why did Mercedes of a certain era rust?
Discussion
For me, it is the failure to be accountable that is the main issue. The boot lid, near the lock, rusted within a year and was repaired under warranty but this was just the tip of the iceberg. The only thing that has not rusted on my Mercedes is the wooden pencil in the gove box bundle that I have occasionally to use to unlock the transmission.
A premium brand should strive to retain its customers. Wise ceo's know that it is much more difficult to recruit new customers than to retain existing ones.
We live in the days of peer reviews and social media. The word travels fast. Good reputations can be lost equally fast.
A premium brand should strive to retain its customers. Wise ceo's know that it is much more difficult to recruit new customers than to retain existing ones.
We live in the days of peer reviews and social media. The word travels fast. Good reputations can be lost equally fast.
Mercs always rusted. It's just that they are so expensive to buy that this makes them economically viable to repair for longer. There's very little, rust wise, between a facelift W124 and a 210. W123 cars rusted just as badly, maybe worse, than other cars mid 70's to mid 80's.
Myself, I think it is just an unintended consequence of the shift to water based paint. Special order paints are not water based on the W210 - as I understand it, could be wrong - cars with special paint finishes don't rust to anything like the same amount as those with standard colours.
The 210 - rust aside - is not a 'cost cutting car'. They are seriously solid otherwise. I prefer them, to drive at least, to the W124.
Myself, I think it is just an unintended consequence of the shift to water based paint. Special order paints are not water based on the W210 - as I understand it, could be wrong - cars with special paint finishes don't rust to anything like the same amount as those with standard colours.
The 210 - rust aside - is not a 'cost cutting car'. They are seriously solid otherwise. I prefer them, to drive at least, to the W124.
The running gear, engine, suspension indeed all the traditional parts are indeed solid. The fluf - the instrumentation, the door winders, the heating system, the lenses on the lights, the catalytic aux water heater have all broken and the clock loses 1 minute a month - all indications of quality control - long since ceased to work.
The deal breaker is that every steel panel has rusted. It is only good for scrap.
This is supposedly a premium brand car. By comparison my vw, sitting next to it on the drive, is twice as old and solid as a rock.
The deal breaker is that every steel panel has rusted. It is only good for scrap.
This is supposedly a premium brand car. By comparison my vw, sitting next to it on the drive, is twice as old and solid as a rock.
triggerh4ppy said:
Didnt all german manufacturers have this issue in the early 2000's.
BMW - e46/e39 arch rust
Golf mk5 - arch rust
Mercedes - Various
Sounds like everyone just went alone with a cheaper process after each other until they realised they have issues.
Not just the Germans, Honda (Civic) and Mazda (5) from the early 2000s also love to rust.BMW - e46/e39 arch rust
Golf mk5 - arch rust
Mercedes - Various
Sounds like everyone just went alone with a cheaper process after each other until they realised they have issues.
nigeldodd said:
We live in the days of peer reviews and social media. The word travels fast. Good reputations can be lost equally fast.
This is an issue that was fixed roughly 13 years ago. I'm sure if it was going to have a big effect on their reputation it would have happened by now.So which brand new premium vehicle are you buying next?
I bought a W210 E320 CDI estate back in 2001 and owned it until 2009 I paid £38k with options, it started to have rust issues at around the 4 year old point , I had both front wings replaced , the bonnet repainted due to rust spreading from treated stonechips (I had to pay for this) , all 4 door frames , both rear arched repainted and tailgate repainted
2 years later had to be done again and the spring perches also corroded and needed doing
1 year after that it was back again and time to go
Paint match was poor and the dealers couldn't give a toss, they had no interest in a privately owned non financed car
Loved the car, hated the dealers will never buy another Mercedes again
Now drive a Jag
2 years later had to be done again and the spring perches also corroded and needed doing
1 year after that it was back again and time to go
Paint match was poor and the dealers couldn't give a toss, they had no interest in a privately owned non financed car
Loved the car, hated the dealers will never buy another Mercedes again
Now drive a Jag
The thing is though the average man on the street still sees a Merc as a quality car when they just aren't and as that is the case it really doesn't matter if they build them well or not. I have a 2005 SL55 and it's OK build quality wise, but my 2007 X5 is a far more solid and reliable car. The 2004 Audi TT we also have knocks both of them into a cocked hat.
My SL had rust just starting to appear on the arches and was treated by Auto Image in Dartford who said I had done the right thing not letting them get bad (although a cyclist has clattered into one of them since necessitating a second go). The car never goes out on the salty roads and is mollycoddled yet the X5 that is just driven and rarely cleaned has no rust (or none that is visible)... same with the Audi.
It's pretty poor really that a car that cost £100K new rusts in 12 years yet one costing a third doesn't. Won't be buying another although in part that is because they are also hideous from a design aesthetic point of view with a just few exceptions!
My SL had rust just starting to appear on the arches and was treated by Auto Image in Dartford who said I had done the right thing not letting them get bad (although a cyclist has clattered into one of them since necessitating a second go). The car never goes out on the salty roads and is mollycoddled yet the X5 that is just driven and rarely cleaned has no rust (or none that is visible)... same with the Audi.
It's pretty poor really that a car that cost £100K new rusts in 12 years yet one costing a third doesn't. Won't be buying another although in part that is because they are also hideous from a design aesthetic point of view with a just few exceptions!
As a someone that worked at MB (as an Accountant, no less, so basically running the whole company) I would add a few factors that contributed:
1. Cost Cutting - No denying that this happened at MB. It also happened at BMW and VW and they had their share of problems too. What no-one ever questions is why it happened? MB, BMW and VW all had one thing in common - they were German or to be specific they were West German. German reunification took place in October 1990. The former East Germany had been stripped bare by the Soviet Union since 1945 and was considerably poorer than its Western brother and needed rebuilding to equalise the living standards of all Germans. This meant higher taxes for those in the West and therefore less money to spend on cars. The car companies had to make their cars cheaper to account for this and quality suffered.
2. Technology/Legislation - MB tried to overcome the problem of saving money and meeting new legislation on water based paints by using new technology to bond the paint to the body. The theory was that the paint would bond so well that there was no need to galvanise the steel. The process did work on some colours but failed on others. In particular, silver cars are very prone to moisture getting under the paint and the body rusting. Good thing it wasn't a popular choice, oh...
3. Chrysler - Just kidding. The problems existed years before the merger with Chrysler was announced. It is a complete red herring.
1. Cost Cutting - No denying that this happened at MB. It also happened at BMW and VW and they had their share of problems too. What no-one ever questions is why it happened? MB, BMW and VW all had one thing in common - they were German or to be specific they were West German. German reunification took place in October 1990. The former East Germany had been stripped bare by the Soviet Union since 1945 and was considerably poorer than its Western brother and needed rebuilding to equalise the living standards of all Germans. This meant higher taxes for those in the West and therefore less money to spend on cars. The car companies had to make their cars cheaper to account for this and quality suffered.
2. Technology/Legislation - MB tried to overcome the problem of saving money and meeting new legislation on water based paints by using new technology to bond the paint to the body. The theory was that the paint would bond so well that there was no need to galvanise the steel. The process did work on some colours but failed on others. In particular, silver cars are very prone to moisture getting under the paint and the body rusting. Good thing it wasn't a popular choice, oh...
3. Chrysler - Just kidding. The problems existed years before the merger with Chrysler was announced. It is a complete red herring.
ralphrj said:
As a someone that worked at MB (as an Accountant, no less, so basically running the whole company) I would add a few factors that contributed:
1. Cost Cutting - No denying that this happened at MB. It also happened at BMW and VW and they had their share of problems too. What no-one ever questions is why it happened? MB, BMW and VW all had one thing in common - they were German or to be specific they were West German. German reunification took place in October 1990. The former East Germany had been stripped bare by the Soviet Union since 1945 and was considerably poorer than its Western brother and needed rebuilding to equalise the living standards of all Germans. This meant higher taxes for those in the West and therefore less money to spend on cars. The car companies had to make their cars cheaper to account for this and quality suffered.
2. Technology/Legislation - MB tried to overcome the problem of saving money and meeting new legislation on water based paints by using new technology to bond the paint to the body. The theory was that the paint would bond so well that there was no need to galvanise the steel. The process did work on some colours but failed on others. In particular, silver cars are very prone to moisture getting under the paint and the body rusting. Good thing it wasn't a popular choice, oh...
3. Chrysler - Just kidding. The problems existed years before the merger with Chrysler was announced. It is a complete red herring.
That is very interesting, in particular your second point, one I've never heard. That silver cars are badly impacted is clear, I'd assumed it was down to the popularity more than anything.1. Cost Cutting - No denying that this happened at MB. It also happened at BMW and VW and they had their share of problems too. What no-one ever questions is why it happened? MB, BMW and VW all had one thing in common - they were German or to be specific they were West German. German reunification took place in October 1990. The former East Germany had been stripped bare by the Soviet Union since 1945 and was considerably poorer than its Western brother and needed rebuilding to equalise the living standards of all Germans. This meant higher taxes for those in the West and therefore less money to spend on cars. The car companies had to make their cars cheaper to account for this and quality suffered.
2. Technology/Legislation - MB tried to overcome the problem of saving money and meeting new legislation on water based paints by using new technology to bond the paint to the body. The theory was that the paint would bond so well that there was no need to galvanise the steel. The process did work on some colours but failed on others. In particular, silver cars are very prone to moisture getting under the paint and the body rusting. Good thing it wasn't a popular choice, oh...
3. Chrysler - Just kidding. The problems existed years before the merger with Chrysler was announced. It is a complete red herring.
I've been associated with the Merc club since the early 90's and the letters in the magazine during the late 90's complaining re dealerships that'd been taken over & quality issues started pouring in.
A mate bought a 2002 SL500 about 5 years ago for £10k from ebay, a 55k miler with two previous owners from the same family, he had the receipt for £80k......we compared it side by side with my R107 SL, the build quality difference was laughable, with the roof halfway up on his it literally wobbled badly, the struts were small and poorly constructed.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff