Build quality............

[MercHand]

imo, the last over engineered Merc was the W202 C-Class. It is laughable how you can now buy a decent year 2000 model now for £1k.

Honestly, do yourself a favour and buy a 1990's W202 C-Class or a W208 CLK.

 

[Craiglxviii]

imo, the last over engineered Merc was the W202 C-Class. It is laughable how you can now buy a decent year 2000 model now for £1k.

Honestly, do yourself a favour and buy a 1990's W202 C-Class or a W208 CLK.

Define over- engineered?

As with all cars they are engineered to meet the demands perceived of them at the durability specified...

 

[turbopete]

Define over- engineered?

As with all cars they are engineered to meet the demands perceived of them at the durability specified...

the thing is, MB at the time of the 202 were, at least in their dealerships, marketing the car as something you bought and kept for maybe 20 years. (going back even further, at 1 stage you COULDNT buy a car on FINANCE from MB, as my mothers uncle found out with his 123) and having owned 2x 202's, they did feel like they would have happily done that with ease. fast forward to today, and whilst ive not experienced the 205, my sisters 204 feels more plasticky than my Ford, the materials in general FEEL to be of no noticeable higher quality, the engine (651 I think but keep hoping I'm wrong) has had a bargain basement bike chain put where the duplex timing chain should be fitted. plus now you are actively ENCOURAGED to hire/lease (whichever term you prefer) them or buy on finance, because that's all in the name of PROFIT. as a result, they never SEEM as well made. my sisters 2009 204 probably WILL see 20 years old, but it will have had MANY replacement parts that the older cars almost NEVER needed replaced. up to 3 years old, say (when a car SHOULD be most reliable) Id like to see how many electrical faults a 124 had, versus a 212. id like to see how many suspension springs failed on a 123 in its first 10 years, against the numbers for a 211 over the same time period.
yes cars have got more complicated. in some ways its great. in others its a pain as adding complexity means adding to potential problems. cars also need more replacement parts nowadays than they used to, and in the mind of joe public, even if not those in the know, if you have to replace something more often, its not as well made! suspension springs are a prime example. WE know that its because something (I forget what) was banned from being used in making the springs so as a result, they're more brittle/prone to snapping. but to the average guy on the street, they're cr@p compared to what they were.

 

[John Laidlaw]

Well I find my 212 is very well built indeed, my previous one too albeit the hybrid system was dreadful

 

[Craiglxviii]

Profit.

All carmakers exist to provide a dividend to their shareholders. The fact that they (mostly) do it via the manufacture and sale of volume road vehicles is of secondary concern.

Not sure if this is lost on you but this is big business we’re talking about. They’re not charities. They never have been. Ever.

If the market didn’t care about styling changes then there would be far less scope for model revisions. It does; style is a human thing and we see styling change more rapidly in the Information Age, from cars to phones to clothes to hair to housing. That manufacturers can and do provide new fashion to suit the consumer is a function of the way the world works

You seem to think it’s all bad, or all some form of giant conspiracy to make MBs more cack. Really?

On springs, the only data available is warranty return based. I don’t have access to that right now. For anything else out of warranty the data do not exist.

 

[turbopete]

Well I find my 212 is very well built indeed, my previous one too albeit the hybrid system was dreadful

which, in a way, proves the point. yes they have the tech now which they didn't. but the tech isn't always reliable. and would you have bought the hybrid with a view of keeping it 20 years? that's what my mothers uncle did (more or less) as he bought a 123 new in 1980, ran it until 1996 where it was sold to a family member who still had it 7 years later! the car was only sold when it was due to a house move and needing a smaller car for the garage they had

 

[Craiglxviii]

which, in a way, proves the point. yes they have the tech now which they didn't. but the tech isn't always reliable. and would you have bought the hybrid with a view of keeping it 20 years? that's what my mothers uncle did (more or less) as he bought a 123 new in 1980, ran it until 1996 where it was sold to a family member who still had it 7 years later! the car was only sold when it was due to a house move and needing a smaller car for the garage they had

Only the W123 and a hybrid electric power train are not comparable. That’s apples to kiwi fruit. Oranges aren’t even in sight.

 

[turbopete]

Profit.

All carmakers exist to provide a dividend to their shareholders. The fact that they (mostly) do it via the manufacture and sale of volume road vehicles is of secondary concern.

Not sure if this is lost on you but this is big business we’re talking about. They’re not charities. They never have been. Ever.

If the market didn’t care about styling changes then there would be far less scope for model revisions. It does; style is a human thing and we see styling change more rapidly in the Information Age, from cars to phones to clothes to hair to housing. That manufacturers can and do provide new fashion to suit the consumer is a function of the way the world works

You seem to think it’s all bad, or all some form of giant conspiracy to make MBs more cack. Really?

On springs, the only data available is warranty return based. I don’t have access to that right now. For anything else out of warranty the data do not exist.

we KNOW its abut profit. I was answering YOUR question about how people thought 202s were better built than newer cars. think back to your days with your Orion (mk3/4 escort based) and think how many springs did you replace? I worked in a Ford dealership from 1992-2001. when I started, broken springs were almost unheard of. if you did more than 1 every 3 months (where I was) you were having a bad run. by the time the newer cars (and newer composition springs) were around in the late 90s, we were probably getting 1 or 2 a WEEK.
now, if you were to take yourself out of what you do for a moment, and think about it from a perspective of the average person on the street who now has to replace every spring on the car after about 5 years (doesn't really matter what manufacturer its from) instead of never replacing a spring in the 8 years you kept your old mk3 Escort (for example) then to the average person, they would think that the quality had gone down.
or how about if you bought a Panasonic (for example) TV and watched it all day every day for 12 years and it bust, it would be fine, but would you say the replacement was as well made (because as far as you are aware, without opening it, its made from identical components) if it only lasted 3 years? NO you wouldn't. (or I certainly wouldn't)

again, this whole thing about MBs being 'over engineered' is partly because YES they WERE built to last back then, as the number of 124s, 129s etc shows. they were making a profit because they aimed at a certain area of the market. over the years, they have had to diversify to remain profitable. and in comparison to everyone else, they ARENT as well made. but in real terms, MBs are much cheaper (for the man on the street) than they were (theyre no longer the price of a house for an entry level car, that they once were) and theyre competing in a much more competitive area of the market now. do we really think we will see as many 25 year old 212/213s (especially in hybrid form) at meets and shows in the future? I doubt it. and again this is where the PERCEPTION that the older cars are better built comes from.

as for your thought that I think t makes MBs more cack, that's probably the funniest thing ive read all day. its NOT just MBs who have issues with making things that were designed to work in vibration, dust and moisture free environments WORK in EXACTLY those environments. and yes, I do think that SOME were done as much for 'because we can' as any other reason (except saving money, fly by wire throttles being an example of something NO ONE would ask for on one of your 'surveys' but we got anyhow) and ive no issues with STYLE changes either. you want to put a sat nav in the dash, fine. but why should I have to take it to a dealer/specialist if I want to add an accessory to it? what was wrong with plug and play? I know SOME things need it, but again, complicated because it CAN be and no other reason. apart from the more secret information you have access to, the biggest difference between you and I, as having both been or are currently working from the 'inside' of the motor trade (rather than being just a 'man on the street') is that I can see the argument from BOTH sides. you seem to be unwilling to take the perspective of looking from the outside-in, and only want to look from your inside perspective, outwards.

 

[turbopete]

Only the W123 and a hybrid electric power train are not comparable. That’s apples to kiwi fruit. Oranges aren’t even in sight.

but by your own admission, in an earlier post, they ARE comparable. both were pretty much as technologically advanced as it was possible to be, at launch and both designed to, in your words, meet the demands perceived of them at the durability specified.

are you seriously telling me that the demands perceived and durability specified on a 123 would be LONGER and more arduous than a 212? and if you are, isn't that, to an extent, an admission of a reduction in the 'engineering'?

 

[DanB]

I've always thought that VW make some of the easiest cars to work on.

The engineers are very thoughtful and keep it as simple as possible.

They're nicely built too and always have been in my opinion.

If I had to drive a dreary FWD crapper ( i.e young drivers, people who don't like cars ) I would have a VW no problem.

 

[EmilysDad]

.....

Current VW Up! Move Up 1.0 petrol: 854kg.

Which is around the weight of an original MK1 Golf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Golf_Mk1

 

[robparker]

Don't forget that all the "over engineered" mercs of old had their problems too... 5 year old fintails from the 60s were going back for rust under warranty, 190e's that were constantly going back with whiney diffs, that MB got fed up with replacing so just fitted more sound deadening under the back seats.
As the chief designer of the 126 said, they could only dream of the panel fit (interior and exterior) and tolerances back then that are now evident in the newer models.
There is alot of bandwagon jumping when it comes to slating build quality of certain era models

 

[Tony MB]

I'm new to MB ownership and whilst I'm enjoying driving my CLK I don't think the build quality surpasses some of my previous cars. I don't see the need for a lot of the technical add on's (toys) and no dipsticks also why do we need 24 spark plugs.
Previous cars of mine which I consider equal if not better for build quality ie Saab 95 Griffin 3.0ltr V6, even a Rover 75 tourer estate diesel both these cars were more reliable it seems than MB's. My CLK is at the moment trouble free but the previous owner had done at lot of maintenance and repairs during his watch (bills to prove) I wonder how long before I start spending on repairs, and will i achieve the high mileage of the Saab & the Rover for the same outlay.

 

[Craiglxviii]

but by your own admission, in an earlier post, they ARE comparable. both were pretty much as technologically advanced as it was possible to be, at launch and both designed to, in your words, meet the demands perceived of them at the durability specified.

are you seriously telling me that the demands perceived and durability specified on a 123 would be LONGER and more arduous than a 212? and if you are, isn't that, to an extent, an admission of a reduction in the 'engineering'?

No I didn’t say that. The W123 would be comparable to an E Class of equivalent engine type/ size and spec/ grade. There is no W123 equivalent to an E350e or E300e hybrid because hybrid power trains didn’t exist in 1980. It’s like comparing a CB radio to a mobile phone. Two completely different things.

Am I telling you that the perceived demands on a W123 during its design phase would be longer/ greater than a 212? Yes almost certainly and for a number of reasons. You highlighted one of them yourself. “The only car you’ll ever need” or “a car for life”. At that point MB had a common styling policy, and their customer polling showed that repeat MB customers or family customers tended to keep their cars for over 20 years. Plus, something like 80% of their turnover came from repeat or family customers. So, they set their design standards for 22 years durability with a body corrosion durability standard of 30 years- that’s where the 30 year corrosion warranty comes from.

Since then the market demands have changed. In 1980 the uptake of new technology in cars was limited- electrification, stereo system, that was about it. Power steering, air con and cruise control were well established tech. Now we see new tech being drip- fed in all the time. Not just MB, I mean across the market. Had a crash with doors locked and battery power disrupted? Not a problem, we have door latches with inbuilt power supplies to power unlock now. Want to charge a mobile phone? Use the inbuilt wireless charging pad. Book a service? The car will do it for you. The point is that since around 2000-2004 the rate of increase of technological progress has increased significantly vs. 20 years before. Not quite exponentially but at a much steeper gradient.

So, carmakers, as perhaps the ultimate expressions of personal style that 99% of the global population will ever own, have to keep up with and help shape the market trends that drive their customers desires. If those trends involve a facelift every 3 years and a new model every 6-7; if market forces show that new cars are kept for 8 years on average globally vs 5, but that 20 year old cars are being forced off the roads by ever stricter emissions regs and buyback incentives, then why should they spec a car to last for 20-30 years?

 

[turbopete]

No I didn’t say that. The W123 would be comparable to an E Class of equivalent engine type/ size and spec/ grade. There is no W123 equivalent to an E350e or E300e hybrid because hybrid power trains didn’t exist in 1980. It’s like comparing a CB radio to a mobile phone. Two completely different things.

Am I telling you that the perceived demands on a W123 during its design phase would be longer/ greater than a 212? Yes almost certainly and for a number of reasons. You highlighted one of them yourself. “The only car you’ll ever need” or “a car for life”. At that point MB had a common styling policy, and their customer polling showed that repeat MB customers or family customers tended to keep their cars for over 20 years. Plus, something like 80% of their turnover came from repeat or family customers. So, they set their design standards for 22 years durability with a body corrosion durability standard of 30 years- that’s where the 30 year corrosion warranty comes from.

Since then the market demands have changed. In 1980 the uptake of new technology in cars was limited- electrification, stereo system, that was about it. Power steering, air con and cruise control were well established tech. Now we see new tech being drip- fed in all the time. Not just MB, I mean across the market. Had a crash with doors locked and battery power disrupted? Not a problem, we have door latches with inbuilt power supplies to power unlock now. Want to charge a mobile phone? Use the inbuilt wireless charging pad. Book a service? The car will do it for you. The point is that since around 2000-2004 the rate of increase of technological progress has increased significantly vs. 20 years before. Not quite exponentially but at a much steeper gradient.

So, carmakers, as perhaps the ultimate expressions of personal style that 99% of the global population will ever own, have to keep up with and help shape the market trends that drive their customers desires. If those trends involve a facelift every 3 years and a new model every 6-7; if market forces show that new cars are kept for 8 years on average globally vs 5, but that 20 year old cars are being forced off the roads by ever stricter emissions regs and buyback incentives, then why should they spec a car to last for 20-30 years?

again missing my point. the 123 WAS the cutting edge of what was available AT THE TIME, just like the hybrid e class is NOW. they WERE comparable IN THEIR DAY.

 

[Craiglxviii]

again missing my point. the 123 WAS the cutting edge of what was available AT THE TIME, just like the hybrid e class is NOW. they WERE comparable IN THEIR DAY.

Shouting won't make a difference Pete. And I'm not missing your point. Rather than arguing, try paying attention to what I say. I do this kind of thing for a living and I'm not bad at it.

The hybrid system is not "cutting edge" now. It's a different type of powertrain altogether that simply didn't exist back then. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Apples to apples is the term that industry uses to make a straight and fair comparison of two different things- parts, systems, suppliers, whatever it might be. The key to it is getting whatever is being compared into as similar a condition as possible. That might mean, if comparing costs, that both items' cost prices are stripped back to ex-works for instance. Or that packaging is removed.

If you want to compare the W123 with say a 3 litre inline six petrol versus a W212 3 litre V6 petrol, then that would be a valid comparison. Both have similar powertrains and both of those powertrains come from the same source, namely a Carnot cycle heat engine coupled to a mechanical powertrain that uses gearing to translate engine revolutions to the driving wheels.

If you wanted to take an E300h and compare its steering wheel to that of a W123, then that's an apples to apples comparison. Both are steering wheels and do the same job in the same way.

A hybrid petrol electric powertrain does not do the same job in the same way to a straight ICE- mechanical powertrain. One could compare the internal combustion engines and, if applicable, the mechanical aspects of power transmission. But the W123 did not have an electric drive aspect at all so that cannot be compared.

 

[turbopete]

Shouting won't make a difference Pete. And I'm not missing your point. Rather than arguing, try paying attention to what I say. I do this kind of thing for a living and I'm not bad at it.

The hybrid system is not "cutting edge" now. It's a different type of powertrain altogether that simply didn't exist back then. It is not an apples to apples comparison.

Apples to apples is the term that industry uses to make a straight and fair comparison of two different things- parts, systems, suppliers, whatever it might be. The key to it is getting whatever is being compared into as similar a condition as possible. That might mean, if comparing costs, that both items' cost prices are stripped back to ex-works for instance. Or that packaging is removed.

If you want to compare the W123 with say a 3 litre inline six petrol versus a W212 3 litre V6 petrol, then that would be a valid comparison. Both have similar powertrains and both of those powertrains come from the same source, namely a Carnot cycle heat engine coupled to a mechanical powertrain that uses gearing to translate engine revolutions to the driving wheels.

If you wanted to take an E300h and compare its steering wheel to that of a W123, then that's an apples to apples comparison. Both are steering wheels and do the same job in the same way.

A hybrid petrol electric powertrain does not do the same job in the same way to a straight ICE- mechanical powertrain. One could compare the internal combustion engines and, if applicable, the mechanical aspects of power transmission. But the W123 did not have an electric drive aspect at all so that cannot be compared.

ok then, lets go as near like for like as we can then. 123, 300d against current/212 350 (id guess) cdi. everyone will STILL say that the 123 is the better engine from a build quality perspective. once the 123 is started, unless you run out of fuel (or suck water in driving through a flood) NOTHING will stop that engine running, without manual intervention (shutting it down) which is great if, like I did, you live somewhere prone to roads flooding. the modern car cant cope with that. wet electrics will take out the engine, and pretty much the entire car. gearbox, traction control, you name it. now yes, we know theyre a necessary evil for emissions etc, but how can it be said its a better solution? how can we say its made better, if its more fragile? somehow, you seem afraid to look at it from someone OUTSIDE of the motor trade, looking inwards, looking at it from a CONSUMER point of view. all you want to do is quote figures (or the ones your allowed to, which I understand completely) about part x had fewer failures per 100 units now than 5 years ago. you don't look at the outside perspective of cars in general having increasing numbers of faults, especially outside of warranty/main dealer circles (which you have no figures for anyhow) and the customer view of costs and time needed to repair the faults. mk3 escort vs focus for example. you drive through flood water (we used to regularly when I lived in Cumbria) and get a misfire. escort its a simple dry out the cap, clear the water from the spark plug holes, (often done just by engine heat as you drive) and its fine. Focus on the other hand, the BEST you can hope for is limp mode. assuming it doesn't interfere with the CPS and shut the engine down, leaving you stranded. does that mean its better built/more reliable from an OWNERS perspective??? and before you say that the cars aren't designed for that kind of use, if you live in that sort of area, as I did, how are you supposed to get around? how do you get to work? get the groceries? its not like you can hop on a bus or anything. there aren't any. and its all the silly faults that the cars have now, in general, and the cost of the parts to fix them, that makes people feel build quality has reduced. and in many cases its purely because the manufacturers are trying to increase profits (which is the aim of the game for them) that some of these failures occur.
Our works Iveco Daily's being a prime example. the old 04/05 plate ones were quite reliable. until they were parked up for a week, went to restart them (they drove where they were fine) and the ECUs had failed. 1 was repairable, the other wasn't. the diff failed on the repaired van at 160k miles. the 2010 version had issues with the brakes that the main dealers were adamant needed a £3k ABS pump on (because that's what the computer said) but that would NEVER have cured the fault as the issue was in flexi hoses that run along the chassis leg between the master cylinder and the abs pump (not entirely sure why the flexi hoses were even there. its been running nearly 3 years with 'temporary' solid pipes I fitted as an experiment). the 2013 van which despite being used 5 days out of 7 has had issues with brake calipers seizing and needing replaced TWICE on the rear and once on the front. and then the 2015 version which has had a rear door fitted (spot welds broke) and now 9 months later is in AGAIN for the same issue on the replacement door, an automated manual gearbox (clutchless thing, horrid) that crunches into second gear, a trailer light control unit issue (despite the van having no towbar), again, rear brake/handbrake issues, engine rattles, it went in for warranty work with a list LITERALLY the length of my arm. compare that to, say, the older generation Transits with the 2.5Di engine and a friend worked for a company that ran them and never sold a single van with under 400k miles and yet the only issues that ever came up with those were down to abuse (overloading usually) or neglect (a driver not checking the oil on 1 occasion)
so given my experiences with those vans, from both the outside looking in AND the inside looking out, as I worked on our company vans AND the ones my friends company had, were the Ivecos of the last 10 years ago a better quality than the Transits of 20-25 years ago? id have to say NO on both counts.

 

[MercHand]

Everything is consumerist rubbish these days. Cars included.
Mercs of the 1970's, 80's and 90's were not consumer products.
This is the difference.

My CLK320 cost the same as a small house in 1999.....£40k.
Like for like, this same CLK now should cost at least £80 to £100k, yet how much is the latest C-Class Coupe?

 

[Ductman]

I didn't realise I'd be starting such a convoluted thread with continuing circular (going round and round) arguments, when I first made an innocent observation about my sons little VW Polo.

Err, does anybody want to buy a nice little, well built shopping/commuting car thats in excellent condition?

 

[Tony MB]

I didn't realise I'd be starting such a convoluted thread with continuing circular (going round and round) arguments, when I first made an innocent observation about my sons little VW Polo.

Err, does anybody want to buy a nice little, well built shopping/commuting car thats in excellent condition?

That's what happens when you light the blue touch paper