( He has a point )
FRANKFURT, Germany (Reuters) - The chief of DaimlerChrysler, which just
days ago announced the biggest recall in its history, says the company
made mistakes in its supply management, a German magazine reports.
CEO Juergen Schrempp told Der Spiegel magazine that "it was wrong to
rely fully and completely on system suppliers who supply a complete
navigation system or an engine management system."
Daimler last week recalled 1.3 million Mercedes vehicles.
In the interview, Schrempp said Chrysler chief Dieter Zetsche's
opposition to his plan to keep a financial lifeline open for Mitsubishi
does not mean Zetsche cannot become his successor.
"That is complete nonsense," Schrempp said, when asked that many people
think Zetsche has no chance to become CEO because they disagreed on
"It's not the style of this company or mine that the decisions made in
certain committees have any sort of relevance on the career of a
management board member."
Zetsche opposed Schrempp's lobbying to keep providing money for
Japanese ally Mitsubishi Motors. Daimler's board cut off additional
financial support for Mitsubishi in April 2004.
Schrempp, who once again defended his record as chief executive despite
the billions lost in restructuring Chrysler and Mitsubishi, said that
under his reign shareholders have received an total return of about 6
Last week, Daimler said it will spend up to 1.2 billion euros in 2005
to revamp its ailing Smart car brand.
Personally, I believe this is MBZ's biggest problem; that is, losing quality
control by relying too much on outsourced suppliers. I was invited to
participate in a forum last week where M-Class owners were interviewed for
an MBZ video production to be used to train its suppliers on why quality is
important. I was quite surprised at some of the questions I was asked as
they definitely were soliciting negative feedback. I guess it's a good sign
that they realize there is a problem.
There is no inherent problem in quality control due to outsourcing.
It's a question of monitoring and testing all the process, systems and
components that are outsourced. This is called quality assurance and
is key regardless of who is making the components.
quality problems isn't appropriate and still is worrisome. When you
buy a system from someone else, it's ultimately your responsibility and
your problem if there's something wrong with it...
It will take years to undo the damage started with the M class quality
problems and then worsened with the C class cars. Don't even get me started
on recent S class problems. With BMW cornering (inadvertent pun) the
performance market and Lexus the price/value market all MBZ has at this time
is the fading luster of the 3 pointed star. Their market at this time seems
to be those for whom money is no object (S class) and upscale wannabes (M
and C class). Before the merger I predicted Chrysler quality and MBZ design,
sadly that has come to pass.
1972 280SEL 4.5
OK, so let me get this straight. You say the quality decline began with the
M-Class and that you predicted quality would decline with the Chrysler
buyout? So you must also have predicted the Chrysler buyout since the
M-Class was designed and built before that? Or are you saying that quality
got worse with the M-Class and then worse again with the Chrysler buyout?
And by the way, why would MBZ buying Chrysler cause a decline in quality
since? It's not as if they have used *any* technology, people or processes
from Chrysler in MBZ - it's just recently been the other way around.
I guess my belief is that MBZ at some time decided to move more to the model
of designing and selling to a price point rather than building the car
within reasonable design constrains and selling it for a price within those
constraints. Most auto makers organize their business model around the price
point now and MBZ probably needed to do it in order to survive. They just
don't seem to do it as well as the competition.
But whatever. MBZ quality is what it is. And the market will decide.
On 2005-04-04 14:00:36 -0700, email@example.com said:
A significant problem for mercedes quality is probably the blind
ignorance of mercedes customers. This has allowed mercedes to make
inferior quality products and sell them at a premium price.
Chrysler cars are actually of decent build quality these days, and they
certainly could make an engine for future mercedes cars.
I own a 97 E320, bought new, touted by Consumers, et al, as 'recommended,
above average reliability'. One article touted it as nearly perfect....
In time, we all know that has been incredibly wrong. Last year alone, I put
nearly $8,000 in repairs: Tranny electronics (o ring went bad and a 't'
fluid leak fried the electronics, also AC condenser went). My purchase was
based on having the car for the long haul. Street value on this car is
poor- however this is my mistake, no one else to blame. BTW, I no longer
use MB service- my mechanic is an ex MB tech and only works on MB.
Anyone that buys one NOW, that's another story. Lease it, enjoy it, and
walk away from it. Don't look back.
Same goes for my 98 ML320- (Hey, Rodney!). Rated great at first but over
time, unreliable even with the Star Mark Warranty. Last month
Every month brings with it something new with one car or the other.
Shremmp's comments might ring true in terms of how well he's done for the
stock holders, but that's got to catch up. He ought to approach the
disgruntled customers he's screwed and offer some assistance in terms of
discounted service or a discount towards a new MB. Wouldn't that show some
good faith to his customers to win back some loyalty as well as possible new
Once again, time will tell if it turns into either another Audi 5000....
I would definitely not use the dealership one the vehicle is out of
warranty - on *any* brand. They are always overpriced and often don't have
the expertise to solve uncommon problems.
The last ten or so cars we've driven have been lease. I bought my ML at the
end of the lease last year because (1) I really like it and (2) I could not
find anything suitable as a replacement. The Touareg was the closest
consideration, but I'd never buy a first-year model of anything. I plan to
hang onto the ML for at least another year or two. I plan to see how the
new W164 fares, and also if VW gets their act together with the Touareg. Of
course the next SUV will probably be driven by my wife, so who knows what
she will want.
I'd be interested to hear what problems you are having. The usual pattern
for the ML is that once the initial poor-quality outsourced parts were
replaced with redesigned components, the vehicles seem to be very reliable
in the long run. I know the last 20K miles on mine (2001 ML320) have been
pretty much worry-free, but the first 35K miles were a bit rough. Of course
one of my most serious problems turned out to be the dumbest thing; it
sounded as if the suspension was falling apart, and it ended up being
nothing more than a loose hood latch (you'd never believe how well that hood
acts like a huge amplifier for sound).
Do you mean transfer case? Was it a leak, because that was a common problem
and an easy fix. The other common transfer case problem is a lack of use of
low range causing components atrophy (usually the shifting servo).
Keep in mind you are driving 8 and 9 year old vehicles. Parts will wear out
(especially if you live in the snow belt with all that salt) and there will
also be plenty of maintenance items, like MAF's, O2 sensors, etc. I know a
failed transmission is not normal, but I believe you were just an
unfortunate victim of a very unusual problem.
Assuming that everyone in the company is doing an adequate job, it means
that the quality we get as customers is based on the profit point the
shareholders require to let the CEO keep his job. In order to improve
quality and maintain current profitability, it means raising prices. How
much more are you willing to pay for that quality? 10%? 20%? I don't know
what the right number is, but quality is not free. Also, you have to
evaluate what you consider to be "quality". Is it fewer defects per
thousand? Is it fewer defects per mile? Is it initial quality vs.
longevity? It's not as simple as just saying that we demand higher quality.
We have to define our expectations.
Personally, I see the later model MBZ vehicles as some of the most
technologically complex, cutting-edge machines that have ever been subjected
to the severe tortures of the road. My expectation of quality is that the
vehicle requires a minor number of adjustments that are corrected the first
time, and other than minor maintenance and the occasional part failure, the
vehicle continues to function with the same level of safety and performance
as it did when new for at least 200K miles or about 15 years. I would
expect that within this time frame, that the overall maintenance cost of the
vehicle would be less than 20% of its initial cost. To me, that is the
definition of quality.
LOL! Speaking of Audi, my wife has an A6 and loves it. It has been for the
most part, trouble-free in over 35K miles. Other than brake problems (which
have been covered under warranty), my only big complaint is that the
plastic components in the interior could be of better quality. We've had
latches to break on the armrest storage cover, cupholder, and first aid kit
I'm with you on first year models.. same went for my Volvo S80...same for
dealership rates.. I'm here in NJ- we do get some snow and the roads are
sanded.. not salted....
We bought the E at lease end because we loved it as well.. in the case of
this car, was it the condenser/evaporator? The part behind the glove
compartment, a know problem. The tranny problem is something else... an 'o'
ring failed, fluid dripped into the control box.. (something along those
lines)....computer problems, etc.
With the ML, the differential was whining and had to be replaced as well as
ball joints, some other part that is part of the drive shaft which is
supposed to turn.. etc..
I've had Volvo's (740's, 240's, 245's) as well as a Subaru GL, these 4 cars
ran great with few, if any problems, other than brakes, regular maint.,
etc... all to about 150,000 miles - and 10+ years.....
These cars are at about 80k... it's not small stuff, it's major stuff that
goes wrong. I have friends that have older MB's and none have the trouble
I've had. It's a combination of new models along with late 90's vehicles,
that seem to have hammered their reputation... it's sad, especially when you
look down the driveway, like I do...
That's the evaporator, and yes, it sounds familiar as that having been a
I'm, not aware of this being a common problem. As unfortunate as it is,
O-rings do fail sometimes. I would not consider that any sort of symptom of
chronic quality problems. I would, however, consider the evaporator problem
to be one.
I think what they replaced was the center differential, which was a known
problem in early ML's. It was designed to provide a 50/50 torque split,
which caused some noise and vibration, so it was revised for a 48/52 (or
thereabouts) torque split. Rear ball joints were also a known issue. I am
surprised your ML went 80K miles with these issues not having been resolved.
These normally appeared well before the original 50K mile warranty.
The drive shaft problem is likely either the hanger bearing or universal
joints, both of which *are* going to fail during the life of the vehicle,
although 80K miles is a bit soon (I'd expect at least 100K miles of service
They just don't have the "right" models. Older MBZ's were plagued with
different problems. Door closers failing on the "S" models, vacuum leaks on
the diesels, steering problems, suspension and rust problems. It just
depends on the model.
I agree, but just in case you think is just MBZ, go take a visit on the BMW,
Audi, or even the Lexus boards. All you hear about are problems! Why?
Because you can only talk about how great your car is for so long before it
gets boring! it's more interesting to talk about problems and how to solve
The R-Class smacks of the Pacifica because there seems to be a demand for
that type of vehicle, i.e. a touring wagon that seats six adults in
luxurious comfort. MBZ has decided that they can make a profit by building
such a vehicle. They probably will. While it's design isn't for everyone,
just like with the CLS, or the CLK, or the C-Class coupe, there's a market
for it. As for using a Chrysler engine or any Chrysler components, I doubt
we would ever see that as it does not make sense in the market. I could see
a future where MBZ and Chrysler jointly develop components (which in reality
would probably mean MBZ designs them and they get built in Chrysler
factories), but I do not see any valid business reason to use Chrysler
components in a Mercedes-Benz vehicle.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.