why did Mercedes of a certain era rust?

why did Mercedes of a certain era rust?

Author
Discussion

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,244 posts

231 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
why did Mercedes of a certain era rust?

early 90s to mid 2000s

Why do they all seem to rust worse than other cars of the same era?

I remember seeing 3 to 4 year old Mercs with rust in the rear arches and siils

Fastdruid

8,614 posts

150 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
Because the accountants said they were spending too much making each car.

So they slashed the build costs and ruined MB's reputation for being 'bullet proof' and reliable.

The real downside is that M-B aren't special any more (in the same way they were).

Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 23 January 10:26

jimi

521 posts

261 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
Chrysler...

anonymous-user

52 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
Actually they screwed up the switch to water-based paint.

trashbat

6,003 posts

151 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
jimi said:
Chrysler...
Cause or effect? You might argue that they bought Chrysler to try and reduce costs, rather than trying to reduce costs because they bought Chrysler.

I'm genuinely interested in why it failed, because I'm interested in contemporary Chrysler, now owned by Fiat.

HemiCommander

4,150 posts

151 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
jimi said:
Chrysler...
I'm not convinced by this, look at 90s and onwards Jeeps and you'll struggle to find one with any rust on whereas Landrovers from that vintage will have either been completely rebuilt or dissolved away by now. This suggests that Chrysler are quite capable of making cars which don't rust.

DaveCWK

1,958 posts

172 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
IIRC it was a combination of lower quality steel sourced on the advise of penny pinching accountants and the switch to water-based eco paint.

jimi

521 posts

261 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
Dave is right, it was about money - hence my Chrysler comment (that was a dark time for the firm IMO) but mainly because of the paint / clearcoat issues providing little protection.

Bjam99

231 posts

133 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
yep, its always about money. Same reason KA's fall to bits. It was about cheapness - you'll see far more old skool fiesta's than you do KA's (though fiesta's of the same era arent immune)

I'd say that there will be a only a handful of original KA's on the road by 2020, the vast majority will have been eaten up by rust bugs. For example, I used to have a KA2 and in 2002 there was around 60,000 of them on the road, now there's barely 16,000 (licensed). A spectacular drop in a little over 12 years. Land Rover (a quick look at all the models) is actually pretty good compared to this, though again it comes down to money. Is it worth patching up rust on a £500 KA compared to a £5k Landie....


KillerHERTZ

928 posts

196 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
Cost cutting, the switch to non Solvent/water based paints, less layers of paint, poorer quality steel.

P-Jay

10,505 posts

189 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
They're not alone - VWs of that era rust for more freely than the ones before or after - in fact I haven't seen a pre-facelift MK3 Golf in years.

GrizzlyBear

1,071 posts

133 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all
P-Jay said:
They're not alone - VWs of that era rust for more freely than the ones before or after - in fact I
haven't seen a pre-facelift MK3 Golf in years.
I seem to remember reading a few of the VW models weren't Galvanised in the 90s, but I think they switched back to Galvanised metal rather sharpish, hence why you see loads of VWs from the early 2000s.

Of course, the big question is have Merc changed their ways? If I buy a 5 year old merc, what are the chances of it rusting in the next decade.


Edited by GrizzlyBear on Thursday 23 January 21:43

fourpointsixgt

513 posts

162 months

Thursday 23rd January 2014
quotequote all


these were one of the worst culprits for the reasons mentioned above re cost cutting, the W124 that preceded it was the last over engineered Merc. The Chrysler merger came later, the model which spawned the 300c in about 2004 was much better, indeed the 300 is very well screwed together and the early '05 models dont suffer any rust issues.

KillerHERTZ

928 posts

196 months

Friday 24th January 2014
quotequote all
GrizzlyBear said:
Of course, the big question is have Merc changed their ways? If I buy a 5 year old merc, what are the chances of it rusting in the next decade.


Edited by GrizzlyBear on Thursday 23 January 21:43
Post (late) 2004 you will be fine smile

cirian75

Original Poster:

4,244 posts

231 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
passed a 2004 54 reg M Class ML270 on sale while walking today

rust in the rear of the front arches.

So that's a year to avoid.

pity

I could easy afford it.

Dr Interceptor

7,699 posts

194 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
Mercedes have a bad reputation for the rust issue, but they're not the only ones.

My 1998 X308 Jag XJ8 had some serious rot about it, and had already had the arches blown over when I got it at around 12 years old.

The 2002 Mercedes E430 (W210 model which is prone to rust) on the other hand is pretty much rust free at coming up 12 years old, with only the most minute blisters where the front wing meets the bumper. In fairness to it, it's done 160k miles, versus the Jags 80k too.


liner33

10,603 posts

200 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
charltjr said:
Actually they screwed up the switch to water-based paint.
Yep thats why some colours are worse than others , my 2001 Silver E class was as rotten as a pear by 2006 , a friend still has her 2001 CLK in blue with no rust whatsoever and its parked by the side of the road getting salted from time to time having a much harder life than my car did, if it was due to the steel this wouldnt be the case.



deltashad

6,731 posts

195 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
I sold my 2003 ML in 2007, with no rust.
I still own a 2003 W209, there are two very small rust bubbles. Perfectly normal for a car of its age.

Some were prone to rusting, I don't think its as bad as the hype makes it out to be.

SlowV6

624 posts

137 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
deltashad said:
I sold my 2003 ML in 2007, with no rust.
I still own a 2003 W209, there are two very small rust bubbles. Perfectly normal for a car of its age.

Some were prone to rusting, I don't think its as bad as the hype makes it out to be.
IMHO the hype is justified.

anonymous-user

52 months

Friday 31st January 2014
quotequote all
I looked for a w208 CLK55 a while back. Every example I looked at had rust to varying degrees. One had recently been treated but you could already see small amounts of rust coming back at the bottom of the doors. It's a shame as the engines, etc are awesome but I just couldn't live with a car that would need bodywork done year on year. Just think, how many w208 CLKs do you see on the road these days?