The Forum

Community => Auto Torque => Topic started by: michaeld on 13 March 2006, 06:37 PM

Title: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 13 March 2006, 06:37 PM
I'm about to commit a little heresy here, because I'm going to talk about late model cars.  I have been reading an awful lot of posts from new Benz owners who are outraged over the need to do repeated and expensive repairs on their cars.  For a couple examples, go to http://www.mercedesshop.com/shopforum/showthread.php?t=146814 and http://www.mercedesforum.com/m_37051/tm.htm.  One thing I know from my reading of other Benz forums is that there are some seriously pissed-off new Mercedes owners out there!

Now, many members of these Mercedes forums have risen to the defense of the 3 pointed star, but most of the members are agreeing that something is wrong with Mercedes quality.  I think it is fair to say that American manufacturers have been accused of lowered quality and reliability for some time.  Have Western automakers lost their way?  And is it just the West, or have the Japanese similarly lost quality?  And, most important of all, if automakers HAVE lost quality and reliability from (how many?) years back, why has it happened?  What are the socio-economic causes precipitating this slide?  And one final question: IF Mercedes quality has suffered, what will the impact be on our beloved 116s: will they become more sought after as sole representatives of REAL Mercedes quality, or will they suffer guilt-by-association due to the diminished reputation of Mercedes-Benz today?

Obviously, I want to hear from all of you.  But allow me to present an idea I've had by way of an analogy.  According to statistics, people all over the industrialized world are living longer lives than ever before.  But are they healthier?  Alas, no, Americans, Europeans, and Japanese are more obese than ever before.  Diabetes, Heart Disease, Cancer, etc. plague us in startlingly high numbers.  How can these seemingly contradictory state of affairs exist?  Simple: advanced technology has compensated for terrible diets and a near complete lack of exercise.  Modern medicine is allowing us to "fool the Reaper."  Now how does that relate to my question regarding modern automotive quality?  I am wondering if high-technology has been masking/concealing a long-term reduction in quality.  It seems plausible to think that hi-tech has enabled automakers to build cars cheaper than ever before, but unfortunately not merely in cost but in actual quality.  One simple example is "wind noise" which used to be overcome by fantastic build quality, but today is dealt with using improved rubber seals.  You get the same result, but it seems clear that something wonderful has been sacrificed.  Are modern cars the equivalent of modern people, who are living sickly existences that are sustained only by playing continual medical shell-games?

I would say more, but I don't want to "steal someone's thunder."  Has Mercedes sacrificed true quality for increased profitability in the last several years (and is this true of all carmakers, or just the Western ones?)?  If so, what are the causes?  And how does this impact our older Benzes?
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: John Hubertz on 13 March 2006, 06:42 PM
Here's the deal - I don't think that a "new" Mercedes is unreliable vs other high-end vehicles, quite the contrary.  I do think however, that Mercedes has (along with BMW, Cadillac, etc.) responded to the MARKETPLACE changing - as it demands more and more technology from top cars.

WE gentlemen (and lady) are the ones who are "strange" in this modern era, essentially maintaining a fixed place in a changing universe.  I don't think that we represent the mainstream, and for Mercedes to follow our philosophy at this late date would be market suicide.

Do I wish Mercedes would offer basic versions of their cars for those of us who don't want memory seats and navigation?  Yes.  But I'm just not sure enough people would buy them to make it viable.

I do know this - I'd love that "stop and go traffic" cruise control fitted to the new S class.  WOW.

(Please excuse me as I lifted quite a bit of this next bit from an earlier post I made in the "best era" thread....)

I was musing on the whole reliability/place in the market issue we've discussed so many times as I worked my way through morning traffic today....

I was behind a "new" w116.

The badge said "Toyota", the model was "Avalon".

Sadly, I think the Mr. Toyoda and his emphasis on long-term value has allowed them to assume Mercedes once-vaunted position as a high-value ratio premium manufacturer.

Whether you look at technology (Prius hybrid), economy (the new smidge car that replaces the echo, forgot the name) or rational and comfortable luxury with bulletproof reliability and a lack of gadgets that eventually spoil long-term utility (the avalon), Toyota is doing a MARVELOUS job of imitating the Mercedes 1973 - 1980 market strategy.

Think about it....  240D, 300D, 300TD, 300SD  (diesels - the pre-hybrid)

280 coupes and sedans, (Camry's?)

and of course the vaunted Solara coupe and convertible - a modern 107 if I ever saw one, pricey but a truly reliable sporty car with practical overtones.

And the Avalon (revised example):

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f248/fullhappyfish/toyota_avalon95.jpg)


This particular Avalon is 9 years old and already has 172,000 miles - and is one of many listed as "perfect condition, no problems" on ebay with higher miles.

Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 16 March 2006, 08:37 PM
Here is a pretty disturbing article for new Benz owners that I came across yesterday :'(.  The link is: http://autos.msn.com/advice/CRArt.aspx?contentid=4023544

Basically, the problem for Mercedes (and BMW) is even worse than you might think.  They are falling to the BOTTOM in reliability rating, according to the CONSUMER REPORTS.org article.  I am including the text below, unaltered except for a couple of bolds.  I apologize for the format, but I simply copied-pasted this from the MSN browser.  Read the article and comment.  f you really want a Mercedes, maybe buying an old Benz (like, oh, I don't know, a 116 model ;)) isn't such a bad idea.
Here is the article:

Japanese imports earned most of the top reliability honors, while European models scored well below average in this Consumer Reports study. ??? :'(

Our 2005 reliability survey, the largest of its kind, reached a milestone this yearâ€"we've gathered responses on more than 1 million vehicles from Consumer Reports and ConsumerReports.org subscribers, the most we've ever received. These results underpin the most comprehensive reliability data you will find anywhere. Here, we give you a first look at our new Predicted Reliability Ratings for new cars, based on this survey, and the models that we expect to be the most and least reliable.
The difference between the best and the worst models is striking. For example, among large SUVs the least reliable model, the Infiniti QX56, is likely to have about eight times as many problems as the most reliable model, the Toyota Land Cruiser.

See Best and worst for a list of the models that have earned the best and worst Predicted Reliability Ratings in various vehicle categories. Following are some of the more notable survey findings:


Of the 31 cars that earned top rating, 29 were Japanese. Of these, 15 were from Toyota and its Lexus division and eight were from Honda. Some redesigned or new Japanese models from Toyota and Honda, however suffered "first-year blues." The new Scion tC and the redesigned 2005 Acura RL, Toyota Avalon, and Honda Odyssey earned only average reliability scores, for example.

Of the 48 cars that earned the lowest rating, 22 carry American nameplates, 20 are European, 4 are from Japan (all from Nissan and its Infiniti division), and 2 are from South Korea.

Some European models, which have had poor reliability in our previous surveys, improved slightly. The six-cylinder BMW X5 and X3, for example, earned average Ratings and are now the first European SUVs reliable enough to be recommended. However, most European models still scored far below average.

Hybrids from both domestic and Japanese manufacturers continue to have above-average reliability, including the Honda Accord and Civic Hybrids, the Toyota Prius, and the Lexus RX400h, which received top scores.

CRUNCHING THE NUMBERS

To help car buyers find trustworthy vehicles, every year Consumer Reports conducts an extensive reliability survey of its approximately 6 million magazine and online subscribers, asking them about any serious problems they have had with their vehicles in the preceding 12 months.

This wealth of feedback helps us build comprehensive reliability history charts for vehicles covering eight model years from 1998 to 2005. They show how well older models are holding up and what types of problems they have had. For new car buyers we use the reliability history data to determine our Predicted Reliability Ratings.


SEDANS AND SMALL CARS

Toyota, along with its Lexus division, makes more than half of the sedans and small cars that earned our highest Reliability Rating. All the others that earned this Rating were also Japanese, including the Honda Accord and previous-generation Civic; the 2006 Infiniti M35/M45; and nonturbo models of the Subaru Impreza.

Most of the worst sedans in our rankings came from Europe, including several expensive luxury models such as the Audi A8, BMW 7 Series, Jaguar S-Type, and the Mercedes-Benz E- and S-Class. The rest of the bottom-rated small cars and sedans were from domestic manufacturers and included the Chevrolet Cobalt, the V8-powered Chrysler 300C, and the Lincoln LS. :'(


HYBRIDS

Hybrids continue to be very reliable, with both SUV and sedan models from Honda, Toyota, and Lexus earning the highest Rating. The Ford Escape SUV had above-average reliability. Even the oldest hybrids for which we have data, the 2000 Honda Insight and the 2001 Toyota Prius, continue to be very reliable.


SUVs

SUVs from Asian manufacturers were the most reliable overall. However, neither the large Nissan Armada nor its Infiniti QX56 cousin are past their teething problems yet. Two South Korean SUVs, the Hyundai Tucson and the Kia Sportage, also rate among the worst.

European brands anchored the least reliable list. Unreliable models included the V8 BMW X5, Land Rover Range Rover, Land Rover LR3, Porsche Cayenne, Volkswagen Touareg, and Volvo XC90. Notable exceptions were the BMW X3 and six-cylinder X5, which improved to average. :'(

American SUVs continue to produce mixed results. While the Mercury Mariner was the best of the group, the Ford Explorer, Mercury Mountaineer, and Jeep Grand Cherokee were among the least reliable.

With the exception of the Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban; the GMC Yukon and Yukon XL; and the Cadillac Escalade, the other American large SUVs have subpar reliability. The Japanese makers are split, with Toyota in the top spot and Nissan trailing at the bottom with one of the worst scores in our recent surveys.


MINIVANS

The Chrysler Town & Country and Dodge Grand Caravan dropped to below average in reliability, losing their recommendation. The Toyota Sienna is the only minivan that rates better than average. GM's minivansâ€"the Buick Terraza, Chevrolet Uplander, Pontiac Montana SV6, and Saturn Relayâ€"joined the Nissan Quest at the bottom of the list.


PICKUPS

The Toyota Tundra and the new Honda Ridgeline earned the top Ratings. The redesigned 2005 Toyota Tacoma V6 rated just average, but the four-cylinder Tacoma was above average. The Nissan Titan dropped from average and is now in the worst list. The Ford F-150 continued to score below average.


BEST & WORST

These 2006 models earned the highest and lowest Predicted Reliability Ratings, based on CR's 2005 reliability survey. Models marked with "(2005)" have been redesigned for 2006. Vehicles marked with an asterisk "*" indicate data is based on one model year only.


Most reliable  Least reliable 
Vehicles listed in scoring order, starting with the best score.  Vehicles listed in scoring order, starting with the worst score. 
SMALL CARS: Toyota Echo, Honda Civic (2005), Toyota Prius, Honda Civic Hybrid (2005), Toyota Corolla, Subaru Impreza (non-turbo)  SMALL CARS: Chevrolet Cobalt* 
SPORTY CARS/
CONVERTIBLES/COUPES: Honda S2000, Mazda MX-5 Miata (2005), Lexus SC430, Chevrolet Monte Carlo (2005)  SPORTY CARS/
CONVERTIBLES/COUPES: Volkswagen New Beetle Convertible, Mercedes-Benz SL, Mercedes-Benz CLK, Ford Mustang (V6)*, Chevrolet Corvette*, Audi S4 
SEDANS: Lexus GS300/GS430*, Infiniti M35/45*, Lexus IS300 (2005), Honda Accord Hybrid*, Toyota Camry, Honda Accord 4-cyl., Lexus LS430  SEDANS: Jaguar S-Type, Lincoln LS, Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Saab 9-3, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, BMW 5-Series (V8), Audi A8, Chrysler 300 (V8)*, BMW 7 series 
WAGONS: Toyota Matrix  WAGONS: Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Volkswagen Passat (V6) (2005), Volvo V50* 
MINIVANS: No models for this category.  MINIVANS: Nissan Quest, Buick Terraza*, Chevrolet Uplander*, Pontiac Montana SV6*, Saturn Relay* 
SMALL SUVS: Toyota RAV4 (2005), Honda CR-V, Honda Element, Subaru Forester, Mercury Mariner*, Mitsubishi Outlander  SMALL SUVS: Saturn Vue (AWD), Hyundai Tucson*, Kia Sportage* 
MIDSIZE SUVS: Lexus RX400h (Hybrid)*, Toyota Highlander, Toyota 4Runner (V8), Infiniti FX35  MIDSIZED SUVS: Volkswagen Touareg, Porsche Cayenne, Land Rover LR3*, Land Rover Range Rover*, Ford Explorer (2005), Mercury Mountaineer (2005), Jeep Grand Cherokee*, Ford Freestyle (AWD)*, Cadillac SRX, Volvo XC90, Chevrolet TrailBlazer (V8), GMC Envoy (V8), BMW X5 (V8) 
LARGE SUVS: Toyota Land Cruiser  LARGE SUVS: Infiniti QX56, Nissan Armada, Hummer H2, Lincoln Navigator, Ford Expedition 
PICKUP TRUCKS: Honda Ridgeline*, Toyota Tundra  PICKUP TRUCKS: Nissan Titan, Chevrolet Colorado (4WD), GMC Canyon (4WD

So, yeah, John.  I'm sorry, but it really sounds like Mercedes has dropped not only behind the Japanese, but also the Koreans and even  :o the Americans.  I personally believe that there is a cultural and societal phenomena afflicting Western civ that is undermining our productivity and our quality.  It is also afflicting the Japanese as well, but since the virus comes from the West, it is impacting them much less (at the moment) as it is the West.  In Japan, men work like dogs from dusk till dawn, take few vacations, and produce for their employer - or they're not considered men.  In the West, workers work half as much and bitch about it ten times more.  Something is clearly going on.  What's causing it?
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: John Hubertz on 16 March 2006, 10:01 PM
..
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Mforcer on 17 March 2006, 01:13 AM
The thing I perceive has happened in the automotive industry is that the traditional 'luxury' brands have not focused on quality and reliability but have worked on broadening their markets.

I don't have the numbers in front of me but would expect that the W116 cost far more than a current model S-Class in relative terms. The relative cost savings have had to come from somewhere and at least part of the cost savings have come from quality.

People generally do not care about quality once it has met their 'good enough' standards. In a world where mass production for global markets is essential for large companies, these companies can only design and build products that meets the 'good enough' standards of most people in their respective markets. This is especially the case in a 'disposable' society.

There is also the issue of improvements in manufacturing available to all in the automotive industry. If a machine capable of high quality production is now affordable by all, then there is a good chance that all will be producing the same or similar high quality. There was once a time when hand built cars were seen to be of the highest standards but machines developed to produce even higher standards at a lower cost.

So, where does this leave MB and other luxury brands? They still differentiate with technological developments but it leaves little room for perceived quality. For anyone that thinks a little Toyota or Honda is of a higher quality than a little MB A-Class, I ask them to check out the safety credentials of each and would be surprised if the A-Class doesn't win in real world accidents. I know what I would rather be driving in an accident.

I am not making excuses for MB and the other traditional luxury car brands. I like the new models but can not see them lasting as well as our W116. Long live the W116!
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Peter Anderson on 17 March 2006, 03:22 AM
Is another explanation peoples high expectations?

For example I filled in one of those JD Power type quality surveys for a 2003 Mini Cooper S, and i slated it. The car rattled, had a rubbish engine, used really shoddy materials, and the dealer service was terrible. However it never it never missed a beat or let me down. My poor rating of the car was because i expected more both because of the price I paid (huge for such a small car) and the reputation of the manufacturer BMW.

My W116 squeaks, rattles, and has the same low quality plastics in places - but i love it. I choose where I get it maintained - if they're not nice they don't get the business. What I couldn't stand in an 'expensive' new car with a good name badge, i don't even notice in a loved classic, that I'm prepared to forgive just about anything because of it's age.

So are all those people buying Toyotas just expecting less? They're not exciting cars, the interior plastics are all hard and shiny, and they are in no way inspiring (apologies to anyone with a Toyota - just my opinion!). But people expect them to be like that so they get a rank to show that they've met expectations.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: John Hubertz on 17 March 2006, 08:38 AM
I think it goes deeper - I think "we" (car buying public in advanced countries) are simply jaded beyond belief.

The car companies are simply pandering to the bewildering so-called "tastes" of consumers - and you know what, I bet it was hard to keep the tile and gold leaf on Roman Villas around the time of Caligula....

It is easy to build wonderful automobiles - evidence Subaru and Toyota and even the Indian or Korean brands....

Rolling mansions celebrating grotesque consumption on the other hand are a smidge more difficult to build with dignity.

Gentlemen, the Emperor simply has a new suit - and unfortunately, it fits.  Let's call this automotive era what it truly is - wretched excess.

Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 17 March 2006, 09:44 AM
Quote from: 450SE on 17 March 2006, 01:13 AM
The thing I perceive has happened in the automotive industry is that the traditional 'luxury' brands have not focused on quality and reliability but have worked on broadening their markets.

Quote from: Peter Anderson on 17 March 2006, 03:22 AM
Is another explanation peoples high expectations?

Quote from: John Hubertz on 17 March 2006, 08:38 AM
I think it goes deeper - I think "we" (car buying public in advanced countries) are simply jaded beyond belief....The car companies are simply pandering to the bewildering so-called "tastes" of consumers

The common thread of these quotes is that the automotive industry is driven by marketing today - not by the cars themselves.  John had a post about collecting old car ads; it would be interesting to compare those ads with today's car ads, wouldn't it?

Carmakers have transformed our perception through marketing. I can't even remember the last time I saw a new car ad that had ANYTHING to do with the actual car. It's no longer about the engineering at all, but about the marketing (which at best presents us with the appearance of engineering). As one example, I remember seeing a truck ad in which something unimaginably huge and heavy (an asteroid in one, a huge load of rocks in another, etc) slams into it, and the truck isn't even scratched. But in reality that's just a laugh; most trucks have the flimsiest of bumpers (if any at all), and are among the most expensive of all vehicles for body work.  These babies dent all too easy, and then they cost a fortune to fix!  Marketers don't even bother to present reality anymore, do they?  Advertising is absolutely useless today; most of it is geared simply to make you think you'll look cool if you have that car. It's like all auto advertising is geared toward the impulse buyer (you know, like the candy bars at the sales register).

We're talking about quality vs. the perception of quality (the illusion of quality?).  For me - unless we're talking about a missile that's designed to blow up at the end of its maiden voyage - quality in a vehicle means performance, reliability, durability, ease of maintenance, build construction, and excellence of materials. It means ALL of these things, not one or two on the list to the disregard of the remainder.  But does it mean that in today's ads?  Today's perception seems only to mean horsepower and sex appeal.
And it's all about "right now."  We have become a culture of instant gratification.  It really seems as though cars are designed the way VCRs are designed; use them for awhile and then throw them away.  This is an enormous departure from the mindset of previous times.  Cars are lasting more miles today partially because maintenance has been taken out of owner's hands and because we're driving more miles in less time than ever before; but they're not lasting as LONG because they're simply not made to last.  Metal lasts longer than microchips.

There is no question that today's cars COULD be better made than anything that ever came before.  We've had advances in technology that guarantee that.  But I don't think they are.  I think (along with 450SE) that today's cars are stamped out as cheaply as each market segment will allow them to be.  One of the articles I read said that Mercedes used to build cars, and then set the price.  Now it is clearly the other way around.

Now, we're seeing a real drop-off in both the actual reliability AND the perception of reliability in European and American cars.  I don't believe this phenomenon can be attributed to the fact that the Japanese are competing for a strictly different market segment, with American and European car buyers being heedless of reliability and Japanese car buyers caring about it.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  That the West is slipping, and is trying to compensate by marketing campaigns makes more sense.  We'd build better cars if we could; we just can't.  U.S. cars cost $1400 more than Japanese cars solely because of the cost of employee health care - and we're bound to be bleeding red ink in other areas as well.  And Europe has even bigger problems in these departments.  These things HAVE to impact our ability to produce top notch stuff.  It forces us to think in terms of bare survival and the bottom line - and that kind of thinking (mindset) is probably not conducive to creating great cars. 

I'm telling you; our 116s emerged from a completely different philosophy than what we are seeing ANYWHERE today.   

Well, gotta climb off the soapbox and get along with my morning routine.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: OzBenzHead on 17 March 2006, 05:48 PM
Quote from: styria on 17 March 2006, 05:08 PM... can anyone tell me the meaning of "antonyms"-I cannot find it in my dictionary.

Styria: Good to see you back on (the) board! Figured you had your head buried under a bonnet somewhere.   ;D

An antonym is a word of opposite meaning: e.g. "bad" is an antonym to "good".
"Antonym" is the antonym to "synonym" - a term for words meaning the same: e.g. "exhausted" is a synonym for (synonymous with) "fatigued" or "tired" or "spent".

There are many "~nym" words:

Pseudonym = a false name or pet name: e.g. "styria" is a pseudonym for [your real name which I shan't disclose here in public].

Ananym = a name formed by reversing letters of another name: e.g. Talk show host Oprah's production company is named Harpo.

Phananym = a "nearly" ananym: e.g. fleshpot = top-shelf.

Charactonym = a name of a fictional character that suggests the personality traits of that character: e.g. Mrs Malaprop in Richard Sheridan's play, "The Rivals" was known for misusing words with humorous results; such misuse is a "malapropism".

Aptronym = a name that's especially suited to one's profession: e.g. Dr Pain, the dentist.

Allonym = name of a person, usually historical, taken by an author as a pen name (as opposed to using a fictional pseudonym).

And so on and so forth ...

Sorry to blather on with stuff of probably little interest to most posters, but, after all, words are my business.   :)
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 18 March 2006, 05:28 AM
Hiya, Ozbenzhead, thanks for your definitions.  You know more abot those "word-play" words than I do - and I'm a nerd!  Did you get the PM I sent to you last week by the way?

The post I left this morning may have partially been influenced by too much coffee and too little time to reflect before hitting the "post" button.  I apologize if I came across as overly intense.  I'll be more  8) now.
 
I find the whole "new car thing" interesting even for us old Benz folk for the following reasons: 1) New Mercedes quality/reliability is clearly under question, and we're Benz-lovers; 2) Some of us have to choose between buying a newer car or keeping our old one; 3) there's a question as to how our old cars relate to the newer models; 4) If Mercedes' new models are maligned, what impact does that have on the value of our w116s?  5) I for one find it interesting to talk about new cars vs. old cars knowing full well they come from different eras and different philosophies.

I just got rid of my '94 Buick Skylark because it had become a piece of junk.  It looked nice (given that they were actually ugly even when brand new), but there were too many non-maintenance-related issues (a loose steering wheel and a bad torque converter solenoid were the biggest culprits) whose repair was beyond the value of the car.  It had 130,000 miles.  Now, 1994 aint brand new, but it's still pretty close to the modern era.  And there are an awful lot of modern cars that aren't lasting a whole lot more than 130,000 miles.  ARE modern cars really lasting longer than older ones?

This is kind of interesting for discussion: If you bought an old Benz (as we all have), what made you decide the car was reliable and roadworthy?  I mean, my car is 28 years old; doesn't it like belong in a museum or something?  For me, the biggest reason I trusted a 1977 Mercedes with 124,000 miles is because I've HAD SEVERAL 70's American cars that made that distance and a lot more easily - and I believed that Mercedes quality was even better.  Are new cars really that much better?  Not judging by my Skylark, they aint!  And at least when I look at my 450 SEL motor, I have some idea of what in the world I'm looking at; new cars have increasingly taken even basic maintenance out of owners' hands.

I'm with Styria.  I don't need most of the high-tech garbage they're putting on new cars.  And it seems like that's the biggest difference between older cars and newer ones.  New cars definitely get better mileage and better smog performace.  But in most respects I think that new cars are kind of disappoining performance-wise compared to what they could have been after 30 years of engineering.  I actually think the fact that Mercedes is so "top end" - and so has the most high-end and high-tech luxury systems - is one of the reasons they're having reliability issues.  Maybe microchips and cars don't mix as well as a lot of people think.

Our cars performance (other than fuel efficiency  :'() haven't given up a whole lot in comparison with most of today's cars.  My 450 might not be the fastest thing out of the stoplight, but it wasn't desgined to be.  Rather, it was designed to pull hard from its mid and upper end, cruise at 120 mph, and go up to 134-137 mph with a hundred rpm from redline to spare.  Aint too many modern cars doing much better than that!  My M117 is a darned sight stronger than either my 90 Cadillac with a 5.7L, my 92 Lincoln Town Car with a 4.6L, or the Skylark with its 3.1 v6.  And I feel pretty good about my 4-wheel disc brakes and my zero-offset front and anti-squat rear suspension [my brother, who drives a '05 high-end Infinity, made the comment that my Benz has a real nice ride quality].  Frankly, I almost feel like I'd be getting LESS performance for just about any new car that I could afford.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: John Hubertz on 18 March 2006, 08:00 AM
It seems that as always, there are variables car to car.

I sold my 1998 Buick Century with 53,000 mile... because frankly, it had bad luck!  It wasn't UNreliable, but twice the left front strut stabbed through the hood....  odd.  Twice it failed to start for no reason.... for about 5 minutes.  The positive battery terminal just came off... from inside the battery....

It never left me stranded, but it left me worried.

My "new" Lincoln, a 1994 Mark VIII with 100,000 miles, "feels" solid as a bank vault and drives newer then the buick ever did.

(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f248/fullhappyfish/DSC00830.jpg)

Ummmmmm  Cars are people too?

I almost can sense it.... some cars, including some Mercedes of every vintage (126s seem to vary this way a lot, car to car) just don't want to be cars....they want to be paperweights that look like cars!  They slouch down over their tires like a straggled out waitress at a bad restaurant...  grudgingly going about their duties till your back is turned.

Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Denis on 19 March 2006, 04:14 AM
Hi guys

To the question : Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?

I answer the following : I drive a 33 year-old W116 because it has far FEWER problems than any "new car" (2001-2006). I listen to what people say at work and hear horror stories all the time - these poor fellows spend the equivalent of my annual maintenance in one wasted Saturday morning at the stealership and the car still has a problem on sunday.

Driving my oldie is not only MUCH cheaper but is FAR more relaxing day in, day out.

To me, the quality of something is defined by : it does what it was designed for and does it consistently for a period of time related to its initial cost.

My boss bought a Citroen C6 (new french luxo model) a few months ago and has become a regular fixture in the service department...if a car is expensive, why is it outfitted with devices appropriate to the cheapest model ? I have seen this with my own eyes...

Something about common sense is wrong here...

Denis


Paris, France



Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 19 March 2006, 09:09 AM
Hi there John, Styria, and Denis,

Styria mentioned depreciation as a big reason why he avoids new cars.  Boy is that good fiduciary sense: I read an article that said new cars depreciate half their value in three years on average, and luxury cars lost value quickest of all (I guess if you can afford to buy the darn thing, you can afford to buy it new and enjoy that 'new car' smell).  I've always figured I'd much rather let someone else write off the lion's share of depreciation, and then swoop in.  And of course, there comes a point (like Styria's 6.9 and very likely several of our cars as well) where a classic car can actually begin to appreciate in value.

John mentioned his Lincoln, and there's a point there as well: American cars HAVE gotten a bad rap relative to other cars, particularly when you are buying used.  Have you priced a used Honda Civic lately?  I myself would much prefer to buy a bigger, nicer American car than a Japanese one - and pay less to boot.  There are good cars and bad lemons in every manufacturer and every brand.  And (just maybe) when you buy an older car with a proven service record, you get a chance to shake the bad ones out of the tree.

And that dovetails with what Denis said: that new cars often aint no bed of roses.  I used to work with quite a few Asian men and women who ALWAYS bought and leased only Japanese cars.  But I'll tell you what, Japanese craftsmanship has more to do with marketing than machining based on the results in that office - I was always hearing some "woe is me for my car needs repairs" stories from them.  Like John, I was driving my Lincoln to work and it ran as steady as waves on the seashore - despite being a '92 that I'd bought with over a 100,000 miles.

When I bought my 77 450 SEL I was planning on re-selling it for a profit.  But I quickly discovered that I couldn't let it go.  I got rid of my other car instead.  My Benz is a daily driver.  It's not a 2nd or 3rd car I bought just to tinker on and drive on weekends.  Now, one interesting question to ask is how many of you'all drive your Benzes every day, and how many basically keep it as a hobby project or for weekend use?  For me, mine is a daily driver; so I want my car to be like Denis' and take good care of me.

THAT was part of what I had in mind when I wrote my first piece on this post.  Are these old Benz cars reliable or not?  Are new cars reliable or not?  As I've been reading, I'm coming to the conclusion that old cars are more reliable than they're given credit for, and new cars aren't nearly as reliable as they're given credit for.  I don't know precisely WHEN it happened, but I think there was a point in the past when the old saying, "they sure don't make 'em like they used to" started to apply to cars.  From what I've been reading, it definitely applies to Mercedes-Benz cars.

I've written several posts dealing with issues such as 'reliability' and the meaning of 'quality' in w116s because I'm the kind of guy who (at least before driving a 116) has tended to view driving as a commodity; to wit, whether you drive a $250,000 car or a $250 car, the main purpose of the car is to GET you there.  I was trying to get a handle on how reliable these old Benz cars were, so I could decide whether to pass my 450 on to someone else or not.  Denis define quality by saying,
Quote from: Denis on 19 March 2006, 04:14 AMTo me, the quality of something is defined by : it does what it was designed for and does it consistently for a period of time related to its initial cost.
That's a pretty good definition, I think.  My questions were, "What were these 116 cars designed for, and how long a period could I reasonably expect them to consistently do whatever that design-purpose was?   I was looking to be convinced that Mercedes matched MY idea of quality and reliability, rather than some rich man's who could afford to shell out for exhorbitant repairs in order to maintain some kind of aristocratic image that I cared absolutely nothing about.  I found what I needed to find in that department - but that will have to be the substance of some future post.   

One other thing, before I leave: I've been reading up on car repair and maintenance because I plan on doing as much work as I can on my Benz to save $$$.  I wouldn't even THINK of doing that with a newer car because they are simply beyond my technical ability.  And of course, nowadays you need oscillascopes and a lot of advanced, expensive, and highly specific tools to touch a lot of repair work on new cars.  One of the things that we have going for us is the SIMPLICITY of design on our old girls (which at one time of course were technological marvels).  Sometimes I worry that ten or twenty thousand miles down the road I'll need to replace my timing chain, and won't that day be a big pain in my hiney!  But heck, I don't even know where the stupid timing chain is on these new motors because the darned things are facing sideways and whatnot.  I don't even know if they HAVE a dang timing chain anymore.  I think that's what Denis is talking about above: if you can do the work yourself, you save a good 2/3rds of your cost or more - and quite often more.  Maintenance and repair work don't seem as bad when it doesn't cripple you financially, even if you have to do a little more of it.

Mike
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: OzBenzHead on 19 March 2006, 07:07 PM
michaeld
Quote... how many of you'all drive your Benzes every day, and how many basically keep it as a hobby project or for weekend use?

My 116 has been my daily driver for two years. I spent a couple of months repairing and tinkering with him when first acquired - mostly tidying up from previous suboptimal care - things such as grubby interior trim, minor rust, etc. At purchase, he had 150,000 miles up and, apart from needing some steering / front-end work, was mechanically very good. Drives like a dream and, apart from a strange problem with the distributor, has given me no grief. Distributor is now fixed ($110 for a new one).

Before the 116 my 1970 W108 280SE was my daily driver for 23 years (I acquired him when he was 11 years old). At 30 years of age - and 485,000 miles - he blew a head gasket; when replacing that, he got an engine rebuild - rings, bearings, valves, etc., a mild cylinder machining, and a new head (the old one was cracked like wedding-gown lace, but had shown no signs of malfunctioning until physically disturbed!). Cost: about $4K. (This approach to doing as much as practicable in one department at one time is along the lines of Styria's recommendation, and is a practice I've usually followed.) At about 500,000 miles, the fuel pump died; replaced it for about $100 with a secondhand one that's still working. He has now clocked up 516,000 miles and still goes well and without trouble.

By contrast, I bought - brand new - a 1970 HT Holden (GM to non-Aussies) GTS Monaro when I was 21. It was at the upper end of the Holden model range at the time. At the mandatory 1,000 mile service, I took it to the dealership with a list of 48 items for attention, including impossibly poor wheel alignment (very hard to steer), a baulky auto transmission (change points were all over the place like a mad dog's breakfast), poor ignition performance (erratic misfiring), a leaking cooling system that allowed the engine to overheat within 40 miles from refilling radiator, a driver's seat mount that wouldn't stay tight and a backrest that wouldn't stay at the set rake angle for more than a day), a driver's door that had already dropped badly enough on its pathetic hinges that it was hard to close (had to lift it by handle before shutting!) ... and many more relatively minor, but annoying, faults.

When I collected it the next day, only three of my gripes had been attended to (and the steering/wheel alignment was not amongst those!).

Three services and 8,000 miles later, I left it parked across the dealership's main entrance, with "lemon" written in toothpaste all over the metallic paintwork - after I'd had it towed there with a seized transmission.

It was without doubt the greatest heap of fertiliser I've ever owned, and that's saying something, as I've owned 56 cars and some of those were $100 "cheapies".

Whilst I'm prepared to accept that my Monaro was the proverbial lemon of the batch, I'm still not convinced that it would ever have been a good car; the engineering was primitive to say the least, and the build quality was ordinary in the extreme.

Despite the fact that Oz is a "Holden" nation and that Benzes were relatively very rare here in that era (1970), it's interesting to note how many W108s are still driving on Aussie roads and how few HT Holdens are keeping them company.

The Monaro cost me $3,700 to buy, new. A year later (6 months after I'd ditched mine) the same car, secondhand, was selling for $2,500 and less. Serious depreciation. My 36-year-old W108 is now probably worth more than all I've spent on it since - and including - buying it.

My W116 shows every sign, to date, of giving similarly good value and reliability. I paid so little for it that it can only appreciate henceforth, so if he costs me a dollar here and there, so what! I'm still ahead.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 19 March 2006, 10:57 PM
Styria, Ozbenzhead,

I think I actually "confessed" that I had initially purchased the car with the intent of re-selling it once before.  But yes, that's part of why I was fixated on quality and reliability.  Even after I decided I didn't want to part with this car, I was still fascinated by the issue of the "return" on a Mercedes-Benz (by which I mean, what do these cars give you back for all that investment?).  I'm still fascinated by that question: why would I - or anyone - pay 4 or 5 times as much on a Mercedes as something else?  What do expensive cars give their owners aside from snob appeal?

I bought my 77 450 SEL for $801.51 on ebay, sight unseen.  The mileage was 124,000.  I figured, 'what the heck' and put my bid down; and then was surprised and experienced some "post-purchase cognitive dissonance" when I found I won. 
Immediately when I saw the car, though, I felt that stirring that you guys understand.  I knew very little about Mercedes, and nothing about 450 SELs, but what I saw was a beautiful automobile.  When I opened the trunk, I saw the manuals and the service records.  That was when I first became aware that this had been a one-owner car that had been well-maintained.  The medical doctor who owned the car kept meticulous records: I have documentation for every oil change!  He overhauled the front end at 119,000 miles and replaced the ACC servo and water pump at 123,000.  The engine and trans were strong.
I realized that I had "hit the jackpot" in terms of being able to buy low and sell high.  My eyes had dollar signs.  But as I drove the car home, the dollar signs somehow began to transform into 3 pointed stars.  Maybe it's because I hadn't had a lot of "awesome" cars in my life, but driving my 450 SEL for the first time was akin to only be able to see in black and white, and then suddenly being able to see in full living color.  She was a keeper!

You are right of course, Styria.  When it comes to something like a timing chain replacement, the best time at some point the best time to do the job is when you have time to do the job.  I put a stethoscope on the front of the valve cover, and heard no tell-tale "clanking" - but you've always got know that that moment will eventually arrive.  What I will likely do is periodically check for the sounds of chain wear, and begin the preparations you describe when I start to hear it.  Long live the M117 double-row timing chain!!!  And yes, when you open up an engine, you really might as well do some of those other little maintenance items.

It's good to hear there are other confident daily drivers of 116s out there.  I'm thinking of posting a series of quotes from my readings about major systems (engine, fuel injection, transmission, suspension) that have made me a "believer" in my car.

One last thing: Ozbenz said his 280SE was a boy ("I acquired him when he was 11 years old"); my 450SEL is definitely a girl.  How is it that we determine our cars' genders when there are no genitalia? 

Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: OzBenzHead on 19 March 2006, 11:18 PM
Quote from: michaeld on 19 March 2006, 10:57 PM... Ozbenz said his 280SE was a boy ("I acquired him when he was 11 years old"); my 450SEL is definitely a girl.  How is it that we determine our cars' genders when there are no genitalia? 

Really? I though all cars (well, at least large and/or powerful and/or noisy ones) were - like guns - penis substitutes!   ::) ::)

I have had some "girl" cars, too, but my Benzes (despite being part-named after the girl called Mercédès) are all boys. They just seem to me to be "masculine" (whatever the hell that means!) cars.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: BAR on 20 March 2006, 04:50 AM
To answer your question: as I don't believe any post has done so to this point.

New means things that were made a short time ago. It is the [antonym] opposite of old.

Quality refers to the distinctive characteristics or properties of a person, object, process or other thing. Such characteristics may enhance a subject's distinctiveness, or may denote some degree of achievement or excellence. When used in relation to people, the term may also signify a personal character or trait. When used in relation to management, the term may be easily defined as "reduction of variability" or "compliance with specifications".

Quality can be used as a tool of measurement, like metric or Fahrenheit, as it is used to judge both subjects that are esteemed as credible and agreeable as "high quality" and subjects that are viewed as confusing, offensive, unhelpful, or incredible as "low quality." But quality is also used as a positive word, as in the sense of "this is a quality chair." Its antonym can be perceived as poorness, incredibility, unhelpfulness, and a variety of other words that reflect the concept of having low quality.

Quality in itself has no specific meaning or definition as to a standard.

Is one an opposite for the other, NEW  opposite to  QUALITY?

The answer is no!

Are old cars better made than newer cars, arguably no.

Are new cars more reliable than older cars, sadly no, because they have a thousand more add-ons and gadgets, not found in older cars.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 20 March 2006, 09:40 AM
Whoa, whoa, whoa, there, Mr. Spock! :-*  I never intended my post title to be a precisely formulated statement conforming to all known principles of logic; rather I was merely trying to humorously communicate the gist of my post topic!  [It is a sad fact of my life that my attempts at humor are all-too-often misunderstood :'(].  I'm asking a question that most people understand: have new cars experienced a drop-off in quality in comparison to older cars?

Actually, both I and others on this forum clearly understand that there is a subjective element to the term 'quality' as it is applied to cars.  See another post I started - http://forum.w116.org/index.php/topic,345.msg2264.html#msg2264 - as just one example of this.  At the same time, we are talking about cars here; and cars are concrete, commensurable things.  As such, they can surely be compared and contrasted with other cars from other periods of time.  And there are only so many 'qualities' that most people apply to cars when they consider 'quality': the value and amount of materials, the degree of craftsmanship in assembly, performance, reliability, durability, safety, beauty, comfort, ride, 'driving experience', the list is actually pretty finite.  What actually makes any argument over why one car has greater 'quality' than another subjective is the fact that it depends on one's ranking or prioritizing of that list of 'qualities.'  To wit, if you value durability foremost above all else, you will likely view diesels as having the most quality; if you value performance foremost, diesels may then have the least quality.

Having said this, I respectfully disagree with you: quality DOES have a specific meaning or definition as to a standard when the underlying presuppositions are defined (or listed) and ordered (or ranked).  Let me put it this way: if you are correct, then the statement, "The '74 Mercedes-Benz 450SE is a quality car" would be just as valid as the statement, "The 74 Ford Pinto is a quality car."  But that can't be right; the Pinto was a poorly constructed death trap that exploded on impact! :o  If nothing else, you have to agree with the words of that Supreme Court Justice who said (of obscenity), "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it."  The question at hand is, how do you prioritize your list of automotive qualities, and why do you think a certain car, car maker, or era of cars best conforms to that hierarchy of qualities that you've enumerated.  It may not be as scientifically precise of a discussion as the laws of mathematics, but it is a meaningful discussion nonetheless.

So, for example, your statement, "Are old cars better made than newer cars, arguably no" is perfectly acceptable in the context of our discussion as I intended it IF you proceed to offer your reasoning why such a statement is true.  What do you mean by "better made" and just what are your arguments for saying 'arguably no'?  Now, the sentence you ended your discussion with is very interesting: that reliability has been adversely affected by unnecessary add-on gadgetry.  My question then is, are old cars without the add-on gadgetry more reliable than new cars with it?  And just how important should 'reliability' be in a discussion of 'quality'?

I wonder if the car makers are asking themselves such questions.  If they're not, would they build better cars if they did?

In any event, I really didn't intend to try to play host to a symposium on logic or philosophy of language here: I just wanted to kick the can around talking about cars.
Mike

I'm sorry, I had to go back in and modify this because I missed Ozbenzhead's post: You mean Mercedes are boy-cars?  Is that why I got such a good deal on my Benz, because it's one of those "trans-gendered" cars? ???  I should have KNOWN better than to buy a car near Hollywood, CA!!! :'(
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: BAR on 20 March 2006, 06:09 PM
Hi there

I was attempting to respond at a higher level and not become specific.  In so far as, humour or not, newer models are not as well made as previously.

Fact is current 'S' class cars are not the ultimate feats of engineering as they once were or a no compromise solution. A mistake recognised by MB after Audi started taking sales away from them.

The current S class leaves that mantle to the Maybach [of which sales volumes only just exceed the number of lunar landings by the space shuttle].

Quality in basic construction and build: well that imrpoves with manufacturing processes, metalurgy and science in general.  Features and safety come with social and political influences together with the huge increase in cars on the road since the W116 first rolled out of the factory.  So one must accept that sat-nav, airbags, crumple zones, distronic and other features [maybe night vision] will be included as and when technology is developed.

So maybe one can say that S class are an improvement over the W116: but will the modern S class still be enjoyed 30 years after their birthday as we enjoy our 116s - I dare say no.  none of us can afford the thousands of currency units that it will cost to replace an ignition control module, or any of the other dozen or so comuter units built into the newer cars.  All these computers designed to improve efficiency, comfort, safety and security will and do, contribute to the 'lead parachute' fall in resale value of the modern car.

Durability of the vehicle as a whole, well there is no argument.  The 30 yr old 116 will survive longer than a new S class or any other Mercedes.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Denis on 21 March 2006, 07:22 AM
Hi there  ;D

You know BAR, you should come run for office in France, while true, your statements are like those of a french politician !

QuoteQuality in basic construction and build: well that improves with manufacturing processes, metalurgy and science in general.

True, true but ....are those improvements actually USED in new cars ? and if so, where and what for ? more knowledge is not enough, one must have a desire to use improvements and right now, improvements are opposed to the ROI god  8)

Manufacturing processes that reduces costs are IN, the rest is OUT. Manufacturing processes that increase PERCEIVED quality is IN, the rest is OUT....

So I propose a WYSIWYG test :

On a well lit table, lay down a 1973 Mercedes W-116 relay next to a 2006 JUNKMOBILE relay. Now imagine that you must use ONE of these relays to power the fuel pump  in a single-engined airplane in which you are seated that is flying over the ocean.  Which relay would you choose ? really ?

While a car is not just a sum of parts, I have seen a LOT of current production car parts whose quality is far inferior to what you find in a W116.

So while the "perceived" quality of a new car definitely surpasses that of a W116 (the fit on modern cars is incredibly good, merci robots), many components are designed for a planned life cycle if not downright substandard. Part X is designed for a statistical MTBF of 2000 days, part Y for 1115 days, and part Z for about 550 days  >:( and so on...modern cars have a very planned life cycle. MTBF : mean time between failures.

Did you know that airbag systems should be completely replaced after 10 years of existence ? that is related to the reliability of their firing mechanisms (pyrotechnics). Replacing these systems with OEM parts is easily equal to the value of most cars when they are 10 years old.

Knowing this, how long do you think that these cars are designed for ?  ::)

Contrary to what most people believe, consumer goods today are often significantly more expensive than in the past. What lasted 12 years now last two but the price is the same in currency (people like to fool themselves into good deals) and not marvelously lower in constant dollars (economist talk taking into account that a dollar of today is worth less than a dollar of ten years ago).

I have a real problem talking about QUALITY with planned obsolescence and only "perceived" quality as a criteria.

My 0.02cts of an Euros's worth

Denis

Paris, France
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 21 March 2006, 09:31 AM
Denis, you are the hammer that nailed the point right on the head!  When I see that you have written a post, I open it with much the same delight of a child opening a candy bar.  Yes.  That is exactly what I think, just expressed better!

We live in a postmodern world.  And postmodernism dismisses truth and reality as artificially imposed constructs by people who "create" truth in order to subjugate others.  It's all about will to power; and he who shapes reality for others has the power.  It's not about what really IS anymore; it's about creating or shaping a perception of how you want others to imagine the world.  This is a cancer that is eating away at the soul of the western world, and it dominates academia, culture, politics, art - and marketing, advertising, and corporate philosophy.  We swim around in a postmodern sewer, and don't realize that the pollution is clouding our vision.

I was reading up some articles available in the w116.org library that gave me a thought about the whole "German quality and reliability in the past vs. now" issue.

I was reading an article (Sep 99 Unique Cars, "Class Distinction" [which is found in our site's library]) on 450SELs and read, "...the legacy of Messrs Daimler and Benz; big, comfortable and prestigious but above all exceptionally durable transport over roads that could destroy most European luxury cars within months." Now, I was in Germany a couple times on NATO Reforger exercises, and my experience was that the roads were frequently awful as a general principle. Here's a quote that essentially says that MBz was designing and building cars that could handle driving conditions that tore apart other cars. The USA has a marvelous modern PAVED road system that is worlds ahead of what passed as roads in much of Germany.

And if you think about it just a little more, you will begin to consider another, more popular feature of German roads: the Autobahn. Here again, Mercedes-Benz was building cars designed to cruise at 120 mph for sustained periods and reach a top speed in the mid-to-high 130s. Now, again, this kind of extended high-speed driving just isn't done in America. It's overkill to design engines that can handle those kinds of conditions here, just as it would be overkill to design suspensions capable of traversing dilapidated and pockmarked cobblestone roads.  From my reading of w116's (and the Benzes before them) "overkill" is a good choice of words to describe the design mentality of these fabulous cars.

I dare say that Mercedes was at its best when it built cars with its native flora and fauna in mind. In the USA, we don't put anywhere near the kinds of stresses on cars as was routine in Germany. From crappy roads to the high speed free-for-alls; you needed a spectacularly well-made car to deal with those kinds of demands. Cars built for Germany would be WAY overbuilt for American conditions.

Given the fact that Mercedes-Benz buyers increasingly purchased from the American market, did Mercedes begin to transition its design to reflect American driving conditions? I'm asking this as a question; I genuinely don't know.  But I do know that up until about 1984, Mercedes cars were ALL built in Germany, and that today they are built all over God's creation (including India and Brazil).  It's hard to believe that they're still being built for the original driving conditions that forged these cars in the first place.


Here's another quote, this time from "Mercedes Benz 450SE: Sophisticated Excellence" (Modern Motor, June 75 [and also in our library]): "Mercedes engineers set out to make precisely the car they designed, with virtually no expense spared. You probably think that's what all manufacturers do, but there's many a change between drawing board and release day. The 450SE is a car of little comprimise."

I have a feeling that this is no longer true of Mercedes, and in fact is no longer true of any but VERY small, specialty performance car outfits (such as Maserati, perhaps). Everyone else is completely market-driven rather than engineering-driven. A marketing-oriented approach dominates the automotive industry today.  Mercedes-Benz at the time of the above quote from Modern Motor was an engineering-oriented approach. In the 70's, Mercedes-Benz was still building the best cars they could, and then setting a price. Today, a price is set and features are determined based on focus studies, and then the car is built to satisfy a market (or a targeted market segment) demand. Advertising used to focus on informing the marketplace about a product based on facts; today advertising seeks to create an impression (if you buy this car you will be cool) based totally on feeling.  This is what Denis is talking about: creating a perception rather than focusing on the genuine reality.

This transformation has been the result of the carcinogenic postmodern influence, and mass-marketing has picked up the ball and ran with it.  And people (let's refer to them as corporations view them - consumers) are just eating it up without even being aware of this great cultural bait and switch.  It used to be that Mercedes-Benzes were fabulously expensive cars which drew doctors, engineers, lawyers, and other professionals who were drawn to the quality engineering. Today Mercedes-Benzes are still fabulously expensive; but now they are drawing image-conscious consumers who want the perception of success that they feel tooling around in a Mercedes will give them.

One of the big reasons that Mercedes - and other automakers - are slacking off in any dedication to genuine quality is that the people who buy them today are more concerned with appearance than they are with reality.  The marketplace had a choice between perception or substance, and substance lost.

It's like Denis said: it's not that we aren't capable of building much better automobiles today; it's that we don't WANT to.  The advances in engineering and physics are being put to use to minimize cost more than they are to maximize quality.  Cars are being desinged with the same mentality as plastic packaging: the calculus is designed to minimize costly material, not maximize utility.  And the like the crap we find in those plastic packages when we're finally able to pry them open, the lion's share of the automakers' budgets is going into advertising rather than production.

But thank God I can get in my 450SEL, close the door with iron-clad finality to all that nonesense, and drive off to that better world of "the way it used to be."
Mike

Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Mforcer on 21 March 2006, 01:23 PM
Thanks guys for the excellent posts! What you guys write make me appreciate all the great qualities of a W116 even more!
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: Denis on 21 March 2006, 02:27 PM
Mister michaeld, thank you very much for the appreciative note, I am almost embarassed  :-[

But some comments here reminded of something I wanted to launch as a new thread...but not here.

One last peep from me on this subject : I was at the stealership today and has a look at a nicely outfitted S-class.

Wow, they have outdone themselves : never did the leather look more like plastic, never did the wood look more like plastic. Does anybody remember what real leather looks like ? It's not that hard to find out. Any good store, say the Galeries Lafayette in Paris, will show you what beautiful  leather is in the form of a 1000â,¬ jacket...do you mean that nobody can afford to put stuff liek this in a 115 000â,¬ car ?

Frankly, if I had 115 000â,¬ for a new car , I would pass up the Mercedes because it "looks" too cheap...

Denis

Paris, France
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: OzBenzHead on 21 March 2006, 05:10 PM
Wow! You chaps - BAR, Denis, michaeld - have really raised the quality of discussion with these last few posts: just brilliant!

I particularly treasure the following paragraph from michaeld:

QuoteWe live in a postmodern world.  And postmodernism dismisses truth and reality as artificially imposed constructs by people who "create" truth in order to subjugate others.  It's all about will to power; and he who shapes reality for others has the power.  It's not about what really IS anymore; it's about creating or shaping a perception of how you want others to imagine the world.  This is a cancer that is eating away at the soul of the western world, and it dominates academia, culture, politics, art - and marketing, advertising, and corporate philosophy.  We swim around in a postmodern sewer, and don't realize that the pollution is clouding our vision.

That, my friend, has been extracted and filed in my collection of worthy quotations! (Yes, apart from Benzes, I also collect words; millions of them! I've been collecting quotations for 40 years. As an editor and publisher - and occasional lexicographer - I love words, especially when well assembled.)

I doubt that any discussion on any car forum has ever reached such heights of intelligence, understanding, wisdom, and articulacy; this forum is truly blessed, and stands apart as a shining example of not only brilliance but mutually respectful camaraderie.

Long may W116.org continue to thrive!

PS: Perhaps this thread ought to find its way to DC headquarters. (But would they care?)
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 22 March 2006, 08:29 AM
Some housekeeping items:
BAR, I just wanted to make sure you knew I was joshing you about the 'Spock' thing.  Sometimes I forget that there are people out there who are embarrassed to be confronted over their inner Vulcan.  Not me! (http://img160.imageshack.us/img160/4313/spock5ho.jpg) (http://imageshack.us)
On the more serious side, I wanted to make sure you understood the forest of the intent of my post rather than being distracted by the odd tree.  Judging by your follow-up post, you clearly did.  In any event, one of the things I most like about w116.org is that it doesn't consist of people sniping at each other.  Please forgive me if I rubbed you the wrong way in anything I wrote.

Denis, I am so glad that I only 'almost embarrassed' you; I would have been ost mdevastated to find that I had left you completely embarrassed.  Another crisis narrowly averted!  To clarify my earlier gushing, I appreciate your posts because you bring such a deep knowledge of Mercedes-Benz history and lore, as well as an underlying familiarity with the Europe that birthed these automobiles.  You are a veritable professor of Benz-ology!

Ozbenzhead, Thank you for adding one of my paragraphs to the 'Greatest Hits' collection!  You know, if anyone ever sets up a soap box and asks me to wax eloquent about the horrors of the postmodern world, I shall always be only too happy to oblige…

Now, on to my actual post!  Denis' recent offering about the quality of leather (or lack thereof) in modern Mercedes cars got me thinking about why it is that car makers offer the features they do.  You'll have to bear with me as I cite my own preferences as an example.  I myself do not actually care for leather upholstery; in my perception, leather is not as comfortable as cloth (or even vinyl), and it is not as long-lasting.  In particular, I believe leather is much more sensitive to sunlight than fabrics and therefore dries out faster.

(Now, maybe you don't agree with my statements about leather upholstery at all; but for now just accept what I said about leather for the sake of argument, as I am using it for an illustration).  I understand that many (even most) Euro-market Mercedes have cloth or vinyl upholstery; but nearly all US-market Mercedes have leather.  Why is this?  Maybe some of you know better than I; I can only offer an opinion: I think that this is so because North American market Benzes have been positioned as luxury vehicles far more than their Euro counterparts, and Americans associate leather with luxury.

Now, me, I'd rather have cloth seats (again, because I find them more comfortable and more durable).  But then again, I am not now, nor have I ever been, inclined to plop down the equivalent of $100,000 to purchase a new Mercedes.  If new Mercedes buyers desire leather, then by all means, Mercedes should install leather, and long-term comfort and durability be damned!

Now, I'm willing to be corrected about my impression of leather.  But if I'm right, and leather is less comfortable and less durable, than we have a situation in which the buying market (at least in the US) is demanding a material that won't last as long.  And this state of affairs has been going on for years and years.

This takes me to my point: it seems that today's new Mercedes buyers are demanding all kinds of options that will similarly prove far less durable than could otherwise have been the case.  I believe Denis is right in mentioning MTBF and planned obsolescence, but there's another element going on here as well.  It seems that new Mercedes buyers, more than ever before, are willing to trade long-term durability, reliability, quality for short term comfort and performance.  Now, this is a trade-off that I would not be prepared to make (and frankly can't stand); but then again, I'm not the guy Mercedes is building new cars for, am I?

Now, I may be wrong about leather v. fabric, but I don't think I'm wrong about this overall trade-off in immediate comfort and performance for the sake of long-term durability.  If you don't like my picking on leather, another example I can cite as a support for this trade-off 'conspiracy' is our wonderful Automatic Climate Control system with its lovely heater servo units.  My question is, what do you think about such a trade-off?  Are you part of the crowd that appreciates having the leather seats, the ACC system, the electric antenna, the power doors and windows…  or do you favor the no-frills car whose quality is in its durable drive train and build quality?

The more amenities you install, the more you complicate a car; the more you complicate a car, the more is likely to go wrong with it; the more that goes wrong with a car, the more expensive it is going to be to maintain over time; the more expensive a car is to maintain over time, the shorter its useful life.

Discussion question: if Spock didn't have Enterprise, would he drive a w116? 
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: John Hubertz on 22 March 2006, 09:39 AM
No, But McCoy would drive a 116....  Dr Grumpy and his Car.
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 22 March 2006, 11:32 PM
John,
Please, oh pleeeeeaaaaaaassseee, don't tell me that w116s are .... illogical. ???

I think the only thing that could be worse than that would be if I found out that w116s aren't as cool as Spock's "babe-magnet" sunglasses.
(http://img128.imageshack.us/img128/562/spock24cs.th.jpg) (http://img128.imageshack.us/my.php?image=spock24cs.jpg)
I think that would be more than I could take. :'(
Title: Re: Are 'new car' and 'quality' antonyms?
Post by: michaeld on 04 April 2006, 08:39 AM
Michaeld generally does not like to respond to a last post from Michaeld, but here I shall make an exception.

No, I'm not writing this post to tell you all where you can get your own set of "Spock sunglasses."

Somewhere on this thread I posted an article from Consumer Reports on the new "bottom-feeder" status of the European cars versus the Japanese.  I thought I'd balance that by giving another perspective.

Edmunds reviewed the new BMW against the new Lexus.  Good news, European car enthusiast: the BMW won.  Here is the link: http://aolsvc.edmunds.com/apps/vdpcontainers/do/vdp/articleId=109021/pageNumber=1?tid=asv.n.mainindex.reviews..5.*  And here is the text:

Road Test: Comparison Test
2006 BMW 330i vs. 2006 Lexus IS 350 Comparison Test
Introduction

By Edmunds.com Editors
Date posted: 01-23-2006

Like Don King with his hair afire promoting an upcoming title bout (then again, his hair's always afire…), our chief editor could barely contain his excitement. "We need to get the new Lexus IS 350 and put it up against the BMW 330i!"

Fresh from its defense as sport sedan champion against the Audi A4, the 2006 BMW 330i now finds itself in the ring against the 2006 Lexus IS 350. A formidable athlete, the Lexus came in rippling with muscle and packing 306 horsepower. The Lexus has also been crowing that it's "the fastest vehicle in its class." Pretty brazen, considering the Muhammad Ali of sport sedans, the BMW 330i is the perennial holder of the belt in this class.

Sizing up the fighters
To keep the fight fair, the 330i in this test was an automatic, as the IS 350 isn't available with a manual gearbox. Looking at the window stickers of these compact luxury sport sedans had a few staffers needing smelling salts. Basing in the mid-$30Ks, both cars were fitted with around $10 grand in options, bringing the bottom lines to $45,508 for the Lexus and $47,390 for the Bimmer.

A few folks commented on how that's midsize sport/luxury sedan money. Yes, you can get a base Lexus GS 300 or BMW 525i for that kind of dough, but remember that our testers had just about everything you could get â€" navigation systems, "premium" packages with their fancier interior trim and even things like active steering (BMW) and a backup camera (Lexus).

In this corner…
…wearing Matador Red and weighing in at 3,527 pounds, the challenger, the Lexus IS 350. And in the opposite corner, in Titanium Silver and weighing 3,450, the defending compact sport sedan, the BMW 330i.

Instead of a boxing ring, these rear-wheel-drive pugilists slugged it out on the mean streets of Southern California. They tackled everything including bobbing and weaving with crazy L.A. drivers, transporting clothes to Goodwill, taking the kiddies to school and embarking on day trips up the coast. They also strutted their stuff at the test track and through the winding canyon roads in Malibu.

The judges' "score cards" took into account everything from raw performance to seat comfort to how easy (or tough) it was to work the climate controls. Other factors came into play as well, such as how the car responded and felt when driven the way a sport sedan was meant to be driven.

A 15-rounder
When the final bell rang, it was a tough one for the judges. The power, luxury and better value proposition put the Lexus ahead at times, while the 330i had a couple of "daily driver" advantages, such as more rear-seat legroom and greater cargo capacity by virtue of its split-folding rear seat.

It was close, but the 3 Series always managed to sway decisions back into its favor whenever a wavering "judge" got behind the wheel. And when we reminded ourselves that the true mission of a sport sedan is to provide enjoyment derived from driving, not quoting performance numbers to your buddies or convincing whomever which is the better deal, it always came back to the BMW.