Over engineered?
Discussion
DB7 pilot said:
...
Then there was the 1999 SLK 230 picked up brand new. After 70 miles the front headlight popped out and scratched the wing. Boot leaked after two thousand mile and upset electrics, numerous electrical items replaced, also caused the traction control and ABS to stop working. Recalled after 5000 mile to have electrics in folding roof changed, never operated right after that, but I stuck with it for 4 years and 65000 miles. It was never trouble free....
I had an SLK230 a 97 car which I had for three years and the only thing that went wrong was a dashboard light behind the heater knob which cost 70p or so.Then there was the 1999 SLK 230 picked up brand new. After 70 miles the front headlight popped out and scratched the wing. Boot leaked after two thousand mile and upset electrics, numerous electrical items replaced, also caused the traction control and ABS to stop working. Recalled after 5000 mile to have electrics in folding roof changed, never operated right after that, but I stuck with it for 4 years and 65000 miles. It was never trouble free....
XB70 said:
M15ley said:
OK, so there is a certain amount of bad press about Mercedes build quality and reliability over the past few years, justified or otherwise. But what I'm trying to find out is when did the real top notch, reportedly over engineered Mercs stop being built?
1998There is not one date: rather what counts is whether the model series in question was in production before 1996. Any such car, even one made in 2001, is in a different league to a car from a series which entered production in 1996 or later. (I hate saying this, because I really like the w210.) Thus pretty much any r129 (built from 1989 to 2001) or w140 (built from 1991 to 1998) and probably w202 (built from 1993 to 1999) is of an higher standard of build than a w210 (entered production in 1995) or w220 (1998). This is because build quality fundamentally is a matter of design: if the design is right, it will be right throughout the model's lifespan.
Now it is correct that some parts change during a model's lifespan and do so for worse. An example would be air con control units on the w140. Mostly, though, build standards improve over a model's lifetime as unforeseen lessons are learned. It is also correct that Mercedes generally does not introduce a new engine at the same time as a new chassis, but then the quality of Mercedes' engines has never really been questioned.
My own 1999 r129 is coming up to 190,000miles and feels like it will go the same distance again. My 1993 320 TE has 168,000miles, has not been babied, and is in great shape. And my 1986 500 SEC will see me out, I have no doubt: that car is amazingly well made.
The problem with the 1970s cars is that they are now very old and, frankly, allowances have to be made in use.
I think the following factors have presented big difficulties for manufacturers such as Mercedes:
(1) electronic complexity balooned exponentially in the late 1990s such that new models introduced after that time are not a progressive step ahead of the old, but rather have a complexity of another order of magnitude.
(2) people are just less discerning than they were. "Buyers" want short-term showiness, not long-term quality. So the idiots want spac-nav, parking bongs, vibrating seats and all that totally unnecessary jazz. I mean, who really needs a TV in the car? And who would want one? only an idiot.
(3) related point: "buyers" of "luxury cars" no longer are enthusiasts. In the 1970s, 1980s and even early 1990s, the buyer of one of these cars was interested in cars. Today's buyer is interested in brands. He (or just as likely these days, she) buys a Mercedes like he buys a Dyson vacuum cleaner, a Smeg oven and so on. Nobody really gives a toss about real quality: they want perceived brand values. This is why car design has become totally unsubtle and aggressive.
(4) further related point: "buyers" today are not really buyers at all. They are all renters. Almost all new cars are bought on tick or taken on lease by people who cannot really afford them and kept for two, maybe three years. Once upon a time, a new Mercedes (or BMW) was a long-term ownership proposition, kept for ten years and often not replaced but retained when a new one comes along. When the car was wanted for ten years, real quality was wanted and readily paid for. When the car is handed back after two years and the lease payments are barely affordable in the first place, nobody gives a toss about real quality and certainly nobody wants to pay for it.
Now it is correct that some parts change during a model's lifespan and do so for worse. An example would be air con control units on the w140. Mostly, though, build standards improve over a model's lifetime as unforeseen lessons are learned. It is also correct that Mercedes generally does not introduce a new engine at the same time as a new chassis, but then the quality of Mercedes' engines has never really been questioned.
My own 1999 r129 is coming up to 190,000miles and feels like it will go the same distance again. My 1993 320 TE has 168,000miles, has not been babied, and is in great shape. And my 1986 500 SEC will see me out, I have no doubt: that car is amazingly well made.
The problem with the 1970s cars is that they are now very old and, frankly, allowances have to be made in use.
I think the following factors have presented big difficulties for manufacturers such as Mercedes:
(1) electronic complexity balooned exponentially in the late 1990s such that new models introduced after that time are not a progressive step ahead of the old, but rather have a complexity of another order of magnitude.
(2) people are just less discerning than they were. "Buyers" want short-term showiness, not long-term quality. So the idiots want spac-nav, parking bongs, vibrating seats and all that totally unnecessary jazz. I mean, who really needs a TV in the car? And who would want one? only an idiot.
(3) related point: "buyers" of "luxury cars" no longer are enthusiasts. In the 1970s, 1980s and even early 1990s, the buyer of one of these cars was interested in cars. Today's buyer is interested in brands. He (or just as likely these days, she) buys a Mercedes like he buys a Dyson vacuum cleaner, a Smeg oven and so on. Nobody really gives a toss about real quality: they want perceived brand values. This is why car design has become totally unsubtle and aggressive.
(4) further related point: "buyers" today are not really buyers at all. They are all renters. Almost all new cars are bought on tick or taken on lease by people who cannot really afford them and kept for two, maybe three years. Once upon a time, a new Mercedes (or BMW) was a long-term ownership proposition, kept for ten years and often not replaced but retained when a new one comes along. When the car was wanted for ten years, real quality was wanted and readily paid for. When the car is handed back after two years and the lease payments are barely affordable in the first place, nobody gives a toss about real quality and certainly nobody wants to pay for it.
r129sl said:
There is not one date: rather what counts is whether the model series in question was in production before 1996. Any such car, even one made in 2001, is in a different league to a car from a series which entered production in 1996 or later. (I hate saying this, because I really like the w210.) Thus pretty much any r129 (built from 1989 to 2001) or w140 (built from 1991 to 1998) and probably w202 (built from 1993 to 1999) is of an higher standard of build than a w210 (entered production in 1995) or w220 (1998). This is because build quality fundamentally is a matter of design: if the design is right, it will be right throughout the model's lifespan.
Now it is correct that some parts change during a model's lifespan and do so for worse. An example would be air con control units on the w140. Mostly, though, build standards improve over a model's lifetime as unforeseen lessons are learned. It is also correct that Mercedes generally does not introduce a new engine at the same time as a new chassis, but then the quality of Mercedes' engines has never really been questioned.
My own 1999 r129 is coming up to 190,000miles and feels like it will go the same distance again. My 1993 320 TE has 168,000miles, has not been babied, and is in great shape. And my 1986 500 SEC will see me out, I have no doubt: that car is amazingly well made.
The problem with the 1970s cars is that they are now very old and, frankly, allowances have to be made in use.
I think the following factors have presented big difficulties for manufacturers such as Mercedes:
(1) electronic complexity balooned exponentially in the late 1990s such that new models introduced after that time are not a progressive step ahead of the old, but rather have a complexity of another order of magnitude.
(2) people are just less discerning than they were. "Buyers" want short-term showiness, not long-term quality. So the idiots want spac-nav, parking bongs, vibrating seats and all that totally unnecessary jazz. I mean, who really needs a TV in the car? And who would want one? only an idiot.
(3) related point: "buyers" of "luxury cars" no longer are enthusiasts. In the 1970s, 1980s and even early 1990s, the buyer of one of these cars was interested in cars. Today's buyer is interested in brands. He (or just as likely these days, she) buys a Mercedes like he buys a Dyson vacuum cleaner, a Smeg oven and so on. Nobody really gives a toss about real quality: they want perceived brand values. This is why car design has become totally unsubtle and aggressive.
(4) further related point: "buyers" today are not really buyers at all. They are all renters. Almost all new cars are bought on tick or taken on lease by people who cannot really afford them and kept for two, maybe three years. Once upon a time, a new Mercedes (or BMW) was a long-term ownership proposition, kept for ten years and often not replaced but retained when a new one comes along. When the car was wanted for ten years, real quality was wanted and readily paid for. When the car is handed back after two years and the lease payments are barely affordable in the first place, nobody gives a toss about real quality and certainly nobody wants to pay for it.
Excellent summary!! Does this mean the W210 which went in to production in 1995, falls in to this 'superior' quality category?Now it is correct that some parts change during a model's lifespan and do so for worse. An example would be air con control units on the w140. Mostly, though, build standards improve over a model's lifetime as unforeseen lessons are learned. It is also correct that Mercedes generally does not introduce a new engine at the same time as a new chassis, but then the quality of Mercedes' engines has never really been questioned.
My own 1999 r129 is coming up to 190,000miles and feels like it will go the same distance again. My 1993 320 TE has 168,000miles, has not been babied, and is in great shape. And my 1986 500 SEC will see me out, I have no doubt: that car is amazingly well made.
The problem with the 1970s cars is that they are now very old and, frankly, allowances have to be made in use.
I think the following factors have presented big difficulties for manufacturers such as Mercedes:
(1) electronic complexity balooned exponentially in the late 1990s such that new models introduced after that time are not a progressive step ahead of the old, but rather have a complexity of another order of magnitude.
(2) people are just less discerning than they were. "Buyers" want short-term showiness, not long-term quality. So the idiots want spac-nav, parking bongs, vibrating seats and all that totally unnecessary jazz. I mean, who really needs a TV in the car? And who would want one? only an idiot.
(3) related point: "buyers" of "luxury cars" no longer are enthusiasts. In the 1970s, 1980s and even early 1990s, the buyer of one of these cars was interested in cars. Today's buyer is interested in brands. He (or just as likely these days, she) buys a Mercedes like he buys a Dyson vacuum cleaner, a Smeg oven and so on. Nobody really gives a toss about real quality: they want perceived brand values. This is why car design has become totally unsubtle and aggressive.
(4) further related point: "buyers" today are not really buyers at all. They are all renters. Almost all new cars are bought on tick or taken on lease by people who cannot really afford them and kept for two, maybe three years. Once upon a time, a new Mercedes (or BMW) was a long-term ownership proposition, kept for ten years and often not replaced but retained when a new one comes along. When the car was wanted for ten years, real quality was wanted and readily paid for. When the car is handed back after two years and the lease payments are barely affordable in the first place, nobody gives a toss about real quality and certainly nobody wants to pay for it.
r129sl said:
Personally, I really like the w210 and think it has a lot more of the old Mercedes about it than the new. I particularly like the pre-facelift cars. The only reliability problem they seem to have suffered is rust. They do seem to rust badly. But that hardly makes it acceptable.
Due to MB moving to water based base coat and it never quite curing properly hence the cars rusting 'inside out'.This is a very intersting post, my old 190e's were brilliant, my old c200 sport less so!... i currently own an alpina D3 and the fly wheel/clutch gave in after 7 k miles! i think the quality issue is one that spans throughout the whole of the manufactures out there.
Im currently contemplating a new c class estate... would be very interested to hear what you guys think of its "perceived quality"...TIA
Im currently contemplating a new c class estate... would be very interested to hear what you guys think of its "perceived quality"...TIA
M15ley said:
Thanks guys 
I've got my eye on a couple of different models, a 1995 C36 and a 1998 E55 so just trying to figure out which is the better built, most reliable and most rewarding to own.
Both should be relatively reliable and fun, I would go for the E55 but only because it's a V8. I've got my eye on a couple of different models, a 1995 C36 and a 1998 E55 so just trying to figure out which is the better built, most reliable and most rewarding to own.Mercedes lost their way when they changed their philosophy from making the best car that met a set criteria to we need to build a car on X budget and produce X amount profit. Late 90's is when it went bad which also when alot of the management changed, but due to horrific levels of warranty claims they slowly started to sort their act in 2006 and are now moving in the right direction.
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff