlins. Lost count of the amount of times i have seen them on the hard shoulders!

[Aidayboy]

Had numerous Mercedes and numerous problems, during one of these issues our 2003 ML was in the garage(again), this was after a 2000 CLK that also enjoyed over 40 trips to the garage in 2 years - great car when it worked, just didn't work often enough, I was pulled over by Strathclyde's Finest whilst using my phone in courtesy car and had a lengthy conversation regarding Mercedes reliabilty. They had tried to run 2 C Class 320's and the cars where constatly off the road, they also had numerous ML's that also weren't very relaible. I was told they invited Mercedes up for a metting and were told by Mercedes "off the record" that any car between a 2000 - 2004 were not worthy of the badge. After a stint with an Audi TT, roughly 120k miles and never went a foot wrong and only need serviced every 18k miles I now run a 2005 E-Class 270CDi and "touch wood" I've not had alot go wrong, couple of broken front springs which is supposedly common but so far ok. The only think that annoys me is how can a petrol Audi do 20k between services but th e-class desiel didnt even reach 10k miles before it's telling me it needs serviced.

In short don't touch a Mercedes built between 2000 - 2004 (Especially ML's)

Ax

[Aidayboy]

Why is is that the paint warranty you get from Mercedes isn't valid if you dont have your car serviced at Mercedes, do they apply some special treatment to the paint when they are over charging you for your Castrol GTX being filled by some trainee?

I previosly had a CLK where all the lacquer was peeling from the front and beacuse it had part mercedes history they would only offer a part payment and same again with current E Class, one of teh doors has started rusting really badly inside and they are again offering only a part payment.

Anyone else?

Killwilly said:

va1o said:

GarryA said:

1996 - 2006 as a rough guide.

Yeah that's about right. The worst offenders where the first ML and A-Class, both rubbish. Also problems with early pre-facelift W203 C-Class and W211 E-Class from the same sort of era.

However they have really improved massively and the current range A to SLS is excellent, and Mercedes as a brand are finishing very high in the latest JD Power customer satisfaction surveys, 3rd in 2009 and 4th in 2010 out of about 30 manufacturers.

I don't think that timescale only applied to Mercedes. My previous car a 2001 BMW E46 was showing signs of rust at 4 years, only minor, but they were there.

I read an article once which claimed the rust problem encountered by Mercedes was due to an inferior batch of steel they purchased from Fiat.

[r129sl]

Aidayboy said:

Why is is that the paint warranty you get from Mercedes isn't valid if you dont have your car serviced at Mercedes...

Because that is the deal you strike when you buy the car. The term is there for reasons commercial not scientific. It's pretty simple. You service the car with them and in consideration they warranty the paint job for thirty years. It's just a bargain that is struck, no different from me subscribing to a members' club at an annual cost of £500 but not being allowed in without a necktie: if I turn up in my track suit and they don't let me in, I don't go moaning about having paid my dues.

As for the bad years, it also depends on when the model in question was designed and built. Thus the r129, w140 and w202, which were all designed prior to 1996 but built well after that year, are by and large OK.

Edited by r129sl on Wednesday 17th November 23:07

[va1o]

Likewise with the Mobilo cover, you only get that if the car has a full MBSH.

[angusc43]

NLB said:

And why part of me at least thinks that instead of 2006-on, I should be looking at this:

300TE

Yeah but watch the 4matic - for some reason it's got a bad rep in the UK

[pollawyn]

Do not know about bad years but I have a 1992 500 SL and a 2007 2.8 CDi. Both superb cars with no problems machanical or bodywork. Mind you when looking for the SL I was advised to avoid post 1994 cars.

[va1o]

pollawyn said:

Do not know about bad years but I have a 1992 500 SL and a 2007 2.8 CDi. Both superb cars with no problems machanical or bodywork.

Yes nothing wrong with those two, both excellent cars. If you read the thread you will notice the generally agreed date for the 'bad years' is 2000 - 2005ish, your vehicles fall outside of this time period

[LeighW]

My '00 CLK has been very good in the five years I've owned it. It had a small amount of rust start on the rear arch lips which was repaired foc by MB a couple of years ago, and then the crank sensor failed a year or so ago, apart from that it's been very good. *Touch wood...

[LeighW]

LeighW said:

My '00 CLK has been very good in the five years I've owned it. It had a small amount of rust start on the rear arch lips which was repaired foc by MB a couple of years ago, and then the crank sensor failed a year or so ago, apart from that no problems. *Touch wood...

[khushy]

the best quality Merc I have ever owned was a 1989 500 SEC - which I bought in 2002 for £7k with only 40,000 km on it - STUNNING.

Had to sell it after I trashed my motorbike at Rockingham - the motorbike was my priority at the time - still gutted that I had to sell it though - what a fantastic piece of engineering.

khushy

[Spy]

LeighW said:

LeighW said:

My '00 CLK has been very good in the five years I've owned it. It had a small amount of rust start on the rear arch lips which was repaired foc by MB a couple of years ago, and then the crank sensor failed a year or so ago, apart from that no problems. *Touch wood...

My 1998 CLK has been extremely reliabel and does not have any rust

Saying that, some cars in the quoted period didn't havce the normal MB build quality