Great Cars.....

[watsone91]

Watched a show on telly last night about the Mercedes marque and it was great especially the part with the gull wing .

They painted a lovely picture about how great these cars are and hinted that the merger in 2000 with our American cousins was a good thing.

I personally think this merger has damaged the marque .
My own car is a 1994 model c 220 diesel if you compare it to a 2000 model it puts it to shame for build quality and fit and finish.

Who out there has a 2000 model and are not happy with it ?

perhaps a poll would find the truth :lol:

 

[jberks]

There's plenty of comments on this forum saying the same thing. Anecdotes are patchy though. I was introduced to Merc with my grandfathers 280e in the early 70's - a glorious tank. My dad ran them since 1980 and sure My 2000 E240 isn't quite as solid as his 1980 250. but to be fair, Im struggling to come up with major differences when I am realistic about it. There was a problem (cock up) with the paintwork around 99/2000 but I understand that is back to old now and Merc are forking out thousands to keep ones like mine in tiptop condition. There are small differences, but then he never got more than 20mpg against my 35. I also remember that it was rusty and ran like a bag of spanners when he sold it 7 years and 140k miles later - so rose tinted glasses may be a great thing.

If you look at the range, quality dipped around 98,99. My 96 C class was vastly better made than the current one (why I moved to the E) and the interior of the A would have embarresed Ford. They seem to have learned their lesson though. I just had a loan new E320CDI and its pretty much as well put together as my 2000 E, I haven't been in a new A but the photos look good so I suspect things are on the up. Roll on the new C, that will be the test. Then again, my C 8 years ago was the same price as a new equivalent one is today. So something has to give I suppose.

However
I think Merc are still making a major error when deciding to go for high tech. It's just not proven. (or rather it is proven to be unreliable) We buy mercs to start first time, be limo like inside and last forever. Personally I don't care if it doesn't have the latest radar operated can opener with satelite uplink capability. And what the hell is the point of sensotronic brakes ?? My ordinary brakes are great! It's nice to have an integrated phone, but nokia do a perfectly good car kit. I could rant on forever. The point is, Marketing boys and accountants Listen UP ... that unless Merc can guarantee that the new gadget is 99.999999% reliable, I don't want it on my options list.

I work in software and know how crap it is. I don't want my car to be a computer.

 

[OlafMaxwell]

Quality is diabolical and the customer service is a big turn off. Mercedes do not believe in looking after their customers and do everything to avoid honouring their warranty. You would be better off buying from Arthur on Minder.

I drive a 2000 car, meticulously maintainedand full service records. In February this year I had a second breakdown in 6 months, back up on tow truck. Tow truck, 6 weeks into 2004 had already picked up 4 broken down 2004 registered Mercedes cars. Mercedes warranty called Mobilo is rubbish, they refused to cover a total brake failure.

Would I buy a new one? no way. Every single person I have contact with through my work has not one good word to say about Mercedes from personal experience of dealing with them.

As a footnote, the 2000 car feels solid, feels like its built to last......experience is otherwise. The newer model, w211 may feel the same but every single person I know with them has had a litany of trouble, up tp and including 2004 models. Dont be fooled by the feel.

Would I recommend one? No. If you want quality and reliability, move up to Lexus. At half the mileage a petrol Lexus is cheaper to run than a diesel Mercedes....the Lexus may use more fuel but is ultrareliable, the Mercedes will drain you in repairs.

 

[1066ng]

My 1990 190e Sportline manual cost about £22k when new with one or two extras.
Fifteen years later a brand new C Class can be bought for similar money.
One of the main reasons for this is that the 190 was built using only expensive top quality components and materials, whereas the new C class simply isn't. If it were built to the same standards as the old 201, and other models built during these times, it would probably cost around £30k, and sales would be poor. MB's philosophy in those days was "if it's not the very best, don't use it"
:lol: For the record, I bought my 190 at 2.5 years old and 25000 miles, from a main dealer. It has now done 93,000 miles, and nothing, repeat nothing has gone wrong with it, or has had to be replaced, except for brakes, tyres, battery and exhaust (consumables). I have never had to top up the radiator,( no, before you ask, it doesn't run hot!!) or even change a light bulb. There is no rust anywhere and the interior looks as new.
Chrysler have got a lot to answer for!

 

[watsone91]

oops dont mention the chr word

 

[dirtydiesel]

oops dont mention the chr word

what is the chr word?