RUST- THE RULES Aug 2009

Status
Not open for further replies.

martinopy

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
49
Reaction score
0
Your Mercedes
W219 cls
Thanks for the replies. I will hopefully get the car looked at in the next couple of weeks and I will report back how things go.
 

MRJ

Active Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2012
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
The Hague, Netherlands
Your Mercedes
E420 cdi
spoke to bodywork guy here in holland who told me not to touch post 2000 models up to 2006 because that he heard russian steel was used in them and this is what causes the rust. I have no idea if this is true or if it is more fairy stories but just thought I would share to see if anyone has heard anything similar.

He has a 1966 and 1973 Merc. I saw the 1973 - immaculate (well it would be if he does bodywork) but he told me it never suffered from rust. Pretty remarkable compared against newer models. nearly 40 years old and no rust.
 

Frontstep

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
3,436
Your Mercedes
T210 320cdi
I don't go for these Russian/Italian steel excuses, steel is sold by specification and I find it hard to believe Mercedes didn't batch test their steel to make sure they got what they ordered.
My father having some experience in the field could make a good guess with colour and feel.
Its not as though MB were new to manufacturing.
My own opinion is cost cutting was at the route of the problems coupled with finishing changes.
 

Alex M Grieve

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
9,388
Reaction score
60
Location
Broom, Warwickshire
Your Mercedes
B Class d200 Sport Premium Plus (66)
I don't go for these Russian/Italian steel excuses, steel is sold by specification and I find it hard to believe Mercedes didn't batch test their steel to make sure they got what they ordered.
My father having some experience in the field could make a good guess with colour and feel.
Its not as though MB were new to manufacturing.
My own opinion is cost cutting was at the route of the problems coupled with finishing changes.

I agree. I think this was probably a feature of the MB/Chrysler marriage, in which the Chrysler folks may well have given advice on painting processes, which have cost MB dear, as they really did not match the Mobilo Life rust warranty.
 

Dosco

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 14, 2006
Messages
3,942
Reaction score
5
Age
83
Your Mercedes
W211
I don't go for these Russian/Italian steel excuses, steel is sold by specification and I find it hard to believe Mercedes didn't batch test their steel to make sure they got what they ordered.
My father having some experience in the field could make a good guess with colour and feel.
Its not as though MB were new to manufacturing.
My own opinion is cost cutting was at the route of the problems coupled with finishing changes.

Nail on the head...
 

911stu

New Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
A friend of mine is a body shop manager and he has said that a factor that doesnt help the rust problems is that mercedes used a lacquer that was far too hard/brittle that got hair line fractures that let the moisture in that was not visible to the eye.
 

Sea Rocket

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
West coast SW England
Your Mercedes
W212/E350 Blue Efficiency Sport CDI Est 2010,107/380SL 1981. BMW X5 2003, MGB Roadster 1973
I rather hope that is not the case as I intend to make a claim. The brittle lacquer theory would infer moisture entry externally, whereas rust emanating from inside to out would only be considered by MB in the 30 year Mobilo 'guarantee'. I have been turned down again by them but now intend taking legal action, my E320 has full MBSH, implemented at the advised mileages with no over runs.

In a letter from MB Maastricht Customer Assistance Center I have been refused a foc repair on the grounds that it is not perforation corrosion and therefore not covered by the warranty, it clearly is and now having this in writing will add more amunition to my case.

In their words "To clarify, the corrosion must originate from within the bodywork itself through to the outside, perforating the exterior sheet metal in order to be covered by the Anti Perforation Warranty. The warranty does not cover corrosion due to external influences.

Breach of Contract springs to mind.
 

Xtractorfan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
6,085
Reaction score
159
Your Mercedes
S class
The hard lacquer theory does not stand up...all lacquers and paints are porous and a certain miniscale amount of air and moisture can impregnate the paint surface... This is the reason for the first ecoat or wash primer which etches itself onto the metal and provides the anti rust barrier...
Even if the hard lacquer theory were correct , then MB would still be liable, as they are the ones who produced the car and painted it
 
OP
H

hawk20

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
4,971
Reaction score
11
Your Mercedes
ML250 BlueTEC Sport
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #229
The hard lacquer theory does not stand up...all lacquers and paints are porous and a certain miniscale amount of air and moisture can impregnate the paint surface... This is the reason for the first ecoat or wash primer which etches itself onto the metal and provides the anti rust barrier...
Even if the hard lacquer theory were correct , then MB would still be liable, as they are the ones who produced the car and painted it

The lacquer is the waterproof coat that keeps the water out. Before all panels were galvanised it had a crucial role with water-based paints.

I don't see how MB could be liable -any more than any other manufacturer if the rust was due to the lacquer problem - after the three year warranty ends, because that is all the cover you get on paintwork etc -not just from MB but from most other makes including Lexus last time I looked.

The 30 year warranty is rust from inside out.

The many cases where MB have done repairs foc for rust from 'the outside inwards' have almost always been done under 'goodwill' with, in most cases, an 8 year time limit.
 

television

Always remembered RIP
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
164,073
Reaction score
367
Age
89
Location
Daventry
Your Mercedes
2002 SL500, 216 CL500, all fully loaded
The lacquer is the waterproof coat that keeps the water out. Before all panels were galvanised it had a crucial role with water-based paints.

I don't see how MB could be liable -any more than any other manufacturer if the rust was due to the lacquer problem - after the three year warranty ends, because that is all the cover you get on paintwork etc -not just from MB but from most other makes including Lexus last time I looked.

The 30 year warranty is rust from inside out.

The many cases where MB have done repairs foc for rust from 'the outside inwards' have almost always been done under 'goodwill' with, in most cases, an 8 year time limit.

Member Xtractorfan works in the body shop trade.

As many car makers use the same paint that MB that MB use the problem in many cases is the poor quality steel sheet used by MB, mixed with a poor cleaning off process. If rust is in the metal before you start all the galvanizing in the world will not stop the rust from raising its ugly head when moisture comes along.

2 component top coats have been used for nearly 30 years now on cars, and the same paint that is used my many car makes.

The painting process on my CL, it is much better than on my SL. So I suppose MB must address this issue as it cost them plenty in terms of money and customers
 

Frontstep

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
3,436
Your Mercedes
T210 320cdi
I rather hope that is not the case as I intend to make a claim. The brittle lacquer theory would infer moisture entry externally, whereas rust emanating from inside to out would only be considered by MB in the 30 year Mobilo 'guarantee'. I have been turned down again by them but now intend taking legal action, my E320 has full MBSH, implemented at the advised mileages with no over runs.

In a letter from MB Maastricht Customer Assistance Center I have been refused a foc repair on the grounds that it is not perforation corrosion and therefore not covered by the warranty, it clearly is and now having this in writing will add more amunition to my case.

In their words "To clarify, the corrosion must originate from within the bodywork itself through to the outside, perforating the exterior sheet metal in order to be covered by the Anti Perforation Warranty. The warranty does not cover corrosion due to external influences.

Breach of Contract springs to mind.

Having been right through the legal process and won I can assure you of two things I certainly didn't get any "Goodwill" and the requirement in my contract was certainly not for the steel to be perforated, this is a piece of folklore that MB have it seems adopted to further fob off genuine claimants
Other gems include the requirement for 6 months of ownership, complete tosh, the warranty runs with the car not the owner.

I had mine for years before I claimed and they even tried that one on me.

As to "The warranty does not cover corrosion due to external influences"
this statement is one of those perfect own goals MB specialise in and makes great fodder for Court experts.

To claim via Mobilo you have to have FMBSH.
To claim otherwise would I think take the exhumation of George Carman.
For the avoidance of any doubt this was not a settlement made before Court Proceedings or on the "Court steps" .
 

Alex M Grieve

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
9,388
Reaction score
60
Location
Broom, Warwickshire
Your Mercedes
B Class d200 Sport Premium Plus (66)
Having been right through the legal process and won I can assure you of two things I certainly didn't get any "Goodwill" and the requirement in my contract was certainly not for the steel to be perforated, this is a piece of folklore that MB have it seems adopted to further fob off genuine claimants
Other gems include the requirement for 6 months of ownership, complete tosh, the warranty runs with the car not the owner.

I had mine for years before I claimed and they even tried that one on me.

As to "The warranty does not cover corrosion due to external influences"
this statement is one of those perfect own goals MB specialise in and makes great fodder for Court experts.

To claim via Mobilo you have to have FMBSH.
To claim otherwise would I think take the exhumation of George Carman.
For the avoidance of any doubt this was not a settlement made before Court Proceedings or on the "Court steps" .

A particularly relevant and important post, which effectively sketches the way in which urban mythology can all too easily become "fact" in such matters.

Well done Frontstep!
 
OP
H

hawk20

Senior Member
Joined
May 27, 2006
Messages
4,971
Reaction score
11
Your Mercedes
ML250 BlueTEC Sport
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #233
After the three year normal warranty most manufacturers give no further rust warranty.

It seems to me that legally MB can write any T's and C's they like when giving their 30 year warranty. Whenever I've read the T's and C's it seems pretty clear that rust from 'inside out' is covered.

Difficult to draw conclusions from individual cases, however persuasive, because manufacturers do sometimes cave in on a limited number of cases to avoid the costs and hassle of continuing.

Peruse the many threads here and elsewhere and you can count on the fingers of one hand those who have got anywhere with the 30 year warranty where 'outside in' rust is the issue. Maybe on the fingers of one finger?
 

Alex M Grieve

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
9,388
Reaction score
60
Location
Broom, Warwickshire
Your Mercedes
B Class d200 Sport Premium Plus (66)
After the three year normal warranty most manufacturers give no further rust warranty.

It seems to me that legally MB can write any T's and C's they like when giving their 30 year warranty. Whenever I've read the T's and C's it seems pretty clear that rust from 'inside out' is covered.

Difficult to draw conclusions from individual cases, however persuasive, because manufacturers do sometimes cave in on a limited number of cases to avoid the costs and hassle of continuing.

Peruse the many threads here and elsewhere and you can count on the fingers of one hand those who have got anywhere with the 30 year warranty where 'outside in' rust is the issue. Maybe on the fingers of one finger?

all we need now is a bit of a discourse on the aetiology of "rust from the inside out"?

How does it occur, what are the features and, in the absence of any surface damage, is it not invariably present where corrosion has arisen spontaneously? :confused:
 

television

Always remembered RIP
Joined
Mar 14, 2005
Messages
164,073
Reaction score
367
Age
89
Location
Daventry
Your Mercedes
2002 SL500, 216 CL500, all fully loaded
After the three year normal warranty most manufacturers give no further rust warranty.

It seems to me that legally MB can write any T's and C's they like when giving their 30 year warranty. Whenever I've read the T's and C's it seems pretty clear that rust from 'inside out' is covered.

Difficult to draw conclusions from individual cases, however persuasive, because manufacturers do sometimes cave in on a limited number of cases to avoid the costs and hassle of continuing.

Peruse the many threads here and elsewhere and you can count on the fingers of one hand those who have got anywhere with the 30 year warranty where 'outside in' rust is the issue. Maybe on the fingers of one finger?

Those that have been bold enough to go to court have all had their claims settled before the hearing.

But rusting from the inside out, does any car this last 20 years do that.

I love the post from one guy who had rust on the inside of the door opening on his nearly new car, MB said it was a stone chip:D
 

Frontstep

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
3,436
Your Mercedes
T210 320cdi
all we need now is a bit of a discourse on the aetiology of "rust from the inside out"?

How does it occur, what are the features and, in the absence of any surface damage, is it not invariably present where corrosion has arisen spontaneously? :confused:

You have got too the nub in one, my relevant contractual term was inside out, that is clear and unambiguos there is no requirement to see through the panel.

My case was contested by MB there was no cave in or convenient collapse they simply lost the argument and the Judge ordered settlement in my favour.
What must be made clear though is it sets no precedent anyone who uses the lower Civil Courts will know that.
 

Sea Rocket

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2012
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Location
West coast SW England
Your Mercedes
W212/E350 Blue Efficiency Sport CDI Est 2010,107/380SL 1981. BMW X5 2003, MGB Roadster 1973
Well done Frontstep it must have been an ordeal to have to go to that length.

I am considering this route as have been turned down by MB on two occasions in spite of full MBSH on a mileage of 179K miles.

Did you have full service history? What was the reason they refused your claim? I had thought they would back down if an independant party, say the RAC, stated in their opinion the rust was from inside to oiut. I believe in the past you mentioned that household insurance might consider or advise how to go about this.
 

Frontstep

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
9,201
Reaction score
3,436
Your Mercedes
T210 320cdi
Well done Frontstep it must have been an ordeal to have to go to that length.

I am considering this route as have been turned down by MB on two occasions in spite of full MBSH on a mileage of 179K miles.

Did you have full service history? What was the reason they refused your claim? I had thought they would back down if an independant party, say the RAC, stated in their opinion the rust was from inside to oiut. I believe in the past you mentioned that household insurance might consider or advise how to go about this.

It wasn't hard at all as I have some ability in these matters.
I know of no way of claiming without full MBSH as the premise would be Breach of Contract.
I was turned down for a plethora of ill thought and unfounded reasons that made things much easier for me when preparing the case.
Thankfully MB's responses to claims are often written by people of little ability.
I had the services of a corrosion expert but did not need one as they dug hole after hole for themselves with their ill considered reasoning.
Legal Expenses, you could access some free expertise but make sure you are not fobbed off with someone not experienced or qualified, or ask your own lawyer to handle matters for you.
You can literally overwhelm the Court with evidence of the inherent corrosion problems from many respected bodies.
At the back of your mind though must be the thought that they (MB) can
afford to lose the case and it wouldn't ruffle a badge on Shumachers hat.
 

Xtractorfan

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2007
Messages
6,085
Reaction score
159
Your Mercedes
S class
The lacquer is the waterproof coat that keeps the water out. Before all panels were galvanised it had a crucial role with water-based paints.

I don't see how MB could be liable -any more than any other manufacturer if the rust was due to the lacquer problem - after the three year warranty ends, because that is all the cover you get on paintwork etc -not just from MB but from most other makes including Lexus last time I looked.

The 30 year warranty is rust from inside out.

The many cases where MB have done repairs foc for rust from 'the outside inwards' have almost always been done under 'goodwill' with, in most cases, an 8 year time limit.

The only thing wrong with the post I made was a typo ..the word miniscale should read miniscule .. the remainder of it is scientific fact..unless Hawk has other info available...Why would a manufacturer bother with etch primer or ecoat if lacquer was a sealer...why would the aftermarket use it if lacquer was a sealer ..I will do a write up later on this..
 

whitenemesis

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
17,978
Reaction score
40
Your Mercedes
CLS55 AMG '05
What does e-coat and etch primer have to do with the use of lacquer? Etch primer is used to promote paint adhesion and e-coat is a spray paint technique that uses electrostatics to deposit the paint.
Neither would have any bearing on the permeability of the paint, whereas lacquer would. Or have I misunderstood?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

AIB understand your special Mercedes deserves a special insurance policy. We have a refreshing attitude to insuring high performance, modified, imported or classic and vintage cars and deal with the UK’s leading insurers. We offer discounts for length of ownership, where the vehicle is kept overnight and limiting the mileage and can also cater for those clients who need higher mileage and business use. To obtain a quotation please call the team on 02380 268351 or visit us atAIB Insurance
Top Bottom