Carsy

I was doing my B Service today & lubricating the door hinges & latches.

Recently there was a post here regarding rust in the bottom of a couple of W204 doors.

I looked for the drain holes in the bottom of the doors & found none.

There are 2 holes in the bottom of the front doors & 1 in the rear which are covered by blind rubber grommets.

This is the first car that I have owned without door drains. No wonder some doors are beginning to rust out.

Is this a common MB design ?

I will be draining my doors after washing & heavy rain.

JC

Doa

this is the first time i hear of rust with a W204

Carsy

My mistake ,it was a 2007 C280 W203 https://mbworld.org/forums/c-class-w...t-07-c280.html

Rust bubbling in two doors & the same age as my W204.

Doa

the W203 uses different materials and paint. its impossible to compare both models

Carsy

Both cars are Mercedes Benz , both are 2007 built , both are C Class .Not an exact comparison but close enough to be a worry..

But the point I am making is, why doesn't the W204 doors have drains ? .

Surely the lack of drains makes the doors more likely to rust ?

Arhhh but Northern America is a throw away society & couldn't give a rats ar#se.

xXHotelCrazyXx

W203 is a Chrysler product. Make drain holes by drilling a couple small holes in the bottom, then take a q-tip and apply touch up paint to the bare metal where you drilled the hole.

Sportstick

This is not true. The platform, powertrain, 100% of the 203 vehicle was developed by MB. The only sharing during the DaimlerChrysler days was limited to some transmission design for US produced units, suspension design (although not common parts) for the 300C/Charger, and the M Class/Grand Cherokee common architecture. The only notable product/process benefit to the Daimler side was learning how to build more production-representative prototypes earlier in their process, as they were using hand tooled parts far too-late in their vehicle development process, perhaps explaining products such as the 203. They were uninterested in any association with most of what happened in the US side of the company, other than mandating decontenting for cheaper products for higher margins, resulting in such disasters as Caliber among others, and draining Chrysler of cash. The demise of Schremp could not have been too soon.

Mikephinney

always love a good smackdown....

Sportstick

Didn't mean it that way.....just facts.

Sentosa

Arhhh but Northern America is a throw away society & couldn't give a rats ar#se.

Hey ease up there Carsy!!

Doa

they are as much the same as a 747-8 is to a 787, the 747-8 is however a redesigned 40 year old model where the 787 is new.
both are produced at the same date but due to an older design the 747 uses complete different materials then the 787.
same story go's for the "new" W204 vs a 7 year old W203

Glyn M Ruck

Chassis wise the W204 is just a minor rework of a W203. Many common parts. W204 just has different tin work. Although many of us liked the W203 for it's solidity & more organic shape the W204 is a better sorted car because it is only evolutionary from a mechanical perspective. The powertrains were available in the 203 before the 204.

xXHotelCrazyXx

What I mean by that Sport is there are obvious differences in quality before Daimler split from Chrysler. Most notably from my observation was the quality and fitment of interior (dash etc...). It was nice to see the W204 come out as a solid MB product without having any relation with Chrysler since the split and it shows.

xXHotelCrazyXx

Don't forget the ugly Chrysler Crossfire which it shared the same chassis and components as the SLK.

Sportstick

Yes, you are right. I forgot that one (perhaps wanted to!). However, your other observations are purely coincidence. Chrysler had zero effect on any MB carlines. Other than the few examples noted, there was no engineering cross-pollination. This is a situation of viewing correlation as causation, but the connection was not there.

xXHotelCrazyXx

Perhaps its just me but the quality from what I have seen when the 2 were in bed together just seemed a bit sub par for MB.

Sportstick

I don't doubt your observation, but they weren't "in bed together". It was more like a rape. The timing of what you noticed is unrelated. Chrysler had no influence, control, input, nor did any work on MB products. MB quality varied all on its own and they directed making Chrysler's even worse (cheaper) for their own gain. All Chrysler did to MB was bleed cash into German bank accounts.

Glyn M Ruck

Even that is a somewhat jaded approach.

Benz improved the Chrysler product & they would not have their DI engine range today without Benz.

Sportstick

That is somewhat my point. MB did have some impact on Chrysler, but not the reverse; there was no impact of Chrysler on the 203 or any other Benz. However, in the grand scheme, it is without dispute that Daimler did far more harm than good to Chrysler, including weakening it to the point of bankruptcy. Thankfully, Sergio Marchionne came along and I suppose the good result now came as a result of the preceding steps. However, all knowledgeable sources recognize Daimler was the bad actor in this dark part of its history.

Glyn M Ruck

I'm sorry but that is a narrow US perspective.

Jurgen Schrempp is a personal friend & still on the MBSA board. He bought Chrysler & had a very genuine intent to improve the auto maker. He authorised huge technology transfer from Benz to Chrysler right down to complete platforms & improved Chrysler quality.

It has been a subject of frequent fireside & airport chats.

http://www.mercedes-benzsa.co.za/cor...-of-directors/

Carsy

There are no different materials here Body panel steel is body panel steel . Add moisture & you have corrosion if there is a fault with the protection. Can't see the 747/787 relationship.

Carsy

Enjoying the discussion Glyn & Sportstick .

Do you know when MB stopped putting door drains in ? .

Sounds as if there was Chrysler influence here !!

Sportstick

I guess we each find narrowness in different places and I understand the instinct to be protective of a friend. However, his apparent definition of "improve" was to find a way to drain the lifeblood to support the Mercedes operation. The only shared platform (other than the Crossfire experiment) was Grand Cherokee and M Class. As to their drain of Chrysler cash resources, check the bank records. They have been written about. The books on this seem more substantial historical sources than the perpetrator. His or MB's revisionist history is simply legacy-altering PR, or self-delusion. The aggressor usually has a different recollection than the victim. With respect, you were not there.

Glyn M Ruck

Sorry & 300C ~ E class platform etc. V6, V8 engines etc.

There was heavy bias in all US reporting of the subject as is the norm.

I have written at length about Jurgen on the board & the reality of the man that grew up with MBSA ~ search.

Exerpt from one post ~ quote:

"The only person that I will always defend is Jürgen Schrempp. I know him well from the days that he was firstly Technical Director of MBSA & later MD after a short spell in the US trying to fix the Euclid debacle. He is a fine and capable man that was hamstrung by government appointees to the German board. His proposed JV with FAW in China would have cemented Benz as the largest truck maker in the world for a very long time. Jurgen was visionary - his board was not. He also took unreasonable flack for the Daimler Chrysler mess & a company & shareholders that did not want to reform." unquote

Glyn M Ruck

Oh! and by the way I was there. We were an OE supplier to Chrysler & OEM's fell under my portfolio.