I think we shouldn't confuse premium with luxury
My recollection of MB from the 60s and 70s is that they built rock solid cars that were very reliable, and could be run for decades.
But not all their cars were made for Dictators and Plutocrars. MB also made large quantities of some rather basic models, including the 190 that was replaced by the 220 (in 1969, from memory) and later by the 240, available also with a 4-pot NA Diesel engine, with minimal spec and seats coveted in durable plastic (MB-Tex). In those days they were certainly premium cars... better-engineered and better-built than the rest. But there was nothing luxurious about them.
These cars served as taxis in Europe, then found their way to Africa and the Middle East where they were repaired over and over again for many years and many hundreds of thousands of miles.
MB no longer make cars that are a cut above the rest in terms of engineering, build quality, and durability. Instead, they make cars that can be described, at best, as above average.
Is there a space in the market - or indeed a need - for a mass-produced 'premium' car brand? It's questionable.
Over the years we have replaced many of the solid-built durable expensive goods for cheaper ones, and cars are no different.
For example, in the past wealthy people bought top-brand watched because it was a solid economic proposition to pay more for a watch that will last them for a lifetime and that they will then leave to their children. These days expensive watches are bought for very many reasons, but the above is rarely one of them.
So, would you pay more these days for a solid-built new car that will last for 30 years....?
A bigger range means that they have simply broadened their customer base.
