• The Forums are now open to new registrations, adverts are also being de-tuned.

Which year daimler took over MB ?

delb0y

Active Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2006
Messages
355
Location
UK
Car
W124 300 E // W211 320 cdi
Hi folks

im looking to buy a nice C class or E .. can someone please tell me when daimler took over merc..

cheers
 
That would be 1926.... well before any C or E class cars were built......

From Wikipedia.....

Daimler-Benz AG was a German manufacturer of automobiles, motor vehicles, and engines which was founded in 1926. An Agreement of Mutual Interest—which was valid until year 2000—was signed on May 1, 1924 between Karl Benz's Benz & Cie. and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft, which had been founded by Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach. Daimler had died in 1900 and Maybach had left in 1907.
Both companies continued to manufacture their separate automobile and internal combustion engine brands until, on June 28, 1926, when Benz & Cie. and Daimler Motoren Gesellschaft formally merged—becoming Daimler-Benz AG—and agreed that thereafter, all of the factories would use the brand name of Mercedes-Benz on their automobiles.

In 1998 Daimler-Benz AG bought the American automobile manufacturer Chrysler Corporation, and formed DaimlerChrysler AG. When the Chrysler group was sold off to Cerberus Capital Management and renamed Chrysler LLC in August, 2007, the name of the parent company was changed to simply Daimler AG within two months.
 
I think you mean when did MB take over chrysler? that was in 1998.

If you're trying to know when mercedes starting building crappy cars then i think it was around the time after the production of the W201 190E series stopped (around 1993). An MB spokesmen said that the W201 was too 'over-engineered' and that was the last time they were going to do such a thing.
 
thanks guys yeah meant when chrysler took over... so i guess i can say goodbye to a nice c class ive seen on a v reg :(
 
The W202 was designed before Chrysler became involved and shares many features common to the W201 and the W124. Apart from some dodgy paint and rust proofing, they are fine cars.
 
I'm not going to moan about my 51 reg W203.... they obviously remembered to rust-proof and paint mine.....

Best car I've ever owned.

By far.

.
 
Daimler-Benz took over Chrysler, not vice-versa. But that came after the point when most people reckon MB quality started to take a dive, which was mid-1990s.

Whether the wiring-loom problem of the early-to-mid 1990s should be regarded as part of that is questionable. Some point to the advent of water-based paint in August 1995, but there are those (including bodyshop people) who do not regard it as a significant factor. What is clear is that extensive body rot featured in the W210 E-class, which arrived in 1996, and that problem has been accompanied by others in all subequent models, to varying degrees, through to 2003. It is said that things have got better from 2004 onwards, but perhaps the jury is still out.

The models that spanned the 1990s and seem to have escaped the general quality problem are the R129 and the W140, the former seeming to be particularly bullet proof (although not entirely immune) and the latter pretty good as long as some of its complexities don't fail. Most people seem to agree that the W201 was very well built to traditional MB standards; many regard the W124 as MB at their peak.

Why the problems? I tend to believe those who say the accountants elbowed out the engineers.
 
W202's are good cars mate, i've got one and they are very easy to maintain and never go wrong.

The pre-facelift W202's (before 1998) have a tendancy to rust alot less though. wheel arches and bootlock.
 
What is clear is that extensive body rot featured in the W210 E-class, which arrived in 1996, and that problem has been accompanied by others in all subequent models,

Later model W124 also suffered with bad rust, possibly worse than W210 cars as W210 rust at the edges, hence it's called 'raw edge corrosion', whereas W124 would rust in the centre of panels and underneath a lot more.
 
Thanks for all the input guys reason for my post is. I have a w203 and had nothing but problems and still ongoing fix one thing and another breaks.. im also starting to see some surface rust :( cars already been in once for a respray due to rust .. i guess they just dont make em like they used to.
 
The pre-facelift W202's (before 1998) have a tendancy to rust alot less though. wheel arches and bootlock.

I think you will find its the other way round...!

Early W202s are likely to have some tiny area's of rust, where as later do good impressions of W210s.


Early W202s are basically more modern W124s anyway the amount of parts they share
 
I think you will find its the other way round...!

Early W202s are likely to have some tiny area's of rust, where as later do good impressions of W210s.


Early W202s are basically more modern W124s anyway the amount of parts they share

Are you sure you read Adams post right? You both said the same thing!
 
I'm trying to understand why MB got the rust issue so badly wrong when other makes, not as prestige or expensive, don't have a problem!
Comparing my previous MB, an '03 CLK with the other car I had at the time, an '01 Volvo S60 was remarkable. The CLK had rust spots beginning to form on front wings and the rear wheel arches and corrosion on the alloys and yet the 2 years older Volvo was as clean as the day it was new. No rust, no corroded alloys. What do Volvo, Ford etc etc know about rust proofing Mercedes don't - or do MB just not care??

Just hope my supposedly galvanised E Class fares better!
 
I'm trying to understand why MB got the rust issue so badly wrong when other makes, not as prestige or expensive, don't have a problem!

Paint problems allegedly. They had changed to water based paint.

And not being galvanised at that time meant that paint was the only protection.
 
"Later model W124 also suffered with bad rust, possibly worse than W210 cars as W210 rust at the edges, hence it's called 'raw edge corrosion', whereas W124 would rust in the centre of panels and underneath a lot more."

Not that I doubt this, but it is the very first time I have seen this mentioned anywhere. Haven't seen much of it about, either, other than the persistent problem I have with the area around the antenna aperture on my Coupé.

I've seen steel quality blamed (even mention of Russian steel), and I've heard my regular bodyshop owner expressing serious doubt that water-based paint is the explanation. I've also seen poor workmanship blamed.

I did notice the difference between my old Audi's galvanized paintwork and the paint on the first Coupé I bought in 1999 (a 1995 car). The Audi was ten years old and had one pin-hole of rust on the bonnet and an uncorroded deep vandal scratch through to the undercoat -- it seemd to bee a far more robust finish altogether.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom