Mercedes tyre 'skipping' - official statement

[hallra]

I don't own one and haven't driven one but just listening to the videos I couldn't be persuaded that in the long term that noise isn't going to do some harm. It sounds like wind up and then slippage in the transmission system. MB saying that won't cause premature wear has to be nonsense. How could they know anyway unless they tested one to destruction.

Totally agree.

If Mercedes say it is a characteristic, its designed to go this, it is safe, then produce the evidence and demonstrate to your customers its safe, then allow your customers to decide what they would like to do, because I don't recall Mercedes telling anyone that their cars would crab.

So I would like to see:

Engineering and design documents describing this characteristic that was designed into the car and the reasons for it to be implemented.
Internal test and safety documentation.
Independant safety certificates/documents sign by DVSA and other equivalent safety boards.

 

[400ixl]

Unfortunately you can like to see them as much as you like, but they are under no obligation to release any such documents (should they even exist), and wouldn't even if they did.

Every sympathy with owners who are suffering with this. No idea how it will get resolved, unfortunately unless forced to do something I doubt they will do anything other than re-iterate it is not an issue.

Good luck though and hope that I am wrong.

 

[Dryce]

So I would like to see:

Engineering and design documents describing this characteristic that was designed into the car and the reasons for it to be implemented.
Internal test and safety documentation.

I think a reality check is in order.

Companies don't tend top publish these things. And if they did then it just causes more hassle as a lot of the readers won't read them properly or understand them but will still choose to make invalid comments and demand for more information.

 

[hallra]

I think a reality check is in order.

Companies don't tend top publish these things. And if they did then it just causes more hassle as a lot of the readers won't read them properly or understand them but will still choose to make invalid comments and demand for more information.

Perhaps, but if Mercedes weren't doing such a half ****d job of all of this, none of this would be needed

 

[st13phil]

Engineering and design documents describing this characteristic that was designed into the car and the reasons for it to be implemented.

In addition to Dryce's comment, above, that the chances of MB sharing design criteria documentation with anyone is vanishingly small, you are making the same error as others have done regarding this issue in that you're assuming that it was consciously designed in.

My take on it is that it is more likely to be exactly the opposite in that it is a byproduct, considered an acceptable penalty by the design team, of either meeting some other required steering / suspension criteria, or eliminating some other even less desirable trait.

You and others disagree with that decision, but I postulate that you have no idea (in the same way that I have no idea) what the trade-off was that lead to the design decision taken. What I do know is that the view of owners is that the penalty in terms of the slip / judder effect is not considered acceptable. And that is all we know with any certainty. Everything else is speculation and conjecture.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dejongj]

In addition to Dryce's comment, above, that the chances of MB sharing design criteria documentation with anyone is vanishingly small, you are making the same error as others have done regarding this issue in that you're assuming that it was consciously designed in.

My take on it is that it is more likely to be exactly the opposite in that it is a byproduct, considered an acceptable penalty by the design team, of either meeting some other required steering / suspension criteria, or eliminating some other even less desirable trait.

You and others disagree with that decision, but I postulate that you have no idea (in the same way that I have no idea) what the trade-off was that lead to the design decision taken. What I do know is that the view of owners is that the penalty in terms of the slip / judder effect is not considered acceptable. And that is all we know with any certainty. Everything else is speculation and conjecture.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree that it is more likely to be a byproduct, rather than a conscious design decision. I doubt we'll see this as an option on the list for the other models. I can't imagine those ordering a Maybach would ever want to tick that.

I'm even willing to go as far that I do not belief the engineers involved realised how big the trade-off was going to be. And how badly it would affect these car. I mean no-one in their right state of mind would bring this in on purpose.

What I cannot subscribe to is Mercedes calling it hand on hard a characteristic. Sure in the technical absolute sense it is likely an accurate description, but in the contact of them exhibiting the attitude "though, live with it" I firmly belief they are using it in the wrong sense, as a way out for inaction.

With all their focus on saying it isn't a safety issue, they seem to have lost track that it is not fitting of any car, let alone a luxury family SUV.

 

[st13phil]

What I cannot subscribe to is Mercedes calling it hand on hard a characteristic. Sure in the technical absolute sense it is likely an accurate description, but in the contact of them exhibiting the attitude "though, live with it" I firmly belief they are using it in the wrong sense, as a way out for inaction.

I agree (and sympathise with owners) that being patronised isn't a satisfactory outcome to complaints about the trait of skipping and juddering on this chassis.

However, another unknown is whether MB truly are doing nothing about it. As I've said to people in my own organisation when we have product issues, don't confuse a lack of resolution with a lack of desire or effort to reach one. In the case of the GLC chassis, I sincerely hope that MB are working on a satisfactory resolution for the growing band of dissatisfied owners, but I can also believe that there's probably no "quick fix" available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dejongj]

I agree (and sympathise with owners) that being patronised isn't a satisfactory outcome to complaints about the trait of skipping and juddering on this chassis.

However, another unknown is whether MB truly are doing nothing about it. As I've said to people in my own organisation when we have product issues, don't confuse a lack of resolution with a lack of desire or effort to reach one. In the case of the GLC chassis, I sincerely hope that MB are working on a satisfactory resolution for the growing band of dissatisfied owners, but I can also believe that there's probably no "quick fix" available.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If that is the case they would really need to have a lesson in customer services 101. Ignoring your customers is not the way forward. We are all experienced and grown up enough that a resolution can take time. But at the moment they aren't giving us any indication that there is a resolution, not even that there is a problem other than for new customers. Surely an easy, and relatively cheap interim solution would be to quickly supply winter wheels and tyres to those that have complains whilst resolving this issue. That is if they truly resolve the issue, or at least mask it.

With the number of vocal people involved that would have created some good will and cost a lot less money then the loss in sales they are encountering judging by the reports and messages from people.

I can only speak for myself - but that would at least give me some confidence they take this serious.

At the moment the dealers aren't getting any support from Mercedes; and some of us are being offered to buy winter tyres/wheels at cost but without being given a price, nor an ability to actually deliver them. And spending more money for an issue that isn't ours to resolve is not really the right way to go about it.

I'm not suggesting they should go out pro-actively to everyone; it seems there are plenty that see it as normal as all cars do it. I don't subscribe to that at all. The GLA, GLE and GLS for example don't do it

 

[Steveml63]

Hi,
Is this problem only affecting right hand drive cars? - or does I affect left hand drive, as well?
If it only affects right hand drive, then it could be to do with the different layout for these models.
I remember a number of different cars having problems when they were originally engineered for one market and being adapted for driving on the other side (Peugeot windscreen wipers being one good example - sweep was designed for left hand drive and on UK cars the blades missed a lot of the right hand side of the screen) offset pedals another problem on some cars for UK market.
Cheers
Steve

 

[st13phil]

If that is the case they would really need to have a lesson in customer services 101. Ignoring your customers is not the way forward.

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no measure trying to justify MBUK's handling of the matter, merely pointing out that it's just as feasible that MB Engineering really are doing something to address the issue as it is that they're doing nothing. I could be wrong, of course

We are all experienced and grown up enough that a resolution can take time.

My experience is that some people are more forgiving than others when told that a solution to an issue they have with a £50k purchase is x months away, but I take your point.

The reality is that the dealers are between a rock and a hard place on this one. It is totally outside their capability to create and deploy a satisfactory resolution, yet they have to deal with the unhappy customer(s) and as we all know, UK Consumer Law states that the remedy for the consumer is with the retailer, i.e. the dealer. However, this is a great example of a situation where the manufacturer is the only party to the entire transaction with the wherewithal to resolve the problem. The dealer has no bargaining power whatsoever with the manufacturer, so it is the latter who call the tune, and if they take a particular position then unless that changes the situation will continue. The dealer will always do everything they can to avoid accepting a rejection without the support of the manufacturer, and will rely on public statements from the manufacturer to "justify" grounds for refusal.

When I rejected a new car it was very clear that absent the support of the manufacturer in the process, it would have been a very uphill struggle and would almost certainly have required resort to the Courts. That MBUK's line remains consistently that it's "a comfort issue" is unhelpful in the extreme, but my view is that it will require MBUK's cooperation - one way or another - to get to a resolution.

 

[Deleted member 6183]

Don't get me wrong, I'm by no measure trying to justify MBUK's handling of the matter, merely pointing out that it's just as feasible that MB Engineering really are doing something to address the issue as it is that they're doing nothing. I could be wrong, of course My experience is that some people are more forgiving than others when told that a solution to an issue they have with a £50k purchase is x months away, but I take your point.

The reality is that the dealers are between a rock and a hard place on this one. It is totally outside their capability to create and deploy a satisfactory resolution, yet they have to deal with the unhappy customer(s) and as we all know, UK Consumer Law states that the remedy for the consumer is with the retailer, i.e. the dealer. However, this is a great example of a situation where the manufacturer is the only party to the entire transaction with the wherewithal to resolve the problem. The dealer has no bargaining power whatsoever with the manufacturer, so it is the latter who call the tune, and if they take a particular position then unless that changes the situation will continue. The dealer will always do everything they can to avoid accepting a rejection without the support of the manufacturer, and will rely on public statements from the manufacturer to "justify" grounds for refusal.

When I rejected a new car it was very clear that absent the support of the manufacturer in the process, it would have been a very uphill struggle and would almost certainly have required resort to the Courts. That MBUK's line remains consistently that it's "a comfort issue" is unhelpful in the extreme, but my view is that it will require MBUK's cooperation - one way or another - to get to a resolution.

Phil,

You may not want to go into detail but do you see a vast difference between your circumstances when rejecting a car compared to those faced by the owners of those currently affected by this issue?

 

[st13phil]

You may not want to go into detail but do you see a vast difference between your circumstances when rejecting a car compared to those faced by the owners of those currently affected by this issue?

It was quite different in that it was impossible to dispute the fault with the car (it was supposed to be metallic bronze, but in certain light it looked like the car had leopard spots, so it wasn't anything that could be argued as subjective), but the initial offer was for a complete re-spray. The final offer was for a credit of the full invoice price of the car against another new car which I accepted.

 

[hallra]

If that is the case they would really need to have a lesson in customer services 101. Ignoring your customers is not the way forward. We are all experienced and grown up enough that a resolution can take time. But at the moment they aren't giving us any indication that there is a resolution, not even that there is a problem other than for new customers. Surely an easy, and relatively cheap interim solution would be to quickly supply winter wheels and tyres to those that have complains whilst resolving this issue. That is if they truly resolve the issue, or at least mask it.

With the number of vocal people involved that would have created some good will and cost a lot less money then the loss in sales they are encountering judging by the reports and messages from people.

I can only speak for myself - but that would at least give me some confidence they take this serious.

At the moment the dealers aren't getting any support from Mercedes; and some of us are being offered to buy winter tyres/wheels at cost but without being given a price, nor an ability to actually deliver them. And spending more money for an issue that isn't ours to resolve is not really the right way to go about it.

I'm not suggesting they should go out pro-actively to everyone; it seems there are plenty that see it as normal as all cars do it. I don't subscribe to that at all. The GLA, GLE and GLS for example don't do it

Totally agree.

To start the process to find an acceptable resolution to appease (in some circumstances very upset) customers, there would need to be some sort of statement, which acknowledged the problem, demonstrated it was correctly understood and had a plan to move towards a solution.

Whether MBUK would do this, I doubt very much, because they have so far shown a clear disregard for their customers, they have shown a real arrogance and they patronised us.
- I saw this myself when I spoke with Mercedes customer services.

They have only themselves to blame, the way they are acting is not befitting of a luxury brand.

 

[190]

If new sales of the affected models completely dried up wouldn't that persuade MB to do something about it. You would think those with the sense to check out a prospective purchase would be picking the issue up on the Honest John and then finding the other online web sites. Who would then buy one after that. Perhaps the target for publicity of the problem should be new customers.

 

[FSE23]

Sales will never dry up. How many unhappy customers we have in here? What is the proportion of them comparing to the number of sales? If it is less than 10% than no one would really bother.
I got that in my C43 but it is only minimal and worse with low temperature. I'm not too worried as for now.

 

[Dryce]

Who would then buy one after that. Perhaps the target for publicity of the problem should be new customers.

It's probably not a critical problem for most owners or prospective owners.

If I had bought one not knowing that it did this it then I'd probably be posting about my annoyance here.

However knowing it does this would I buy one. Quite possibly.

There are presumably quite a few thousand in the UK - I wonder how many owners are still not aware of the issue - or are only aware of it because other people are drawing to their attention.

 

[whitenemesis]

How many GLC on the roads?

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?utf8=✓&q=mercedes+glc&commit=Search

 

[Dryce]

How many GLC on the roads?

https://www.howmanyleft.co.uk/?utf8=✓&q=mercedes+glc&commit=Search

Close to 10000 ?

 

[John Jones Jr]

However knowing it does this would I buy one. Quite possibly.

You'd part with 45k + and happily sign a waiver?

 

[Dryce]

You'd part with 45k + and happily sign a waiver?

I wouldn't part with £45K for a GLC. That sort of price for a car in this category is a much bigger problem *to me* before even thinking about pros and cons.

However if say was looking to acquire one at an acceptable price for the vehicle - eg. a discount new, or lease offer, or buying a used one then this low speed tight lock tyre scrubbing issue would be a minor con vs the positive attributes of the vehicle.