Very poor practice by dealership - possibly my last Mercedes

[Smiley]

Are you sure the gearbox and axle are excluded?

Just looked again. It says excluded is: Gearbox, axle and drive line mountings.
It is poorly drafted and maybe it means the mountings for the g/box and axle.
Putting that to one side and assuming that the g/box and axle are indeed covered, I would not buy a car at a premium price after I read this warranty. The list of exclusions is comprehensive rendering the warranty very far from comprehensive.

 

[Will]

I suppose my point is that MB is a car company and is perfectly capable of fixing its own cars. It doesn’t need to do it through an insurance company at all!
I realise I’m not going to change the world, especially if it doesn’t need changing. I’m probably the outlier, but I can’t see why they can’t stand by their own products!

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this, but I think your view of this warranty situation is at odds with the real world.

Warranties are there to give comfort and peace of mind at a cost, a gamble, as any insurance generally is - I think Bobby Dazzler has hinted that the level of cover you would ideally like would probably be cost prohibitive, back to square one of whether to bother having a warranty or not at all in those circumstances.

I mean quite a lot of people object to the cost of regular warranties as they stand already. I suspect the premium that would be required for an almost no-exclusion, no-quibble, no T&Cs type warranty would make it very unlikely to be popular with the majority?

The way I see these sorts of warranties is as a cushion. They cover most stuff, and most of the big ticket items (engine/gearbox/axles, major electrical items etc) which takes away the large financial risk, leaving some risk exposure for sure but better than not having any cover obviously. Buying used cars from dealers gives you some protection anyway under consumer law.

People take the route of motoring that suits them, pays your money and takes your choice etc.

All IMHO of course.

 

[Will]

Just looked again. It says excluded is: Gearbox, axle and drive line mountings.
It is poorly drafted and maybe it means the mountings for the g/box and axle.
Putting that to one side and assuming that the g/box and axle are indeed covered, I would not buy a car at a premium price after I read this warranty. The list of exclusions is comprehensive rendering the warranty very far from comprehensive.

To me the warranty is very clear, it has to be detailed because cars are quite complex machines.

The premium price thing is subjective - when I bought my GL63 as an approved used car with 2-years warranty included, I feel that I paid a very fair price and doubt the car would have been any cheaper from any other source be it independent dealer/trader or private seller. Indeed many private sale cars without warranty are priced higher than retail stock with the obvious consumer protection by default regardless of warranty cover.

The warranty was a bonus for me, and I only made one small claim on it but was certainly grateful to have it included and the renewal price was also very fair (circa 1% of the new car value)

They’re a gamble, you can opt in or opt out, no one is pressured into taking them, no drama

 

[DrNick]

Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinions on this, but I think your view of this warranty situation is at odds with the real world.

Warranties are there to give comfort and peace of mind at a cost, a gamble, as any insurance generally is - I think Bobby Dazzler has hinted that the level of cover you would ideally like would probably be cost prohibitive, back to square one of whether to bother having a warranty or not at all in those circumstances.

I mean quite a lot of people object to the cost of regular warranties as they stand already. I suspect the premium that would be required for an almost no-exclusion, no-quibble, no T&Cs type warranty would make it very unlikely to be popular with the majority?

The way I see these sorts of warranties is as a cushion. They cover most stuff, and most of the big ticket items (engine/gearbox/axles, major electrical items etc) which takes away the large financial risk, leaving some risk exposure for sure but better than not having any cover obviously. Buying used cars from dealers gives you some protection anyway under consumer law.

People take the route of motoring that suits them, pays your money and takes your choice etc.

All IMHO of course.

If you bought an approved used car and the clutch failed after a few weeks, would it be unreasonable to expect it to be fixed? Or do we have to rely on other legislation/sale of goods/goodwill to protect us against this?
I’d expect a warranty to cover that. Now I realise I have to understand the terms and conditions, and also understand in forensic detail the failure modes of all the automotive systems so that I can make an informed opinion as to whether the warranty is good value and worthy of the name. I cannot trust the salesman to advise me on this because that’s not his responsibility. The risk is all on me.
Even if all I want to do is buy a car to get me mobile. And even if I know nothing about cars.

I appreciate this is an extreme interpretation and I am playing devils advocate to a certain extent, but this seems to be a reasonable summary?

 

[Will]

If you bought an approved used car and the clutch failed after a few weeks, would it be unreasonable to expect it to be fixed? Or do we have to rely on other legislation/sale of goods/goodwill to protect us against this?
I’d expect a warranty to cover that. Now I realise I have to understand the terms and conditions, and also understand in forensic detail the failure modes of all the automotive systems so that I can make an informed opinion as to whether the warranty is good value and worthy of the name. I cannot trust the salesman to advise me on this because that’s not his responsibility. The risk is all on me.
Even if all I want to do is buy a car to get me mobile. And even if I know nothing about cars.

I appreciate this is an extreme interpretation and I am playing devils advocate to a certain extent, but this seems to be a reasonable summary?

It depends on what caused the clutch to ‘fail’ I guess.

Fortunately few Mercedes-Benz cars are supplied with manual transmissions, and the clutches are pretty robust, so this hypothesis is unlikely to be a situation most people would ever find themselves in.

Generally the approved used cars are also considered to meet a certain standard regardless of any warranty. Eg tyres, brakes, servicing due within so many months etc.

I’d expect that if the clutch failed that soon after purchase, and was not customer misuse or wear/tear issue then it would be the dealer’s responsibility to resolve under consumer law/sales of goods or whatever. I can’t see a third party warranty company being happy to pay out for a wearable item that clearly had a pre-existing fault or was almost worn out at the time of purchase, or possibly has been subject to misuse/abuse.

The warranty does not affect your statutory rights, AFAIK.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

If you bought an approved used car and the clutch failed after a few weeks, would it be unreasonable to expect it to be fixed? Or do we have to rely on other legislation/sale of goods/goodwill to protect us against this?
I’d expect a warranty to cover that. Now I realise I have to understand the terms and conditions, and also understand in forensic detail the failure modes of all the automotive systems so that I can make an informed opinion as to whether the warranty is good value and worthy of the name. I cannot trust the salesman to advise me on this because that’s not his responsibility. The risk is all on me.
Even if all I want to do is buy a car to get me mobile. And even if I know nothing about cars.

I appreciate this is an extreme interpretation and I am playing devils advocate to a certain extent, but this seems to be a reasonable summary?

Failed or worn?

Either way on an approved used car - whether it failed or was worn - unless it could be proven that the driver’s driving style could be the major factor, it would probably be replaced at no cost to the owner of the car, but would almost certainly be paid for by the dealer rather than the warranty.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I suppose my point is that MB is a car company and is perfectly capable of fixing its own cars. It doesn’t need to do it through an insurance company at all!

Mercedes is the conductor, not every person in the orchestra.

They design and make some but not all of the cars they sell, with the design and production of some models being outsourced to specialists.

They make very very little of the cars they sell, it’s subcontracted to specialist manufacturers, your brake pads will be made by Brembo (or similar).

They sell very few of the cars they make, they’re sold by specialist automotive retail groups, your main dealer will be Sytner, Lookers, LSH (or similar).

They repair very very very few of the faults which occur on their cars, their workshops are specialist automotive retail groups, as explained above.

They repair very very very few paintwork defects (after delivery), their main dealers will have a contract with a local bodyshop which works to MB standards.

Mercedes don’t do it all, there are lots of businesses involved in the design, manufacture, production, distribution, sales, repair, servicing etc of their cars.

If there’s a warranty repair - whether it’s a new car, approved used, or extended warranty - then the business who repairs it will want to be recompensed.

Unfortunately just as most people can’t afford total peace of mind when buying a warranty, most people couldn’t afford a Mercedes engineered to the highest standards with the highest standards of service, and which Mercedes’ deliver end-to-end.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

I think it’s it a bit disingenuous to label something as MB when it’s actually been subbed out.

That’s how the vast majority of businesses work, and the default operating model for the majority of brands. Tesco didn’t make your baked beans, PepsiCo didn’t make your cola, Boss didn’t make your suit, etc.

 

[Smiley]

It is interesting how different people's expectations of what an approved used warranty should cover. My expectation would be that it should cover everything except wear and tear consumable items and should be subject to proper servicing. I would not expect the list of exclusions in the MB warranty (eg head gasket, leaking seals on the engine or gearbox, electrical wiring etc etc etc) and I would not expect to have to read and digest that level of small print. Yes modern cars are complex - that's the whole point of the warranty.
I thought maybe I was out of touch and, based on others comments here, my expectations are too high.
So I looked up the Lexus used car warranty. The list of exclusions is much shorter and is:

(a) All body panels and paintwork. (b) All items of interior trim. (c) Any battery other than the high voltage battery in a hybrid vehicle that may be used for the propulsion of such vehicle. (d) Any windscreen or window that has suffered impact damage. (e) All consumable items including without limitation fuel; engine oil; door and other lubricants; brake fluid; power steering fluid; windscreen washer fluid; and any of the following parts which are deficient merely as result of usage: air filters; oil filters; brake pads; clutch plates; drive/cam belts; spark plugs; breaker points, windscreen wiper blades; light bulbs and fuses; and tyres. (f) An exhaust system which is deficient solely as a result of corrosion. (g) A wheel or wheel cover that is deficient merely as a result of abrasion, corrosion or impact damage; (h) Any Protected Part that has suffered a Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of the Protected Vehicle sustaining external impact damage. (i) All non standard Lexus parts.

In addition the Lexus warranty includes compensation payments in the event that the car can not be repaired within 24 hours.
It is pretty much what I would expect the warranty to include.

The MB warranty is very poor by comparison.

 

[Connoisseur]

It is interesting how different people's expectations of what an approved used warranty should cover. My expectation would be that it should cover everything except wear and tear consumable items and should be subject to proper servicing. I would not expect the list of exclusions in the MB warranty (eg head gasket, leaking seals on the engine or gearbox, electrical wiring etc etc etc) and I would not expect to have to read and digest that level of small print. Yes modern cars are complex - that's the whole point of the warranty.
I thought maybe I was out of touch and, based on others comments here, my expectations are too high.
So I looked up the Lexus used car warranty. The list of exclusions is much shorter and is:

(a) All body panels and paintwork. (b) All items of interior trim. (c) Any battery other than the high voltage battery in a hybrid vehicle that may be used for the propulsion of such vehicle. (d) Any windscreen or window that has suffered impact damage. (e) All consumable items including without limitation fuel; engine oil; door and other lubricants; brake fluid; power steering fluid; windscreen washer fluid; and any of the following parts which are deficient merely as result of usage: air filters; oil filters; brake pads; clutch plates; drive/cam belts; spark plugs; breaker points, windscreen wiper blades; light bulbs and fuses; and tyres. (f) An exhaust system which is deficient solely as a result of corrosion. (g) A wheel or wheel cover that is deficient merely as a result of abrasion, corrosion or impact damage; (h) Any Protected Part that has suffered a Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of the Protected Vehicle sustaining external impact damage. (i) All non standard Lexus parts.

In addition the Lexus warranty includes compensation payments in the event that the car can not be repaired within 24 hours.
It is pretty much what I would expect the warranty to include.

The MB warranty is very poor by comparison.

Lexus warranty is like that because they make reliable cars and stand by them. The MB warranty is like it is because they don’t make reliable cars. MB warranty ends at 3 yrs, Lexus warranty can go all the way to 100k and 10 years…..

 

[Connoisseur]

I love my Mercedes, but I don’t drive it with rose-tinted spectacles, and I don’t post on here with them either

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

The MB warranty is like it is because they don’t make reliable cars. MB warranty ends at 3 yrs, Lexus warranty can go all the way to 100k and 10 years…..

I’ve never owned a Lexus but including an extended warranty with each main dealer service up to 10 years and 100,000 miles is a great offer, and certainly reinforces the perception of Lexus being a reliable brand.

The published servicing cost is not unreasonable either so you don’t pay through the nose for servicing. That’s not to say that it’s free though, it’s just factored into Lexus’s overall cost model differently.

Some perceive this to be down to higher quality standards, which in some respects maybe true. I suspect a more generous reserve for future repair costs is factored into to the sales price of new cars too.

All manufacturers will plan for a reserve for repairs under the manufacturers warranty and goodwill usually up to ~5 years, whereas Lexus plan for this to be 10 years. It also keeps servicing in the network for longer.

In the last few decades Mercedes strategy has been to maximise volume and financing, and flexibility to reduce sales price through discounting will have lead them to reduce their reserve.

Kia ane Hyundai are also seeking to maximise volumes but must improve perception of the brand, so they have lengthened their manufacturers warranty by including a bigger reserve and sales prices have increased.

Mercedes offer an extended warranty for up to 10 years and 120,000 miles, but is paid for separately, and the combined cost of servicing and extend warranty is much more expensive that the Lexus servicing cost.

That makes Mercedes less expensive than it might be for new car buyers but potentially more expensive for secondhand buyers. Lexus have made their cars more expensive than it might be for the first owner, and less expensive for secondhand buyers.

This strategy has worked for Mercedes because their growth in sales volumes has been tremendous in that time. Lexus strategy is to be a halo for Toyota which is where their volume comes from, and that seems to have worked too.

 

[DrNick]

That’s basically the warranty on my Hyundai as well. And of course it didn’t need to be used in its 5 years. It’s now 8 years old and has only had brake pads/discs changed (other than service items). 5 years of servicing was bought up front for £600.
In truth I’d rather have the reliability than the warranty but you can’t have one without the other really.
I appreciate that I am dealing with an unfriendly corporate entity but I believe MB have done it to death and are living on past reputation at the moment.
Despite my stance here I’d consider a new mercedes as I think they make some good kit and the overall package is competitive. I wouldn’t consider an electric Mercedes though as in that case I don’t think they are up to speed there and I’d want a cast iron warranty then!
But that’s a hypothetical issue for a few years for me (electric Hyundai is a different proposition though).

Liked the point about Mercedes’ being automatic so clutch plate issues are moot!

 

[BfgSLKMan]

If the dealer carried-out the infamous 'Dieselgate' software update when they serviced the car last year, this can explain the NOx sensor fault and the MIL on the dash.

Doesn't apply to W213 cars. This was the first car with OM654 and was 100% Euro 6c (the d) compliant from the start.

 

[rayaans]

It is interesting how different people's expectations of what an approved used warranty should cover. My expectation would be that it should cover everything except wear and tear consumable items and should be subject to proper servicing. I would not expect the list of exclusions in the MB warranty (eg head gasket, leaking seals on the engine or gearbox, electrical wiring etc etc etc) and I would not expect to have to read and digest that level of small print. Yes modern cars are complex - that's the whole point of the warranty.
I thought maybe I was out of touch and, based on others comments here, my expectations are too high.
So I looked up the Lexus used car warranty. The list of exclusions is much shorter and is:

(a) All body panels and paintwork. (b) All items of interior trim. (c) Any battery other than the high voltage battery in a hybrid vehicle that may be used for the propulsion of such vehicle. (d) Any windscreen or window that has suffered impact damage. (e) All consumable items including without limitation fuel; engine oil; door and other lubricants; brake fluid; power steering fluid; windscreen washer fluid; and any of the following parts which are deficient merely as result of usage: air filters; oil filters; brake pads; clutch plates; drive/cam belts; spark plugs; breaker points, windscreen wiper blades; light bulbs and fuses; and tyres. (f) An exhaust system which is deficient solely as a result of corrosion. (g) A wheel or wheel cover that is deficient merely as a result of abrasion, corrosion or impact damage; (h) Any Protected Part that has suffered a Mechanical or Electrical Failure as a result of the Protected Vehicle sustaining external impact damage. (i) All non standard Lexus parts.

In addition the Lexus warranty includes compensation payments in the event that the car can not be repaired within 24 hours.
It is pretty much what I would expect the warranty to include.

The MB warranty is very poor by comparison.

I agree - the warranty is rubbish on Mercedes and one of the reasons I didnt take it out. I also agree that it should include everything apart from wear and tear items. Thats the whole point of a "warranty" is it not?

I mean the BMW warranty is much much better despite having to pay an excess.