W211 Corrosion

[tiptronic]

New to this great Mercedes forum but I am afraid my first post is bad news as I had my w211 in for a service and received a phone call from western Mercedes in Edinburgh to say that I would not get my ca back until a structural technician from Mercedes checked the car over as there is sings of corrosion appearing on the front cross member and blisters starting to appear on the drivers door, I was told by them last year when I ordered the car that the rust problems had been sorted out with the introduction of the w211 series I previously owned a w210 which in my opinion was manufactured from recycled rust as there was more corrosion on that car. My car is only five months old with 14,000 mls on the clock and I am thinking of trying to get a replacement car from Mercedes. Has anyone on the forum had any experiences with corrosion on the w211 models?

 

[jberks]

In a word, Yes - If it's only 5 months old and in need of body repair, I'd be asking for a replacement car.

211's are not supposed to rust, especially if yours is 5 months old!! - it suggests that something went seriously wrong when they were building it. There has been a report of a problem under the rear window on some, though I can't see how as looking at mine, it's all sealed and covered up but I can say that mine is 20 months old, 35,500 on the clock and absolutely spotless.
I guess this is why your dealer has raised the alarm with MB. They don't normally impound customers cars so they are clearly taking this very seriously and I'm sure they are as surprised as you are.

Given that this is likely to be a sign of things to come, I would be asking for a replacement. The only thing that counts against you is the mileage so they would probably want some form of contribution - perhaps the equivalent of restarting the payments, but it should still be a very favourable deal.

 

[television]

The E211 has made headlines again in my Swedish motor mag this week, this car had already been back to have the rust under the rear window fixed ( this is seen by opening the boot) rust around the lock to boot, rust on the doors where the trim fixes on, and on the under side of the doors.

The Swedish corrosion institute that checks out accident damage found that 90% of E211's had rust in the bottom corners inside the doors.

Last year when the rust started on the doors MB Sweden refused to cover it under guarantee and the woman paid out £1000 to have the 4 doors painted.

Now the rust is at the front on the bottom of the wings underneath the headlamp, MB say it is caused by a stone, and refused to cover it. On the photo it does look bad, but you can see the stone chip.

From Sept 2003 211's cars made for the northern part of the world have received extra rust proofing with zinc plating and Dinol and Mercasol (like waxoil)

The worst cars tested of 2001 and later were, Hyundia Accent,Ford Focus,MB E class and Ford Mondeo.

Malcolm

 

[jberks]

From Sept 2003 211's cars made for the northern part of the world have received extra rust proofing with zinc plating and Dinol and Mercasol (like waxoil)

If so, then presumably there was a potential issue with the very early 211's maybe on an 02 plate. The one here is only 5 months old so should be extra rust proofed and zinc plated so should not have any issues. The issue with front wings is odd too, as they are aluminum and the area under the headlamps are plastic.
Also the talk about the boot lock - this is plastic too, installed under the handle on a plastic panel and the metal part of the boot lid again is aluminium - is this definatley a 211?

 

[Blobcat]

Some pictures would be nice

 

[Ian Brown]

try here http://www.mbclub.ru/mb/vin/index.html?lng=eng it might give you the build date just enter your vin No.

 

[tiptronic]

Some pictures would be nice

sorry blobcat the car is in the main dealers for inspection

 

[tiptronic]

The E211 has made headlines again in my Swedish motor mag this week, this car had already been back to have the rust under the rear window fixed ( this is seen by opening the boot) rust around the lock to boot, rust on the doors where the trim fixes on, and on the under side of the doors.

The Swedish corrosion institute that checks out accident damage found that 90% of E211's had rust in the bottom corners inside the doors.

Last year when the rust started on the doors MB Sweden refused to cover it under guarantee and the woman paid out £1000 to have the 4 doors painted.

Now the rust is at the front on the bottom of the wings underneath the headlamp, MB say it is caused by a stone, and refused to cover it. On the photo it does look bad, but you can see the stone chip.

From Sept 2003 211's cars made for the northern part of the world have received extra rust proofing with zinc plating and Dinol and Mercasol (like waxoil)

The worst cars tested of 2001 and later were, Hyundia Accent,Ford Focus,MB E class and Ford Mondeo.

Malcolm

Malcolm could you post a copy of this as it might help me persue the matter I only received the car on 01/02/06. you say they were zinc plating done after 2003 would this also have been done to the crossmember

 

[big x]

The E211 has made headlines again in my Swedish motor mag this week, this car had already been back to have the rust under the rear window fixed ( this is seen by opening the boot) rust around the lock to boot, rust on the doors where the trim fixes on, and on the under side of the doors.

The Swedish corrosion institute that checks out accident damage found that 90% of E211's had rust in the bottom corners inside the doors.

Last year when the rust started on the doors MB Sweden refused to cover it under guarantee and the woman paid out £1000 to have the 4 doors painted.

Now the rust is at the front on the bottom of the wings underneath the headlamp, MB say it is caused by a stone, and refused to cover it. On the photo it does look bad, but you can see the stone chip.

From Sept 2003 211's cars made for the northern part of the world have received extra rust proofing with zinc plating and Dinol and Mercasol (like waxoil)

The worst cars tested of 2001 and later were, Hyundia Accent,Ford Focus,MB E class and Ford Mondeo.

Malcolm

It's not clear to me that the article is talking about W211 or late W210's
Malcolm are the pics of 211's ?

adam

 

[jberks]

The "rust around the lock to boot" does it for me. Unless plastic rusts these days they must be on about the 210. I had a good look at my 211 last night and there is absolutely nothing rustable around the boot lock or under the headlights - its all plastic, plus the wings are aluminium.

 

[television]

With new models not being my best point I have to say sorry the article was for a 2001 W210, sorry to have wasted your time and thoughts. The extra rust protection from 211 in 2003 still do apply.

Malcolm

 

[Blobcat]

Thanks Malcolm, we still have tiptronic's rusty W211 though. Nice to get an update on that.

 

[jberks]

Thanks Malcolm - you had me worried for a bit there!
Anyway, we're back to the "No your new E class shouldn't be rusty' answer.

Let us know how you go on.

 

[tiptronic]

Update

Just had a call from Mercedes Edinburgh to say that the structural technician was out this morning and in his view all is well and will be rectified under warranty, but to my dissatisfaction the report I got was that the car was manufactured in oct 2004 but was never sold until I purchased it in Feb 2006 it went to a showroom and must have been lying around somewhere causing surface rust on the crossmember which is getting replaced. Regarding the door it will also be replaced due to a repair being done on the door unknown to me or my dealer they also giving me the service for free and are offering £1500 refund because the car was manufactured in 2004 [They have been told politely by me to stick that offer where the monkey keeps it’s nuts] I will be looking for a refund of the depreciation value between Oct 2004 and Feb 2006 what do other members think?

 

[big x]

Just had a call from Mercedes Edinburgh to say that the structural technician was out this morning and in his view all is well and will be rectified under warranty, but to my dissatisfaction the report I got was that the car was manufactured in oct 2004 but was never sold until I purchased it in Feb 2006 it went to a showroom and must have been lying around somewhere causing surface rust on the crossmember which is getting replaced. Regarding the door it will also be replaced due to a repair being done on the door unknown to me or my dealer they also giving me the service for free and are offering £1500 refund because the car was manufactured in 2004 [They have been told politely by me to stick that offer where the monkey keeps it’s nuts] I will be looking for a refund of the depreciation value between Oct 2004 and Feb 2006 what do other members think?

Only one solution...

 

[Blobcat]

The question is, did you buy it as a new car?
We have had this before with an S class that was over a year old, I think that member pushed for his money back, I will have to search and see if I can find the thread

 

[jberks]

You bought a NEW car. It is reasonable (IMO) for the car to have been built perhaps 6 months before delivery to allow for delivery, sitting around in compounds etc but that would be about it e.g. Mine is listed as "Delivery date 25.06.04" on the russian site which I take to mean teh build date, and was first registered Nov 04.

What a court would consider as reasonable I'm not sure but I would imagine they'd be pushing their luck with 16 months! Cars are made out of plastic, metal, wire, insulation, solder etc and like all things, however well made and protected, begin to deteriorate as soon as manufactured. You have effectively been sold something with 12 more months of deterioration than what you paid for.

Additionally, and more importantly IMO I imagine the delay was caused by the car being damaged in transit at some point and repaired before being registered. In my view, this makes it a used car. It is reasonable that if buying a new car, that car is in the condition it left the factory, not repaired (and in this case bodged - else why did it corrode?). A minor fix, such as a tyre or fuse, fair enough, but a door? and what else has been fixed that you don't know about? Bottom line, that car has been resprayed. However good the bodyshop (not very I assume), as proven by the corrosion, it is never as good as a factory paint job.

I had a brand new Audi A3 Turbo throw a piston 24 hours after delivery. They asked if I would accept a new engine and I refused as it would be less than perfect if repaired, however good the job. They then, without any further argument, ordered me a new one. They then repaired my old one, ran it as a demo for 6 months and flogged it as used. Fair enough.

I'm not certain of the legalities but I suspect the dealer has comitted an offence by selling you a damaged, repaired 04 model as a brand new 06 one. I would want a brand new car as a direct replacement and they could call the 14k you've put on it as compensation for being ripped off! (Oh - and a free service on the new one when due). And I think that's being lenient!

They are on the ropes, both morally and legally. Keep pushing.

 

[Blobcat]

Here is the thread on the 2yr old S320cdi
http://forums.mercedesclub.org.uk/showthread.php?t=16422&highlight=holland

 

[jberks]

Key difference with this one was that it was bought used. There is an element of bought as seen here, plus the car in question was 'cheap' as proven by the fact that they couldn't find a replacement for the same price.

This is a new car, sold as new whereas it was actually a 16 month old damaged repairable. Had they done what they did with my Audi and registered it and run it for a few months before selling it as used, then maybe, but they passed this car off as brand new delivered from the factory specifically for this customer. We all know that in reality, cars are rarely built to order and normally come from a huge compound near Doncaster, but they are still in 'as left the factory' condition. Once they aren't, for whatever reason, they are reclassified as 'used' IMO.

 

[Blobcat]

the car was manufactured in oct 2004 but was never sold until I purchased it in Feb 2006 it went to a showroom and must have been lying around somewhere

Tiptronic has not come back so far and said it was bought as a new car.
If it was sold as a new car then there is no issue. If the dealer disguised its age then again no issue. However if it was sold as some dealer special ex whatever, old stock etc. then it is not so clear cut.