03 W211 270 cdi and failed glycol test

[television]

This is a well documented subject in the WIS 2006 program, the car effected ar the cars with the trans: 722.6 in 203, the 209 and the 211 up to 30.9.03.

The whole thing is on par with the fault where the valve seats can burn out heads on certain engines, and on certain compressor engines oil can be sucked up.

There is nothing that the owner/driver could have done to have prevented the fault or problem, I do not think that you could lose in a court case, if it came to that.
OK recalls are expensive but a new rad would have been a nuch cheaper option in the begining. for those wondering if it could happen to them, there is a white spot on the modified radiators as in the picture.

Malcolm

 

[glojo]

EXACTLY!!.......So therefore, why is it that (when out of warranty) SOME will get a free repair but SOME will have to pay?.......why is there not a uniform policy?

It illustrates my thoughts that MB probably do get reimbursed by Valeo but, in some cases, also try to charge the customer.

I still totally disagree. There is a policy. We have a three year warranty and after that we are on our own unless we take certain precautions.

Goodwill repairs are simply that! Goodwill.

I love reading posts about suing, or citizens advice bureau. We can all learn from factual expeiences that are documented and successful. I hate reading posts that 'claim' success through the courts, or know of someone, who knows someone but then fail to show ANY factual documentation!

I have seen on this forum countless customers getting 'goodwill' repairs when the customer has been polite, but clear in what they want. As opposed to anyone making demands and threats to take DaimlerChrysler to court. I have yet to see anyone successfully taking Mercedes-Benz to court, and a judgement given AGAINST them it may well have been done, I have simply not seen it.

I have read countless complaints from Audi owners whose geabox has gone bang just after the three year warranty period and they certainly have not experienced any type of 'goodwill' gesture. Perhaps these owners should take Audi to court? I am not saying don't do it. I am merely saying good luck and PLEASE document your experiences so we can all learn and perhaps do the same thing.

I do feel though that no manufacturer should tell untruths, this is a documented fault, and to deny it is WRONG, but does it apply to EVERY vehicle? I know some folks would like to think so, but that is not my question.

John

 

[panason1c]

I still totally disagree. There is a policy. We have a three year warranty and after that we are on our own unless we take certain precautions.

Goodwill repairs are simply that! Goodwill.

I love reading posts about suing, or citizens advice bureau. We can all learn from factual expeiences that are documented and successful. I hate reading posts that 'claim' success through the courts, or know of someone, who knows someone but then fail to show ANY factual documentation!

I have seen on this forum countless customers getting 'goodwill' repairs when the customer has been polite, but clear in what they want. As opposed to anyone making demands and threats to take DaimlerChrysler to court. I have yet to see anyone successfully taking Mercedes-Benz to court, and a judgement given AGAINST them it may well have been done, I have simply not seen it.

I have read countless complaints from Audi owners whose geabox has gone bang just after the three year warranty period and they certainly have not experienced any type of 'goodwill' gesture. Perhaps these owners should take Audi to court? I am not saying don't do it. I am merely saying good luck and PLEASE document your experiences so we can all learn and perhaps do the same thing.

I do feel though that no manufacturer should tell untruths, this is a documented fault, and to deny it is WRONG, but does it apply to EVERY vehicle? I know some folks would like to think so, but that is not my question.

John

I'm totally baffled as to what you disagree about?..........It's fair enough to say that once any vehicle is out of warranty then its the luck of the draw as to whether the manufacturer grants a FOC repair as there will always be the question of 'fair wear & tear' vs 'premature failure' of a component but we are talking here specifically about a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT! with a certain batch of Valeo radiators...........There is even a TSB (which you posted) relating to this very specific problem...therefore, i absolutely believe that there IS a case for court action, if necesary because had MB behaved responsibly then they would have issued a recall on all the affected vehicles and replaced the radiators without question!........how can it be not be the resposibility of MB when a part that is KNOWN to have a manufacturing fault causes damage resulting in thousands of £ worth of damage to the vehicle?

 

[glojo]

I'm totally baffled as to what you disagree about?..........It's fair enough to say that once any vehicle is out of warranty then its the luck of the draw as to whether the manufacturer grants a FOC repair as there will always be the question of 'fair wear & tear' vs 'premature failure' of a component but we are talking here specifically about a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT! with a certain batch of Valeo radiators...........There is even a TSB (which you posted) relating to this very specific problem...therefore, i absolutely believe that there IS a case for court action, if necesary because had MB behaved responsibly then they would have issued a recall on all the affected vehicles and replaced the radiators without question!........how can it be not be the resposibility of MB when a part that is KNOWN to have a manufacturing fault causes damage resulting in thousands of £ worth of damage to the vehicle?

I'm sorry but I have NEVER EVER stated this is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!

Please could you show me anything I have posted that even goes near saying that?

Perhaps this is a perfect example of distorting what action to take and the reasons for it?

The service bulletin actually states If a customer reports.............

Regards,
John

 

[panason1c]

I'm sorry but I have NEVER EVER stated this is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!

Please could you show me anything I have posted that even goes near saying that?

Perhaps this is a perfect example of distorting what action to take and the reasons for it?

The service bulletin actually states If a customer reports.............

Regards,
John

Absolutely correct regarding your comment of distorting the facts..but by yourself as it happens!......i didnt say YOU said there was a manufacturing fault.....this is something I said!.......

Please re-read....slowly!

 

[television]

This is an ineresting point here as in my earlier thread I said that it only applies to cars 203,209 and 211 up to 30,9,03.

The exact wording says, if the compaint still persist, and if the basic conditions apply: the vechile was produced before 09 03, Milage more than 10,000km, A Valeo radiator is installed in the vechile and crimping must be visible

This really says that the radiator was not up to spec on the cars before this date. MB never ever state anything that is a manufacturing fault other than brake issues where they have no choice.
If it came to a court of law under the " Fit for the purpose it was intended " act if MB were asked if the customer could have done something to have caused this or prevented this happening,the answer would be NO

It is the same as when the exhaust ports cracked on some engines and the had to have a new head, the only words in WIS are, "advise customer that he needs a new head" The last guy that had this problem won, with the info that I provided, simpy on the grounds that he could have done nothing to have caused it, or prevented it


Malcolm

 

[panason1c]

This really says that the radiator was not up to spec on the cars before this date. MB never ever state anything that is a manufacturing fault other than brake issues where they have no choice.
If it came to a court of law under the " Fit for the purpose it was intended " act if MB were asked if the customer could have done something to have caused this or prevented this happening,the answer would be NO



Malcolm

I totally agree with you Malcolm.

 

[prprandall51]

But MB never fitted the radiator knowing that it was going to fail. This is simply a component that has proved to have a shorter working life than expected. Unfortunately, in this case, with disasterous consequences.

Whilst I agree that a radiator should last longer than three years, the same argument could be applied to any number of items on a car. Parts are always failing and each, it could be argued, should have lasted for the life of the car. (Taken to its logical conclusion, of course, the car would last for an infinite length of time on that basis. ).

Therefore, whilst I totally agree that a goodwill payment should be pursued and I also believe that MB should show a large measure of goodwill in this case and others concerning the same part, I don't see any liability on MB's part for the failure of the component.

Let's not forget that a few years ago (OK, a few decades ago) cars frequently imploded after only a year or two - hence it is only recently that we even have the three year guarantee.

Philip

 

[Rory]

I still totally disagree. There is a policy. We have a three year warranty and after that we are on our own unless we take certain precautions.

That's wrong.

Haven't you ever seen the statement 'your statutory rights are unaffected'?

The car may come with a 3 year warranty, but consumers also have rights regardless of the warranty.

Basically, you are entitled to expect an item to last a reasonable length of time. You may have to convince a court that the length of time is unreasonable (should be easier on a Mercedes than, say, a Ford). You may also have to show that the item failed because of an inherent defect, which was present at the time of manufacture (should be easy in the Valeo case). You could of course argue that there *must* have been a defect, otherwise the item wouldn't have failed.

The difficultly with the legal route is that legal responsibility rests with whoever you bought the vehicle off. So if you bought new from your local dealer then it's relatively straight forward. Anything else gets complicated.

In recent years I've had the springs replaced on a Renault at 4 yrs old and a 3yr old VCR repaired, both FOC (the VCR was a *lot* more hassle than the car).

 

[glojo]

Absolutely correct regarding your comment of distorting the facts..but by yourself as it happens!......i didnt say YOU said there was a manufacturing fault.....this is something I said!.......

Please re-read....slowly!

Okay we can split hairs so do not use my post, do not mention my post simply explain where you have found the following:

KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!


Simple question. I don't want a Chinese whisper, I simply want clarification of your statement: KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!


Rory
Could you please point to a case where someone has taken Mercedes-Benz to court and won? I'm not interested in what can be done, I am interested in what has been done simply because the likes of League67 can get their vehicle repaired. I am on his side, but coming out with 'Staturtory Rights' is no answer at all, unless YOU will take his case on free gratia

I am NOT defending Mercedes-Benz, I am being realistic unless you know of FACTUAL cases that have been documented?


John

 

[panason1c]

I'm totally baffled as to what you disagree about?..........It's fair enough to say that once any vehicle is out of warranty then its the luck of the draw as to whether the manufacturer grants a FOC repair as there will always be the question of 'fair wear & tear' vs 'premature failure' of a component but we are talking here specifically about a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT! with a certain batch of Valeo radiators...........There is even a TSB (which you posted) relating to this very specific problem...therefore, i absolutely believe that there IS a case for court action, if necesary because had MB behaved responsibly then they would have issued a recall on all the affected vehicles and replaced the radiators without question!........how can it be not be the resposibility of MB when a part that is KNOWN to have a manufacturing fault causes damage resulting in thousands of £ worth of damage to the vehicle?

And still awaiting your response glojo...........no meanderings please.....

 

[panason1c]

Okay we can split hairs so do not use my post, do not mention my post simply explain where you have found the following:

KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!


Simple question. I don't want a Chinese whisper, I simply want clarification of your statement: KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!


Rory
Could you please point to a case where someone has taken Mercedes-Benz to court and won? I'm not interested in what can be done, I am interested in what has been done simply because the likes of League67 can get their vehicle repaired. I am on his side, but coming out with 'Staturtory Rights' is no answer at all, unless YOU will take his case on free gratia

I am NOT defending Mercedes-Benz, I am being realistic unless you know of FACTUAL cases that have been documented?


John

It's hard to see who's side you are on glojo........

 

[Rory]

Rory
Could you please point to a case where someone has taken Mercedes-Benz to court and won? I'm not interested in what can be done, I am interested in what has been done simply because the likes of League67 can get their vehicle repaired. I am on his side, but coming out with 'Staturtory Rights' is no answer at all, unless YOU will take his case on free gratia

I never said anybody had taken MB to court and won. Why do you keep suggesting people are saying things that they're not?

I clearly pointed out the legal responsibility rests with the supplying dealer.

 

[panason1c]

I never said anybody had taken MB to court and won. Why do you keep suggesting people are saying things that they're not?

I clearly pointed out the legal responsibility rests with the supplying dealer.

glojo, Perhaps you should rest a little and calm down and then re-read all the posts.
Regards

 

[glojo]

And still awaiting your response glojo...........no meanderings please.....

Sarcasm has never helped any debate I am simply asking you to show me where you have found this statement.

KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!

Have you posted the link?

Rory,
I am saying I disagree with your suggestions and have asked for factual documented examples regarding Mercedes-Benz!. Why suggest a legal recourse and then back down? I accept the dealer supplied the car, but any warranty that came with the car has expired?

Folks ask for advice and by suggesting there 'might' be legal responsibilities is not in my view the most helpful approach. If you then distance yourself from it? Surely the most helpful approach is the one with the most chance of success!

I am NOT on anyone's 'side'???? I have supplied a TSB which I hope will be helpful in getting this matter resolved on the best terms possible for League67. I am NOT on his side, but I am also certainly NOT on the 'side' of Mercedes-Benz.

I hope MB does the right thing, but there are ways of resolving it and clearly I appear to be in disagreement with both of you?

John

 

[television]

I never said anybody had taken MB to court and won. Why do you keep suggesting people are saying things that they're not?

I clearly pointed out the legal responsibility rests with the supplying dealer.

Having spent a large part of my life in retail both new and secondhand, yes it is down to the dealer that sold the car. If I sell something new and it fails I can return it to my supplier, if I sell something secondhand then its down to me. in this case in question it could be said that being in the trade I should have looked at the radiator on the car to see if it had the White spot, if it did not I should have warned the customer that this could happen if the car fell within the group specified of cars that can fail.
Maybe MB are using this point in law as to whether they do it free or not.

malcolm

 

[panason1c]

Sarcasm has never helped any debate I am simply asking you to show me where you have found this statement.

KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!

Have you posted the link?

John

glojo, I will make this as simple as possible for you.....please read this ...slowly...

It is accepted that there is a problem with certain Valeo radiators fitted to some MB vehicles up to 09/03.........agreed?

The problem being that due to either design error or faulty materials used in the construction of or a combination of both or whatever?, the radiator fails and allows engine coolant and transmission oil to mix..........agreed?

MB introduced a modified radiator from 09/03 to address the problem..........agreed?

In some cases MB have replaced faulty radiators OUTSIDE of warranty foc...(which, in my opinion in this case acknowledges liability)..........agreed?

Therefore, the earlier FAILED Valeo radiators are a 'Known' manufacturing defect!.....ie..MB KNOW that they are potentially faulty.............now what part of that do you not understand?

 

[prprandall51]

In some cases MB have replaced faulty radiators OUTSIDE of warranty foc...(which, in my opinion in this case acknowledges liability)..........agreed?

Therefore, the earlier FAILED Valeo radiators are a 'Known' manufacturing defect!.....ie..MB KNOW that they are potentially faulty.............now what part of that do you not understand?

The facelift E Class has hundreds - perhaps thousands - of new components replacing previously fitted parts - including an entire braking system. All of them, I am sure, are better quality, more robust and likely to last longer than the outgoing component. Are all of the old parts KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULTS? If so, I should be able to run my E Class forever at MB's expense.

There is a world of difference between a part that fails in some circumstances on some cars at some point in time and a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT. If you think that by replacing a radiator when out of warranty is an acknowledgement by MB that the part is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT then I can only say that you have a refreshing naivety.

What would be nice to see is a replacement of outright sarcasm with some articulate, well-argumented thoughts. AGREED?

 

[glojo]

glojo, I will make this as simple as possible for you.....please read this ...slowly...

It is accepted that there is a problem with certain Valeo radiators fitted to some MB vehicles up to 09/03.........agreed?

The problem being that due to either design error or faulty materials used in the construction of or a combination of both or whatever?, the radiator fails and allows engine coolant and transmission oil to mix..........agreed?

MB introduced a modified radiator from 09/03 to address the problem..........agreed?

In some cases MB have replaced faulty radiators OUTSIDE of warranty foc...(which, in my opinion in this case acknowledges liability)..........agreed?

Therefore, the earlier FAILED Valeo radiators are a 'Known' manufacturing defect!.....ie..MB KNOW that they are potentially faulty.............now what part of that do you not understand?

Being sarcastic does you little credit. We all hopefully accept that some early 211's have had problems. Hopefully those that have suffered might receive a goodwill repair?

I have posted several times that ALL vehicles have problems, Mercedes-Benz is no better, nor any worse than other.

According to your logic then this is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT!!

and perhaps according to yours and others logic, the repair should be free? There are literally THOUSANDS of these examples. As I say being sarcastic does no one any credit

 

[panason1c]

The facelift E Class has hundreds - perhaps thousands - of new components replacing previously fitted parts - including an entire braking system. All of them, I am sure, are better quality, more robust and likely to last longer than the outgoing component. Are all of the old parts KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULTS? If so, I should be able to run my E Class forever at MB's expense.

There is a world of difference between a part that fails in some circumstances on some cars at some point in time and a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT. If you think that by replacing a radiator when out of warranty is an acknowledgement by MB that the part is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT then I can only say that you have a refreshing naivety.

What would be nice to see is a replacement of outright sarcasm with some articulate, well-argumented thoughts. AGREED?

You, also, are missing the point..........
There is a world of difference between making something that is already good into something better..that is a natural progression of engineering.....compared to REPLACING something that was not suitable for its purpose in the first place (Valeo rad) with a modified 'suitable' product.

If you think that by replacing a radiator when out of warranty is an acknowledgement by MB that the part is a KNOWN MANUFACTURING FAULT then I can only say that you have a refreshing naivety

It's you, my friend, who is naive if you believe that MB carry out 'out of warranty repairs' FOC out of the goodness of their heart!..............