My problems with Mercedes-Benz E200K W211

[Merc_owner]

Being an ardent admirer of the three-pointed star, and a lucky owner of a Mercedes, I was looking forward to the renovation in the model line. And the inevitable occurred! The new model saw the light. I was one of the first to purchase in December 2002 the long-awaited Mercedes-Benz E-Class, Avantgarde integration, engine E-200 Kompressor from an official representative of Mercedes-Benz Daimler Chrysler. The exterior of the vehicle proved to be outstanding and beautiful, not blatant - true representative class. I was one of the first owners of the model in my city, and I was beyond myself with pride. Other auto owners looked at it with envy and interest at the same time. Some of them would come up to me and ask about novelties, engineering solutions, and general impressions.
But the future brought the problems I had neither wanted nor expected from a Mercedes. Below you will find a short list of deficiencies, which arouse in the process of exploitation. I must also mention that although the car was bought in December 2002, I kept it for three months in the garage in perfect conditions. The automobile was put into use in March 2003.
July 18, 2003
Run - 2584 km.
First visit to the service station.
In the early morning I left my home, got into my car and tried to start it, but nothing of the sort! The engine wouldn't start. I turned off the ignition system; and after the second attempt I achieved the desired result. The engine started working, but not without fault, I could feel strong vibration. The engine constantly knocked. Since it was impossible to run the automobile in that condition, I had to address the service station of the regional Mercedes-Benz dealer.
The diagnostics revealed breakage of the oxygen lambda particle sensor till the catalyst.
Result: recommendation to replace the lambda particle sensor.
August 8, 2003.
Run - 3661 km.
Second visit to the service station.
The engine started working irregularly again, it conked.
The diagnostics revealed breakage of the oxygen lambda particle sensor.
Result: the lambda particle sensor had to be replaced.
August 14, 2003
Run: 3984 km.
Third visit to the service station.
In accordance with the previous diagnostics results and recommendations the oxygen lambda particle sensor was replaced.
September 23, 2003
Run: 6683 km.
Fourth visit to the service station.
Noise and substantial rattle in the front suspension, the vehicle became unstable on the road. Oil spots began to appear occasionally under the car. I had to address the service station of the regional Mercedes-Benz dealer again.
The diagnostics revealed: trailing arms of the front axle failed. (This kind of breakage usually happens after 100000 km. run).
Result: the failed arms were replaced.

October 13, 2003.
Run: 7959 km.
Fifth visit to the service station.
Again I could hear strong noise in front and from the rear of the vehicle in motion. I had to address the service station of the regional Mercedes-Benz dealer.
The diagnostics revealed: shock-absorbers had broken down.
Result: two front and two rear shock-absorbers were replaced. Also two shock-absorber bearers were replaced. (This kind of breakage usually happens after 150000 km. run).
November 14, 2003
Run: 11369 km.
Sixth visit to the service station.
The audio system and the mobile phone turned off spontaneously. When the audio system was on, I could hear outside noise and din.
The diagnostics revealed electronic error of AGW, malfunction of the mobile phone support.
Result: recommendation to replace the AGW control unit and the mobile phone console.
December 1, 2003
Run: 12151 km.
Seventh visit to the service station.
Lubricant leakage at the center of the left wheel.
The diagnostics revealed: leakage at the center of the left front wheel.
Result: the leakage was eliminated; the bearing of the left center was pulled tight.
December 24, 2003
Run: 13743 km.
Eighth visit to the service station.
2374 km. after the vehicle inspection another case of disrepair revealed. The display panel constantly showed the message, accompanied by sound signal, informing that the level of oil in the engine was too high.
The diagnostics revealed: the level of oil was normal; it was electronic error. The reason of the malfunction was the faultiness of the oil level sensor.
Result: recommendation to replace the oil level sensor. In accordance with the previous diagnostics and the replacement recommendation the amplifier (AGW control board) and the mobile phone console were replaced.
January 10, 2004
Run: 14192 km.
Ninth visit to the service station.
Noise and strong squeak when braking.
The diagnostics revealed: Noise and strong squeak in the front axle when braking.
Result: brake pads were reinstalled, but the noise and squeaking remained. In accordance with the previous diagnostics and recommendations the oil level sensor was replaced.
January 21, 2004
Run: 1468 km.
Tenth visit to the service station.
I started having problems when using the mobile phone: it turned off spontaneously, sometimes it would not turn on. From time to time the mobile phone system would stop functioning, and the automobile did not recognize the telephone.
The diagnostics revealed soft fault. The CTEL mobile phone control unit went out of order periodically.
Result: recommendation to replace the CTEL mobile phone control unit.
March 11, 2004
Run: 16200 km.
Eleventh visit to the service station.
In accordance with the previous diagnostics results and replacement recommendations the telecommunications unit (CTEL) was replaced. I would like to remind that the replacement was caused by soft fault, which led to the CTEL unstable functioning.
March 24, 2004
Run: 16720 km.
Twelfth visit to the service station.
Soft fault happened in the engine control unit as well as in the AGW communication system control unit. It happened to be difficult to start the engine, and it stalled. The display panel gave the trouble signal CHECK ENGINE. I had problems using the telephone, radio and CD player. While I was listening to the CD player, the radio would turn on spontaneously and then turn off, and the CD payer would resume working.
The diagnostics revealed soft fault in the engine control unit and in the AGW communication system control unit.
Result: codes in the engine control and the communication system (AGW) control units were changed.
May 7, 2003
Run: 19873 km.
Thirteenth visit to the service station..
I noticed noise and rumble in the chassis. Again I had to address the service station of the regional Mercedes-Benz dealer.
The diagnostics revealed: the bottom hinges of the steering knuckle went out of order.
Result: the lower left and right hinges were replaced; decreasing the length of the impingement plates eliminated the rattle in the front shock-absorber struts.
June 7, 2004
Run: 22482 km.
Fourteenth visit to the service station.
Again I observed irregular functioning of the engine, vibration. The computer sent the warning CHECK ENGINE. Also lubricant started leaking at the left hub of the front axle.
The diagnostics revealed soft fault in the engine control unit; and lubricant leakage at the left hub of the front axle. The reflector in the left fog-lamp had fallen out (defective fastening).
Result: the soft fault in the engine control unit was eliminated. The defective fastening of the reflector in the left fog-lamp was removed. The leakage at the left hub of the front axle was eliminated.
June 23, 2004
Run: 23607 km.
Fifteenth visit to the service station.
Again I observed lubricant leakage at the left front hub.
The diagnostics revealed lubricant leakage at the left front hub. Codes of the SBC (KDM) hydraulic unit were changed.
Result: the cover of the left front hub was replaced, and the leakage was eliminated. The SBC (KDM) hydraulic unit program was changed.
August 17, 2004
Run: 28000 km.
Sixteenth visit to the service station.
Lubricant leakage at the right front hub of the front axle.
The diagnostics revealed lubricant leakage at the right front hub.
Result: the cover of the right front hub was replaced, and the leakage was eliminated.
September 20, 2004
Run: 30615 km.
Seventeenth visit to the service station.
Once again I noted lubricant leakage at the right hub of the front axle. Also I could hear grinding sound when the car was in motion.
The diagnostics revealed lubricant leakage at the right front hub. The spring of the right block of the front axle had broken.
Result: the cover of the right front hub was hermetically sealed, and the leakage was eliminated. The broken spring was replaced.
September 25, 2004
Run: 30979 km.
Eighteenth visit to the service station.
When the climate control unit was on, only cold air came inside.
The diagnostics revealed air-conditioning electric system error. The stove valve had gone out of order.
Result: the stove valve was replaced, and the electric system was adjusted.
November 9, 2004
Run: 33439 km.
Nineteenth visit to the service station.
The display panel informed of the SRS system malfunction (safety bags).
When the automobile is on rough road, I can clearly hear rattle on the
chassis and in the area of the front axle.
The diagnostics revealed defective contact member in the SRS system wiring
in the right rear door.
The engine mounting rear foot had slumped.
Increased gap in the bottom right and left spherical joints.
Result: case bearer was replaced.
The bottom left and right spherical joints were replaced.
The SRS system wiring was repaired.
The top right wishbone was replaced.

Within the described space of time I had to visit the service station about 4 times a quarter.

Conclusion:
such problems with a "Mercedes-Benz" automobile made an unexpected and unpleasant surprise. But this is a proven fact. All necessary repairs were performed at the company's service station and are confirmed with documents. It is evident that most troubles came from the chassis and electric system. Such a number of serious and petty troubles in view of comparatively small run are the result of technical imperfectness of the model. On my opinion, Daimler Chrysler admitted such imperfection coming as a result of designers' carelessness or any other reasons, but this does not mean that we, the customers, should discover and eliminate their mistakes.

Willing to clear the situation, I addressed the Daimler Chrysler Company with the following letter:
Dear Sirs!

In December, 2002 from a general representative of Mercedes-Benz Daimler Chrysler AD in Bulgaria (Sophia) I purchased an automobile Mercedes-Benz E 200 Kompressor, chassis ###############, engine ############## at the price of 77255 levs (I enclose a copy of invoice).

The stated automobile was selected as a prestige automobile of the latest model.

In view of(adverse weather conditions in winter and the fact that my family also possesses an SUV, actual exploitation of the car started in March, 2003. And then I had to face great problems, and forget the thoughts about prestige, reliability and high quality of the vehicle.

When I made the decision to purchase a prestigious business class automobile from the Mercedes-Benz Company, I could hardly expect that it would prove to be of such low quality.

My disappointment was confirmed by the results of the survey carried through by the authoritative automobile club ADAC among 3446 owners of Mercedes-Benz. E-class occupied the last place by its reliability and next to last place in the general rating of "satisfaction" from the vehicle.

During the year and a half technical faultiness of the car caused its repeated diagnostics and spare parts replacement at the service station (Copies of reports are enclosed).

Taking into consideration that the purchased automobile Mercedes-Benz E 211 Kompressor is technically defective and has insignificant run - less than 22000km. - I require that you substitute the low-quality vehicle for a technically completed model of Mercedes. If your company makes the decision to substitute the automobile, I will be able to see that Mercedes-Benz concern highly esteems its reputation and sets a high value on its image.

In case there is no possibility to substitute the vehicle for a new one, I would ask you to extend the warranty till December, 2005. Also, I ask you to inform me of your decision promptly, so that I could defend my interests in court.
Here is the response I obtained:
Dear Mr. ##############!

Having thoroughly studied the requests you set forth in your complaint to Daimler Chrysler AG, and having analysed the standards of Ukrainian law, we inform of the following:
In correspondence with the demands of paragraph 5, article 13 of the Ukrainian law "On the defence of consumers rights" #1033-XII from 05.12.1991 (consolidated) the guarantee period of your automobile increases only by the period of time it spent at warranty repair. According to the guarantee orders from our dealer, your automobile spent 15 days at the service station.

As for replacing the automobile, we can offer you the so-called "Trade-In" system. You will have to address our dealer that will evaluate your vehicle and ascertain the integration of a new one. You will have to pay the difference between the price of your car and a new one.
In the second letter to the Company I expressed dissatisfaction with this decision:
Dear ###############!

I am glad to be able to come in contact with you again. And I would like to thank you that my letter to Daimler Chrysler from 06.27.04 concerning the problems with my automobile Mercedes-Benz E200K received your attention.

Just as you promised me in your letter from June 24, 2004, I was contacted by Mr.##############, Service Manager of your General Agency in Ukraine, ########## Company. After long talks I was offered the following way to solve my problem. The ##########l Company informed me of the possibility to extend the warranty for my vehicle by 15 days.

I am not satisfied with this decision of the Daimler Chrysler and ########### companies. In response to my reclamation you promised me to take all necessary steps to reassert the reputation of Daimler Chrysler - I can quote your letter: " …in order to discuss all necessary steps to regain confidence in our product."

Extending the warranty by 15 days or the "Trade-In" scheme are not the way to reassert the confidence of a regular customer and to give my automobile due quality. I have to insist on replacing my low-quality automobile with a technically complete one.

Also I would like to mention that I own one more automobile Mercedes-Benz E220 produced in 1995, and I am completely satisfied with its performance. I regard your refusal to substitute the low-quality automobile with a technically complete one as an injury to my consumer's right to obtain a quality product.

At the moment I know in detail at least two cases similar to mine. To protect my consumer rights and those of other automobile owners, as well as future buyers, I intend to create an international multi-language (Ukrainian, Russian, German, English, Bulgarian, Japanese, Korean) web site devoted to cases of selling technically defective automobiles of different make. At this site I will expound all documentally verified facts on this problem.

In view of the present juncture of things I am going to take all necessary steps, up to a lawsuit, to protect my interests.
This letter received a reply, too.
Dear Mr. ############!

Regarding your letter from 08.13.04 to Daimler Chrysler AG we would like to inform you of the following: when you bought your automobile you were given a 2-year guarantee from the date of the first registration of the automobile without the run limit. During this period Daimler Chrysler AG undertakes to perform gratis all necessary work to eliminate any malfunction arising through the fault of the factory of origin. This has been minutely performed by our regional dealer in ##################. Thus, the commitment given by Daimler Chrysler AG has been well met. As for prolongation of the guarantee term, Daimler Chrysler AG does not provide for this. Nevertheless, in accordance with the Ukrainian law, the general representative of Daimler Chrysler AG, ############, offered to prolong your guarantee on their own responsibility. Besides, in order to solve the conflict, we offered you the "Trade-In" scheme to replace the automobile since it is already a year and a half that the vehicle has been in use, which resulted in natural deterioration.
Unfortunately, as we have figured out from your letter, none of the variants we offered seems suitable for you, and you insist on replacing your automobile without additional payment. In this case, we must inform you that the matters of replacing an automobile are within competence of the seller, and we advise you to address the company in Bulgaria that sold you the vehicle.
In case you have any other suggestions to solve this conflict, we are ready to look into them.

This means that prolonging the guarantee term by 15 days can compensate buying a defective automobile. And after the guarantee term expires, I will have to repair for my own money the vehicle, which goes out of order so often. On my opinion, the only fair way to solve this problem is to replace the technically faulty model by a technically complete one, and this is what I demand from the producer.


I insist on replacing my automobile, but Daimler Chrysler refuses.
The guarantee term expires in February 2005.
If anybody may have doubts, they can visit this website. I supply documents to prove all my words: http://www.auto-master.com.ua/eng/merc_e.html

[josiebaby]

Without wanting to add fuel to your fire, can I respectfully ask if you've had the "Service Measures" carried out yet? These are a series of updates to be made to the Command, Audio, Telephone, checking fuel pipes, checking the injectors and of course, the SBC braking that everyone has no doubt heard about. You will not be contacted about these (apart from the initial SBC "recall"). They will be checked by the dealer when you go in for a service or any repair work. They were introduced approx. October/November 2004. Just wondering.

[Merc_owner]

2josiebaby

I am afraid I don't fully understand what you mean. If you are speaking about regular vehicle inspection, I always do this on time, when fuel pipes are checked, and filters are replaced. I visited the service station on October and November for repairs, but I was not told about any special measures.
thanks

[Merc_owner]

Also I would like to add that I have 2 friends/ acquaintances with similar cases. They possess MBs W211, which only differ in the type of engine. But they break just the same way; which makes me think my automobile is not "a white crow", and Mercedes-Benz is systematically producing technically imperfect vehicles. This is a serious statement, and I hope that Daimler Chrysler reacts to it and tries to content it.

[josiebaby]

They are the "P" series of updates, P015,P016,P017 etc. Ask your dealer about them.

[Merc_owner]

I am absolutely embarassed, but I have no information about this "P" series, and I couldn't find anything on the web! Could you give me some more information, or a link??
thanks so much in advance

[josiebaby]

I tell you what, send me your chassis number and I'll see if any apply to your vehicle. It may just be that they're implementing them over here. E-mail it to me privately if you want

[Merc_owner]

2josiebaby!
Thank you for your assistance, I contacted my dealer. I think, everything will be done.
But I have another question to you, maybe you can help me here again.
As you could see, I am having a lot of problems with my automobile. It makes me think I am an unlucky buyer of a defective vehicle; and the number of problems proves this. I lay no claims on my local dealer because all warranty repairs are duly performed. But I am completely disappointed with the way the central office treats me. My claims either remain unanswered, or are directed to the local dealer, which cannot make any decision.
Maybe, I am directing my complaits to a wrong department??
So, is there a chance you know how to contact the DCAG central complaint bureau?? Is it possible?
I don't like the idea that they just don't bother to care about their customers.
Respect,
Merc_owner

[josiebaby]

With complaints to Mercedes-Benz, they follow the below procedure (I know, as I am the one that deals with them at my dealership):
1. Customer called the Customer Assistance Centre in Maastichts (which is this number 0080017777777, I assume this is the number you have been calling). This number is the main switchboard for Mercedes-Benz, and so in the event of breakdowns etc this is the number to call as well.
2. Complaint is taken on board by a "Case Manager" who will (in theory) sympathetically listen to your complaint and ask what you feel you would like the outcome to be.
3. The Case Manager will decide whether this needs to be forwarded to the dealership or answered directly. Mostly, they forward them to the dealerships, putting the dealers in an awkward position because they then have to fight Mercedes-Benz for any kind of contribution or assistance, and usually end up shelling out for DCAG's inadequacies.
In short, the complaints department leaves a lot to be desired at DCAG, and us as dealers are not impressed with the system either. Especially as a lot of the complaints I get forwarded could be solved very quickly in house by their department. EG, I had a complaint forwarded to me the other day from a customer who simply "didn't know who to speak to" about the fact his vehicle was rusting inside to out. The CAC could have simply told him "Call your dealer and they will inspect your vehicle" but no, they had to do it the long way round.
Customer complaints are very difficult to handle without an admission of guilt so all I would say is call them directly and tell them not to forward it to the dealer, as it is a Mercedes-Benz problem, and that you wish to speak to somebody there.
I really am sorry you feel this way about both Mercedes-Benz as a company and the product. I know I am probably biased because I work for them. I see so many vehicles with faults on, being a Service Team Manager, and I have learned (and educated others) to think in terms of how many vehicles we see with regards to how many are out there on the roads all over the world. I know it doesn't help you in any way shape or form but at the end of the day, it's true, there are far more faultless vehicles than faulty. The 211, in my opinion, was brought out far too early, and as opposed to going through the strict testing reigime, it's almost as if DCAG have used the purchasers as the quality controllers. DCAG have learnt their lesson and completely changed their technique on the new SLK, A Class and forthcoming CLS and M Class.
Wow that was a bit of an essay, I hope I've been able to restore a little bit of your faith in Mercedes-Benz, although I am unsure to to the severity of your posts. If you ever want to ask me anything you can, as I hope you can tell I'm here to help as well as boost your confidence in MB.
Best regards,
josiebaby

[Merc_owner]

Hi, josiebaby!
I am really grateful to you for your time and your attention to my problems!
First of all I'd like to say I used to have a 1995 W124, and this was a great vehicle, just perfect, I enjoyed driving it!
It is only 2002 W211 which made me so disappointed. Hope you understand I don't like to be a quality controller at my own expense. As I've said before, several people who purchased the same MBs with me are having similar problems; and it's really sad that such a company could allow this.
As regards the procedure you described - is there any possibility to refrain from the telephone conversation with the Case Manager? Anyway I will not be able to prove anything without sending documents; so is there any postal address to send letters to?
Best regards,
Merc_owner