Yes, but if one wants quality German car, and i do (C class), I think it's valuable to look at how they rate among themselves (MB,BMW and AUDI) If i just wanted to buy the most reliable, and didn't care about the drive, I'd get a Lexus and be done with it. Just to be clear I'm talking about overall brand reliability. The comment about my wife's CLA was just our experience, and not intended to characterize all CLA's

 

Good points all around.

 

So CR reliability is based off of people who are **** enough to buy CR and there is no proof that the reviews they give are based off of them actually owning the model in question. So someone who had a faulty MB from 8 years ago could just decide to respond, yeah that CLA will have issues. Yet MB ranks #1 in customer satisfaction. I don't put much weight into CR never have and so far I haven't been steered wrong by ignoring it

 

If you only cared about the drive, then, IMHO, your wife would've just gotten a Mazda 6 and had a car that was both more reliable and likely a vastly superior drive to a CLA. I know that's the decision I would've made.

Why should I just compare a German make to another German make? Certainly all the German car makes can't be so arrogant as to think that people aren't cross shopping their cars w/ a Lexus? Or perhaps they are. Back when MB reliability was consistently horrible in the late 1990's/early 2000's, MB tried to defend its poor initial quality scores by stating that they were being held to a higher standard b/c of the price of their cars. Sure, whatever makes you feel better, Herr Schrempp.

Besides, even using your logic, CR just reported that MB, as an overall brand, placed 24 out of 28 manufacturers. Audi has been more reliable in the last 2 annual surveys, and BMW and Porsche were roughly equal last yr (and vastly better this yr). So, even compared to other German manfacturers, MB did horribly.

The only MB models that have consistently done well in CR reliability surveys are the C-class, E-class, and GLK.

I suspect whatever sort of teething probs are occurring w/ the CLA and S-class will be quickly resolved. I also assume that, if MB satisfaction ratings for the S-class remain high, it's partially b/c MB had authorized US dealers to hand out up to $2500 of hush money for new S-class buyers. Brilliant plan, actually. And perhaps an indication that they knew reliability might be a prob....

 

I'm pleased to say that in SA (where we only build the C Class these days) Benz consistently comes out with lowest faults per 100 vehicles in initial quality surveys. And that's going up against the likes of VAG Group, BMW, Toyota, GM, Ford, Nissan, Renault, Mazda etc.

The East London plant frequently blows off Bremen & Sindelfingen in the quality round robin.

 

I do get CR and I do answer their surveys honestly. I also get the JD Powers surveys and answer those as well.

So, I now own my C300 for over a month and have put 1,000 miles on it. I do like the car very much, and it's everything I expected it to be. But ....

... how do I answer these surveys with the following one month experiences?

1. Recall for steering column. All checked out fine.
2. Recall for Continental tires. Two front tires have to be replaced and are on order.
3. Poorly fit fuel filler door. New door and arm ordered.
4. Steering wheel tilted to left. Dealer found car out of alignment and had to realign.

Granted, the tire issue is a recall from Continental and should not reflect on the car itself. The rest, unfortunately, are build quality issues and should not be seen on any new car, let alone a Mercedes.

The car is 100% reliable, has no rattles or squeaks and has not had any serious issues at all, but my guess is that the first year American W205's will not look good in any of the reliability surveys that will be coming out.

When I bought the car, my wife asked me if I really wanted to buy a first year model. I had horrible service issues with a first year 2005 C6 Corvette, plenty of issues with a first year BMW 528i, and some problems with a first year BMW Z4. Still, I liked the C300 enough to take the plunge. I don't regret it, but it does look like there will be at least some first year teething problems.

It does look like MB is staying right on top of things, so I'm hoping all these early problems will be quickly resolved and the W205 becomes a totally routine car to own and maintain.

 

If reliability was the only buying decision on a car we there would only be 2 car companies, Toyota and Honda. VW has recently improved remarkably so maybe they would make the cut too.....
However there are other factors. If a car has below average reliability that is when warranties and dealer quality are most important. Dealers especially. If your car is in the shop more often that expected, a dealer that takes care of the costumer by having readily available loaners etc makes a big difference in costumer satisfaction. If a manufacturer has a part that is prone to early failure, extending the warranty to cover that is also crucial. Nothing is going to atone for a car that is constantly in the shop or, in my book, one that leaves you stranded regularly but for smaller issues like a non functioning touchpad, a non opening sunglass holder and other non-crucial defects people can get along with. One of my partners had a V10 Tourage, from day one he simply didn't know what electrical system was going to go on the blink. The last straw was that during a snowstorm his sunroof decided to stay stuck in the open position. He ditched the car in 6 mths...at a loss.

 

IMO CR and JDP are good tools and provide a good perspective but they should not be taken as gospel. Initial quality is hard to judge for things that will really mean something to buyers, like stuff that will cost them money or leave them stranded on the highway. Sure no one will want to take multiple trips to the dealer to get things fixed, but how much of an inconvenience this is is up to the individual buyers.

Personally, I would say 2ish trips to the dealer over the first year for a completely new car is not a big deal for non drive affecting issues. However, if I understand things correctly this will seriously impact the perceived quality of the car based on these studies. I understand that they are trying to measure the issues (drive affecting vs infotainment etc) but I am not convinced that they are effectively doing so.

They also seem to be measuring convenience as opposed to cost even with the 3yr studies. Sure a car with really crappy 3 yr numbers should translate to crappy 5 yr numbers as well, but not necessarily. CR does the best job of trying to measure this with their complete reports but still it is just a tool not as definitive as many people in general (not talking about any comments in this thread) seem to think.

What I really want is a 5 year study that will give a better understanding of overall and component design. Is my fuel pump going to fail leaving me stranded in the middle of the road 15minutes after my warranty is up? Am I likely to walk to my car in the morning to find my car sitting on its wheels because my air shock seals are toast? I want a category or two for specific drive impacting issues and in use failure types at the top of the report in big bold letters. These are what really matter. Not sure if it is possible or practical to measure this over 5 yrs (improper maintenance by the owner could cloud these numbers) but they are what concern me the most. I am much less concerned about sticking touch screens that will be covered by warranty when it is convenient to me to get them taken care of. Issues like these should be separated in a separate measure of quality not lumped together like they seem to be. I also would love to see a measure of quality/issues vs proximity to warranty expiration and advertised expected life expectancy.

IMO the vast majority of gaskets injectors and water pumps should last at least 100k mi, suspension parts on the order of 80k - 100k miles. If they don't there is something wrong and it needs to be addressed at the design/manufacturing level or included in the maintenance schedule period. A study or survey that can reveal these types of issues would be gold because IMO it would (well should) force the manufacturer to to address them.

Frankly (and I know many people will disagree here) I would think that something like an injector failure or a covered potential wear item issue withing 4 years would not necessarily be a terrible thing. As long as I get a comparable loaner and a free replacement component with another year or two of warranty, I end up better off.

Japanese brands seem to to a very good job at designing and testing their components long term, BMW,,, not so much. OTOH, pushing the envelope on performance often can lead to shorter component life. Many people will gladly pay for this. I just think that consumers should know this going in.

 

+1 For me, being left stranded more than once should be a criteria for a buy back.

 

My mechanic, who specializes in Mercedes echoed the above. He said that the S class and B class aren't reliable, and C and E are solid (I didn't ask about the SUVs).

 

You, can do what ever you want, As I said, I want a German car, maybe a C class,that's why I'm here. Have fun on the Mazda boards. Drove the Mazda 6(rental), I'm sorry, but no, don't believe everything you read, including CR, You do know that automotive journalism is a business, right?

 

As a former owner of a Mazda Protege (older Mazda 3 sedan/Lantis, as it's known elsewhere), parents having owned a Mazda MPV minivan, and a friend who had a Mazda 3 station wagon/hatchback (they called it Mazda 5 at the time here), I can say that Mazdas must be some of the most-unreliable cars on the road. Suspension was made of glass on those cars, I think (and it's not like I drive in Siberia or Kazakhstan-this is Canadian roads!).
Oh, and I can certainly attest to something I read a few years back: if you put a Mazda in one of those quiet rooms used for recording music (the ones with foam on the walls), and you listen carefully, you can actually hear a Mazda rusting.
So whichever of these two publications gave Mazda a good rating for reliability isn't worth the paper it's printed on or webspace that it's taking up

 

Isn't this like saying: My 2006 E-class was crappy so therefor anyone that says a 2015 C-class is great doesn't know what they are talking about?

I believe pretty much everyone would agree that in 2006 MB made some pretty un-reliable cars. No one can say the same for the new C-class just like the new Mazdas. They just haven't been around long enough. Early impressions on the new Mazdas have been overwhelmingly positive.

 

5 year reliability is easy to find., Consumer reports. They follow the car every year for ten years.

 

Again that's what CR has reported. Our problem is that this is not the C of before, its a brand new one that shares a lot of S class goodies. Again, a good reason for an extended warranty as a hedge. I did the same thing with my F150 and it was worth it. No extraordinary problems but a few smaller ones. One bad transmission that goes out at 4 years and three days or 51k miles and the extended warranty pays itself.

 

I know this. I don't believe it separates things out well in the ways that I described. I did say that CR is the best at it, I just don't believe it is good enough to use in a really meaningful way.

 

Buying a modern high tech new vehicle in it's early phase of production is never wise. Early adopters will be more likely to get burned. It goes with the territory. I only buy vehicles once the bugs are ironed out. I get burned often enough in my high end audio hobby where I'm an early adopter.

Even Toyota ~ now that they no longer sell cars with dinosaur engines like the 21R, 5 speed manual transmission with a cart rear axle ~ have had their fair share of issues as complexity of their vehicles has increased. Of course a vast share of their global production is in simpler vehicles for emerging markets.

 

I think it just makes sense to gather as much information as you can...whether it be from CR or from this forum. But it appears that despite your post you do believe is some of these survey's...specifically the one that stated "MB ranks #1 in customer satisfaction". Mmmm I wonder if that was from folks who actually own an MB...

 

Taking this to the logical conclusion, there are no reliable surveys. All surveys are based on owner reports, which inherently vary based on the subjective assessments of the owners. One person's issue which required a repair may be below the threshold of perception for another. Age is a factor which creates a bias. Younger buyers have historically been more critical than older.

However, having set up that straw man, the converse is the actuality. The problem for research firms (such as the unnamed one for whom I currently work) is not fabricated data, but even getting real owners to take the time to complete the questionnaire. Response rates are single digits, once owners can be identified via registration or owner data. If there are a few odd folks who will take the time to falsify a survey, we also have data quality checks which would take out all but the most detailed fabricator. So, whether JDP, CR, or another, the large sample data (which overcomes a few individual outliers) is a reliable representation of what the owners reported. To the degree the reports are consistent with a hypothetical objective assessment is a function of human frailty.

 

This is not true. Statistically the way to eliminate bias is to have a larger sample size. If there is an inherent bias in CR it would probably be higher income and higher education level. People that would tend to be more critical than normal. However, they would be more critical of all cars not a particular one. As I pointed out CR only reports for vehicles for which they have at least 100 responses, significantly more than the statistically agreed threshold of 35. Again no one is saying the analysis is perfect, but its definitely as good as its going to get outside of internal manufacturer warranty claims which, of course, are highly guarded secrets. In a perfect world that data would be open to the public, thus making surveys unnecessary. Another good source of self referred reliability issue though predominantly safety related in NHSTA. I checked for the 2014 C series, there are 3 complaints total, all regarding stalling issues.

 

Precisely. Statistics is the lying version of math you can slice it in almost every direction. Thus I preffer to listen to those that are put out by the people that have no skin in the game.

 

Early is the key word...Rust starts a bit later. 2nd year on one of the aforementioned cars, 4th year on the other two.

Oh, and one thing that did not change is how bad the customer service (at least in the Toronto area) is for Mazdas. Absolutely horrid. Trying to complain to Mazda Canada only resulted in "this is what the dealer said..."

And, yes-I agree that things do change, but I would not recommend a Mazda to anyone just so that they can be the Guineapig. 5 years from now, we can discuss whether today's Mazdas are better

 

No arguments there.

I just asked my mechanic about my car, B class (W245) in general and Mercedes in general in terms of reliability, as I'm getting a new car in a few months. That was his answer (pertaining to the previous model of all cars).

 

Agreed on all points to a degree.

Now I don't have any experience with Toronto area Mazda dealers, but that end of customer service is dealer specific. I didn't like the dealer I bought my 2002 Milenia, sort of sleazy, but I had no real issues over the 8+ yrs of ownership. The two minor warranty issues we had were repaired free of charge, but not after painful back and forth with another dealer - terrible Customer service. Also, all customers of any all new design including the new C are essentially guinea pigs, right?

BTW the "hear the car rust" bit in your previous post was absolutely classic, Good stuff!

 

Other than the self-described "straw man" for the sake of the point, what specifically are you claiming is false?

Enlarging sample size does not reduce bias. Specifically note the problem and solution explanation at the end of the linked article.

http://stattrek.com/survey-research/survey-bias.aspx

If I have n=1,000 of 100% email contact respondents, the bias associated with email survey vs. paper mail survey is the same if I increase to n=10,000, but of the same sample design. I would reduce bias by modifying the methodology, even with the same sample size. There is a central tendency of the mean, and larger sample does reduce variance and make for a more robust analysis when seeking significance.