Seamster15
MB Enthusiast
I don't have a problem with the mileage as this car should be able to do it easy (with the proper servicing!), I do however have a problem with the short MOT!
never mind...
never mind...
W220 S430 for 5k, no bids, 3 hours left
Nope.... It's worth 4k
http://www.virtual-showroom.co.uk/s...Rear+Wheel+Drive&yearplate=1999|V&mileage=225
I think there are too many electronic modules to run one of these cheaply. My E39 5-series is bad enough. I have the two volume Bentley workshop manual and it's thicker than two telephone directories ! When they were first launched these S-classes where the most complicated cars made.
On the other hand, they did sell well so spares from brakers should be available.
adam
Last edited:
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
I don't think that is a reasonable assertion. Yes, these and other modern cars contain a large pile of electronic components, and so it is not impossible that electronic failures happen where on older generations they did not happen.
However, I would challenge the assumption that modern s-classes (140 and 200 chassis) are problematic because of electronic problems - I have never seen any statistically relevant data that shows they fail commonly (but, again, that does not mean that in general terms failings on modern cars will not show an increased number of electronic related problems - for the simple reason that electronics are so much more widespread throughout cars).
While obviously personal experience is not statistically representative for all cars, it is worth pointing out that I have never experienced the slightest electronical problem with either my current 6 year old s-class, or my previous one which was 9 years when it went **** up (as a result of a timing chain failure no less).
Also, one should not project electronic problems of certain Mercedes models on the whole range. The s-class usually doesn't even appear in statistics around this type of problem, but there is no data that I know of that indicates that an s-class is hugely less reliable today than it was 20 years ago. I accept that some other models have a bad reputation in this respect, but one should not automatically translate this to the s-class as well.
But! I do agree that running an s-class cheaply is probably not a reasonable assumption. Not because of the electronics, but just because in terms of normal maintenance they tend to be more expensive. Some people still think you can run them on the very cheap, and skimp on maintenance - as a result the cars end up being badly maintained, resulting in breakdowns not because of the car being less reliable, but because it hasn't been kept well maintained. If you buy such a car, the cost can be truly staggering, because you end up having to put right years of non-maintenance.
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 29,525
- Location
- Mittel England
- Car
- Smart ForFour AMG Black Series Night Edition Premium Plus 125 Powered by Brabus
Coffee?? He'll probably want a splash of something in it - an alcoholic I reckon. He's always asking for...
...the Bells, the Bells
It's a very reasonable assertion. The Amercian consumer reports organisation (similar to our Which) rated the electronic reliability of the W220 as poor, their lowest rating. Instrument cluster problems are well known for example.
Some parts cost no more than E class stuff but things like hydropneumatic struts are over £700 each or Bilsteins £430 plus vat at ECP.On high mileage cars the shocks and suspension arms are just the sort of things that are going to need replacing.
adam
Last edited:
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
We'll have to agree to disagree. Neither CR or Which get much points from me for the scientific accuracy/credibility of their reviews, especially not for segments like the s-class where the statistical relevance of their data wouldn't pass the test in a first year graduate course.
Apart from sample size and composition problems, their rankings are based on an opaque ranking system. For example, does a pixel failure on an instrument cluster really qualify as severe as a breakdown that totally immobilises the car? None of these consumer organisations uses an accepted, standardised scheme for assessment and ranking in this respect.
And while for example instrument cluster problems are indeed reported for the s-class, the majority of users still never has experienced one (and I am amongst those).
In contrast to CR reports, for example, Forbes refers to the 220 chassis cars as "built remarkably well".
Have you read the CR reports over the W220 production run ?
I have stated that I don't think it's possible to run one of these high mileage cars cheaply due to it's high complexity and electronics content. Price some parts up and it's clearly a factually correct statement.
adam
Last edited:
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
Which ones?
I read (some?) of their published reports and the Fortune report on the reports.Which ones?
It's a subscription service like Which. Clearly you've only read the conclusions not the detail.
I think I'm OK at interpreting the presentation of data, I've got a degree in Economics !
At the end of the day something controlled by electronics, like for example a seat, is going to be more problematic than one moved by levers once a car is older.
Access can also be a problem on complex cars. One infamous example being the W140 air con evaporator which is listed as a 20 hour dash out job by Mercedes and on an older car will certainly need doing at some point. On a simpler C-Class it's easy to do.
adam
I should probably state here that I'm not anti-W220. I would rather have a 1999 S-class than a 1999 W210 E-class.The S is superior in every area from looks to anti-corrosion. Ideally one should find a car that has had plenty of new suspension parts fitted.
The running costs should be no higher than a BMW 540i.
adam
The running costs should be no higher than a BMW 540i.
adam
Last edited:
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
No, I have read the full articles - I just thought you were referring to something else from them.
I'll refrain from making a comment on that
.You're confusing two issues: obviously, if you have more components, and given an equal probability for any single component to go wrong, then you'll end up with more problems. The other aspect though is relevance. Not all failures of all components take a car out of commission. And of course the per-component reliability has been increasing over the last decades.
Also, don't believe that mechanical components cannot fail, in fact a purely electronical component will have a lesser MTBF than a purely mechanical one.
Right, but this is a different topic - nothing to do with reliability per se.
Here is what the problem is with CR and Which and the like: they use very crude models that aren't properly peer reviewed and that use only very crude differentiation (they weigh different types of malfunctions to express the fact that not all failures are as crippling as others) based on 2 or 3 grades and they have no way of normalising or otherwise proofing the data they get from their members. No scientist would touch such data with a barge pole. Despite that, it has *some* relevance, but that relevance is only really there where the data set is big enough. For luxury models such as the s-class, that is definitely not the case and you end up with a sample that is not even remotely statistically relevant.
Yes, s-classes do go wrong, as anything else made by humans. And because they now have components that didn't exist before, you'll see "new" types of failures.
There are other factors, like for example the fact that expectations of owners is higher for higher segment cars, etc, but I think this has already become a too long post
.I have only ever had one total breakdown of any of the s-classes that I have owned (W116, W126, V140 and V220) and that was when the timing chain on my V140 broke and put the car on the graveyard. That type of breakdown was neither related to the new car electronics nor was it a new failure for that type of Mercedes engines. Again, obviously my personal experience is not statistically relevant either, but it does illustrate a few of the points I was making above.
Guido,
Interesting reading and you do make some very good points, but I can also see precisely where Adam is coming from.
Bluntly, the V/W220 is a fantastic car, and certainly not unreliable 'per se', but due to it's very complex nature (it has to be from a design point of view), it presents a far greater chance of suffering from some sort of fault than with a less complex car.
It stands to reason that all things being equal, a car with twice as many components must surely be more likely to fail than that of one with half as many?
It doesn't make the S-class unreliable for what it is, but makes it less reliable by design than a not so complex vehicle.
The chance of physically 'breaking down' and rendering the vehicle immobile may well be similar to a lower specified model though.
Will
Interesting reading and you do make some very good points, but I can also see precisely where Adam is coming from.
Bluntly, the V/W220 is a fantastic car, and certainly not unreliable 'per se', but due to it's very complex nature (it has to be from a design point of view), it presents a far greater chance of suffering from some sort of fault than with a less complex car.
It stands to reason that all things being equal, a car with twice as many components must surely be more likely to fail than that of one with half as many?
It doesn't make the S-class unreliable for what it is, but makes it less reliable by design than a not so complex vehicle.
The chance of physically 'breaking down' and rendering the vehicle immobile may well be similar to a lower specified model though.
Will
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
Well, I acknowledged that when I said that all other things being equal, adding more components to a system will indeed increase the chance for something to go wrong.
In practice, however, not all things are equal. Modern electronics are a lot more reliable (but probably less "fixable" with a soldering iron
) and some aspects of modern design actually reduce the chance of problems. The networking in cars like the W140 and the W220 is actually a lot more reliable than a more traditional wiring system would have been for the same components.People tend to focus on examples such as electric seats, but in reality mechanical seat adjustments go wrong as well: cables snap, levers break off. But it makes for a better story to claim that it's only electrical systems that fail - which is just not true. The problems I have ever had with my cars have been of mechanical nature, not electrical ones.
Not necessarily, it depends on the probability of failure per individual component, which is something that has improved - technology does evolve.
But of course all of us are to a certain extend guessing as to what the real MTBF is for an s-class. I suspect Mercedes has a number showing that somewhere but I doubt they will share it.
My real point in the discussion is that from a science point of view, the CR and Which approach to trying and estimating that for an s-class is rather severely flawed.
glojo
Hardcore MB Enthusiast
I agree with the last three 
posts and perhaps the US market is more demanding?? I say this as SBC is a prime example, the US press, public and most magazines slate it?? I tend to take with a huge pinch of salt most critiques and perhaps they are all guilty of copying each other. Our 211 has had its fair share of electrical problems but it also has more gadgets than any car we have ever owned. As Will has said the more gadgets that are fitted, the bigger the risk of something letting you down. Would I want the innards, or comfort of a 124, or would I choose the comforts of a 211?
John
posts and perhaps the US market is more demanding?? I say this as SBC is a prime example, the US press, public and most magazines slate it?? I tend to take with a huge pinch of salt most critiques and perhaps they are all guilty of copying each other. Our 211 has had its fair share of electrical problems but it also has more gadgets than any car we have ever owned. As Will has said the more gadgets that are fitted, the bigger the risk of something letting you down. Would I want the innards, or comfort of a 124, or would I choose the comforts of a 211? John
That's why I carefully worded 'all things being equal'
For example, two cars:
Both identical models, made with identical parts.
One of the cars has options and features fitted to it that the other doesn't.
Parking sensors, heated seats, electrical folding mirrors, electric rear seats, soft closing on doors etc.
This car by design has more that can go wrong, and would be more likely to suffer from a failure - as nice as it would be to own
I think that's what sums up the S-class to me, as reliable (and possibly more so in some ways?
) as any other MB, but more likely to have expensive failures than some models due to it's complexity.Will
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
This car by design has more that can go wrong, and would be more likely to suffer from a failure - as nice as it would be to own
I think that is a reasonable assumption, but it doesn't mean that it actually matters from an ownership perspective: if the increased probability of something going wrong is small enough, it will not surface during most cars' lifetime. The increased probability of something going wrong does not mean it will happen on every or even most cars - that is something I'm sure you and Adam understand but many average readers of Which and the like don't seem to get that
.I think that's what sums up the S-class to me, as reliable (and possibly more so in some ways?
All first models of every new generation s-class are probably introducing a new level of complexity, but of course soon other models adopt these technologies as well. I don't think a W211 is much less complex than my s-class, for example.
I do think there is some evidence though that some of the cost cutting and savings on quality that Mercedes has been guilty of in the lower end models has not happened, or not to the same extent, in the s-class, not in the least because there is more money spent on them and they are after all flagship models.
Also, it's early days but it seems that Mercedes is picking itself up again in terms of build quality and that is obviously something I can only be happy about.
- Joined
- Mar 12, 2005
- Messages
- 7,612
- Location
- Cheshire, UK
- Car
- C270CDi Estate (late 2004 facelift model) - Bought 2005, Sold 2022.
Electronic components do age though, and will start to fail with increasing frequency as the car gets older. Cars are not good environments for electronics with vibration and variable temperatures.
If you've got one electronic module then you might get away with it - if you've got 50+ then you probably won't.
MBManInKen
MB Enthusiast
So do mechanical components
.Actually, a well sealed and well build electronic component will stand that better than a mechanical one.
As I said before, cars have routinely and for a long time been fitted with more and more electronics. Yes, more components mean more things to go wrong (but often with less per component probability), so the total is not linear as the above suggests.
If it were, no one would have been able to drive either the V140 or the current V220 for more than a few months without anything going wrong, and that is not what the numbers show
.No, I have read the full articles - I just thought you were referring to something else from them.
I'll refrain from making a comment on that
You're confusing two issues: obviously, if you have more components, and given an equal probability for any single component to go wrong, then you'll end up with more problems. The other aspect though is relevance. Not all failures of all components take a car out of commission. And of course the per-component reliability has been increasing over the last decades.
Also, don't believe that mechanical components cannot fail, in fact a purely electronical component will have a lesser MTBF than a purely mechanical one.
Right, but this is a different topic - nothing to do with reliability per se.
Here is what the problem is with CR and Which and the like: they use very crude models that aren't properly peer reviewed and that use only very crude differentiation (they weigh different types of malfunctions to express the fact that not all failures are as crippling as others) based on 2 or 3 grades and they have no way of normalising or otherwise proofing the data they get from their members. No scientist would touch such data with a barge pole. Despite that, it has *some* relevance, but that relevance is only really there where the data set is big enough. For luxury models such as the s-class, that is definitely not the case and you end up with a sample that is not even remotely statistically relevant.
Yes, s-classes do go wrong, as anything else made by humans. And because they now have components that didn't exist before, you'll see "new" types of failures.
There are other factors, like for example the fact that expectations of owners is higher for higher segment cars, etc, but I think this has already become a too long post
I have only ever had one total breakdown of any of the s-classes that I have owned (W116, W126, V140 and V220) and that was when the timing chain on my V140 broke and put the car on the graveyard. That type of breakdown was neither related to the new car electronics nor was it a new failure for that type of Mercedes engines. Again, obviously my personal experience is not statistically relevant either, but it does illustrate a few of the points I was making above.
I'm not sure what peer review got to do with it, it's not a scientific survey.The CR survey is large enough to be statistically relevant for a luxury class comparison with other cars in the same class. It's a comparison not a survey of the statistical chance of failure.
On an older car I'll take a mechanical mechanism over an electromechanical one like a seat motor with switches and gears because the former is easier to repair and doesn't degrade so much with age.The marginal benefit is not worth the additional complexity.
adam
