Why did Mercedes cost cut?
Discussion
I was young so I don't know - What was it that prompted Mercedes to cost cut back in the late '80s/early '90s? I believe they actually publically announced they were going to "stop over-engineering our cars". To me over engineering was what sold them. You knew you were getting a good car, even if it wasn't the best equipped/handling/riding/cheapest. Were they making no money? Or did they just get greedy? It might really have killed the company. Mercedes have spent a lot trying to get their quality reputation back, and claim they have done it now with the new C-class. Even if they have done it (which they might well have), then the stigma of the '90s and '00s will still linger for at least 10 years. How could they be so stupid to almost destroy a brand that was built into what it was through an entire century of making high quality cars? To the point that 15 years later most car enthusiasts probably see Mercedes as just expensive, reasonably nice cars of questionable quality. Sort of like Alfa Romeo but not as bad.
They could at least have made changes that didn't ruin the brand's USP, such as deciding to make cheap ugly cars with 3 cylinder engines, but maintaining the engineering thoroughness.
They could at least have made changes that didn't ruin the brand's USP, such as deciding to make cheap ugly cars with 3 cylinder engines, but maintaining the engineering thoroughness.
It is just that -from a development point of view- it became easier in the 1990s to predict if a part or method is über-dimensioned, and Mercedes-Benz engineers used that as a cost-cutting factor. Computer Aided Technologies being one contributor to this.
Lifetimes of products are being calculated. IIRC, it was then twelve years for a Mercedes, and seven years for Japanese vehicles until the cars became no longer viable economically.
What sense should it then make, when you need to dispose a car after twelve years and find 40% of its components could do another twelve years? The extra-effort for these parts is considered as wasted in the balance of the entire assembly's lifecycle.
To answer your basic question: Mercedes still benefits from its old image; while still offering competitive cars in terms of quality and (!) sales margin. There are no huge differences between the build strategy of Jaguar, Lexus, BMW, Audi and Mercedes, as they share external suppliers and staff hopping from one development department to another (Toyota/Lexus being an outsider probably there).
Lifetimes of products are being calculated. IIRC, it was then twelve years for a Mercedes, and seven years for Japanese vehicles until the cars became no longer viable economically.
What sense should it then make, when you need to dispose a car after twelve years and find 40% of its components could do another twelve years? The extra-effort for these parts is considered as wasted in the balance of the entire assembly's lifecycle.
To answer your basic question: Mercedes still benefits from its old image; while still offering competitive cars in terms of quality and (!) sales margin. There are no huge differences between the build strategy of Jaguar, Lexus, BMW, Audi and Mercedes, as they share external suppliers and staff hopping from one development department to another (Toyota/Lexus being an outsider probably there).
But theys still must have made some major changes for some of the things that have happened to have happened.. this is my list:
1 RUST. Cars rusting in as little as 5 years. Fair play they seem to be paying to fix it though.
2 The interior of the first C class was nasty, the E class not much better
3 The harmonic balancer failure issue on the V6 and V8
4 Electrical bugs/glitches (ok every manufacturer has these but you'd hope Mercedes would be a bit better
5 the big old S-class with its door closing pumps that fail every couple of years
Of course they weren't problem-free beforehand, they had their issues but they were never so blatant, they always seemed like genuine issues rather than under engineering/cost cutting.
It's amazing they would risk their quality repuatation, when so many companies (eg Jaguar) would do absolutely anything to have that sort of reputation and therefore relatively reliable customer base.
1 RUST. Cars rusting in as little as 5 years. Fair play they seem to be paying to fix it though.
2 The interior of the first C class was nasty, the E class not much better
3 The harmonic balancer failure issue on the V6 and V8
4 Electrical bugs/glitches (ok every manufacturer has these but you'd hope Mercedes would be a bit better
5 the big old S-class with its door closing pumps that fail every couple of years
Of course they weren't problem-free beforehand, they had their issues but they were never so blatant, they always seemed like genuine issues rather than under engineering/cost cutting.
It's amazing they would risk their quality repuatation, when so many companies (eg Jaguar) would do absolutely anything to have that sort of reputation and therefore relatively reliable customer base.
There are other reasons as well.
The drain plug on the torque convertor of a 722.6 gearbox was deleted from about 1999 onwards. This was a cost saving probably of less than a pound per gearbox, but it does mean that in order to flush the fluid you're more inclined to take the car to a dealer who can completely flush the system with a special pump which only they have access to.
Make it more difficult for individuals to service their own cars, and you encourage more visits to the dealer network, which increases exposure to new car sales.
The drain plug on the torque convertor of a 722.6 gearbox was deleted from about 1999 onwards. This was a cost saving probably of less than a pound per gearbox, but it does mean that in order to flush the fluid you're more inclined to take the car to a dealer who can completely flush the system with a special pump which only they have access to.
Make it more difficult for individuals to service their own cars, and you encourage more visits to the dealer network, which increases exposure to new car sales.
The Meister at the local Mercedes-Benz service says that the last Mercedes that is easy to work on on a DIY basis is the W124. and gives me a enthusiast rebate for inspections.
Of course, they said the same about the W123 models ten years ago, and probably about the /8s twenty years ago...
Of course, they said the same about the W123 models ten years ago, and probably about the /8s twenty years ago...
johna8tdi said:
I am afraid I don't touch Mercs any more the build quality has all but gone.
Are they that bad though? I know they have their niggles and they aren't the same to work on as they used to be, but inside I still believe that the engineering is 90% there, e.g. most of the engines would still go for 300,000 miles with ease (provided electrical unreliability didn't prevent it from getting there!). I've driven a 230,000 mile 2001 S320. The interior was showing a more wear than Mercs of old because it's pretty plasticky, but apart from that you couldn't feel the mileage one bit.
I mean, there has to be something there for all that money, right!?
Point in case is the SL. I was selling the old one in 98-2001 and it was made from stone. Even the walnut dash was made to measure - there were never any blank buttons.
The seats were heavy - the thing just floated down the road. Its a cruiser after all.
Then in 2002 they bring out this beautifully shaped car with the folding hard top. It was superb...until you actually touched it. I am not joking, sit in one and push your left knee into the centre console, the whole thing flexes and groans. try that in a pre 2000 car.
Same with the 203 C Class - looked great but it fell apart at a touch. I cant wait to see in another 10 years what an X reg C class looks like compared to the old 202 on a W plate.
It all comes down to the Chrysler merger in my opinion, so each car now costs thousands less to produce to support the burden of going into partnership with that american liability....and as for Smart, don't get me going on that one per-lease.
The seats were heavy - the thing just floated down the road. Its a cruiser after all.
Then in 2002 they bring out this beautifully shaped car with the folding hard top. It was superb...until you actually touched it. I am not joking, sit in one and push your left knee into the centre console, the whole thing flexes and groans. try that in a pre 2000 car.
Same with the 203 C Class - looked great but it fell apart at a touch. I cant wait to see in another 10 years what an X reg C class looks like compared to the old 202 on a W plate.
It all comes down to the Chrysler merger in my opinion, so each car now costs thousands less to produce to support the burden of going into partnership with that american liability....and as for Smart, don't get me going on that one per-lease.
So the first C class (202) started it off with the plasticky interior.. but basically is still fairly well engineered? The current C class (203) is through-and-through cheaper (as it was developed in the mid 90s when cost cutting was highest)? But is the imminent new C-class developed with the new quality mindset that Mercedes claim to have and will it prove to be better? Hopefully the 203 was a low point (though I quite like it and prefer it to the 202) and things will improve from now on.
With you on that Pento - the old 202 was hewn from stone but too square everywhere and had that god awful recirculating ball steering. 203 was much more modern and drives bloody well but had patchy plastics and electrical glitches galore. Lets just prey that they see sense with the new car...quite like the images i have seen so far but then i would say that. I remember posting on here that if you sat blindfolded in the front of my 190E cosworth and then a new 203, you would swear my 16 year old was the newer of the 2. Even the engine sounded sweeter compared to those early Kompressors.
tonylal said:
I remember posting on here that if you sat blindfolded in the front of my 190E cosworth and then a new 203, you would swear my 16 year old was the newer of the 2. Even the engine sounded sweeter compared to those early Kompressors.
And I think my cossie engine sounds like a bag of nails at anything other than full whack..!
I've only spent a day with the 202 (an early but v low mileage C180 with manual windows!) and thought it was better in every obvious way than the 190E - more space, better driving position, better insulated, smoother, sharper handling and so on. But I did think it lacked some of those other things that should make a Mercedes feel good - a good interior, a general feeling of class and quality, many hard to define qualities.
Maybe that's just what everyone says every time a new Mercedes comes out.... I reckon people will say the W203 was the last solid Mercedes and that new fangled thing is rubbish!
Thats true....the manafacturers are being offered massive grants to set up factorys in the East. Also worth noting that the saloon version of the current C CLass is produced in South Africa. Don't care what they say, they dont make em like they do in Germany. When I was selling these the estate cars were much smoother and quieter than the saloons, guess where the estates were made!. Plus for some reason the C320 was far more solid than a poverty engine one, does this mean that they are able to actually control the build quality as customers expectations would be higher when spending £35K+ on a C Class ?>???
Edited by tonylal on Friday 9th March 23:14
Gassing Station | Mercedes | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff