Just received the latest edition of consumer reports and the reliability of Mercedes Benz is looking again very cloudy. The CLA was the least reliable of all cars ( that is really, really, really bad). The Sclass was not much better and the Glad was also miserable. Looks like an extended warranty is more of a requirement than an option on the C class. 😒

 

come on, we knew before release that the cla and gla are not going to carry the MB brand fully. this is not surprising .

 

My wife has had a CLA 250 for nearly a year, and not a single issue with it.

 

Testimonials are worthless. We have to look at aggregate reliability from many owners. Most Pinto crashed from behind didn't catch fire either!

 

I wouldn't say worthless, but obviously aggregate is most preferable.

2013 U.S. Vehicle Dependability Study
Mercedes #4 right behind Toyota

BMW #17

Audi # 24

http://autos.jdpower.com/ratings/dep...ss-release.htm

 

This is one you should never trust. JD power is a promotional entity founded in the 1980's by car companies. Its statististics are worth exactly zero.

 

Proof?

 

There won't be any. This is nonsense. JDPower is an owner-self reported survey, not unlike the large sample data of Consumer Reports. They publish the Initial Quality Survey at 3 months in service to assess the build, and a Durability Survey at 3 years in service, which addresses overall engineering quality as reflected in the vehicle's longevity. I am a market researcher and previously worked for one of the domestics. We had nothing to do with JDP's operation.

Between the CLA and the S Class, the overall impression is that MB is still challenged by first year quality of a new program. Of course, there is a distribution in any population, so the above comment about a trouble-free CLA is to be expected somewhere in the production.

 

I read the same thing...the one thing I can say is that I would think it hard to make an accurate assessment of reliability based on 1 year...wasn't the CLA just released 3rd/4th quarter 2013? So it's a brand new model going up against established brands...yeah I can see that being a challenge.

 

But, let's be clear about the measurement. This is an initial quality study of the condition of the car at 3 months in service, reflecting how well the vehicle was assembled and to some degree, early engineering issues for reliability. As long as a sufficient sample was obtained, the timing of the launch and whether the competition is long-established has no effect on the measurement. The CLA will also have its first chance to show what it can do over time when, after 3 years in service, it makes its first appearance in the Durability Survey. Two different surveys with two different purposes.

 

A little history is necessary here. JD powers ratings for vehicles came to the forefront in the 1980smwhen US automakers were building some of the worst cars ever made. JD powers was bankrolled by the auto industry itself. Among its most reliable brands were such stars as the GM X cars Chrysler Le barons and other such useless crap lost to history. A few decades later its was obvious that their car rankings were completely bogus they branched out to other industries with basically the same results. Presently their strategy has shifted a little, they simply wait for consumer reports to put out its ratings (if anything CR has an adversarial relationship with the auto industry) then a week later their new rankings appear, mostly reflecting CR ratings. They have so many rankings that even a Yugo could claim to have been number one in one ranking or another.
The only ranking they may have a valid statistical result is the initial quality rankings (90 days) where they do sample extensively among buyers. The issue with that is that 90 day reliability is an almost insignificant finding, given todays construction standards the difference among brands for initial quality is infinitesimal. The days of seeing parts fall off the car as you were driving off the lot are long gone, Fiats were well known for that.

 

I am astounded at this story! JDP started in the 60s in California. They have a completely separate questionnaire, sample, and results than CR...they are entirely unrelated. At least two other major national research companies also publish results of independent surveys....all are based on different samples.

The "bankroll" statement is based on....what? They did charge an attribution fee for advertising the results (for those for whom the news was good), but that has no effect on the results. I have no idea upon what you discriminate "valid statistical result" between IQS and VDS. Although all manufacturers have improved build quality, differences do remain in IQS results. Given the sample size, the differences they report as significant fall outside the margin of error. Upon what facts do you conclude otherwise?

 

 

Hey, Glynn....still here and watching you guys! Might do a W205 to replace our W211. Still finding "conventional wisdom" often takes a separate path from the reality, so glad to provide ongoing interesting reading for you and others! Keeping it on topic....no personal invective....as usual! Best wishes!

 

I think a W205 "Exclusive" would be a great replacement for the wife's 211.
You are most welcome here as always.

 

Yes and no, the fact that they have enough data to rank it so low is another very bad sign, statistically it means that plenty of cars are selling and that they have had significant problems with one or multiple systems. With new cars problems are magnified since in general cars have so few problems overall. Electronics can cause a big headache for overall rankings. Even Honda accords have gotten big black eyes when introduced due to faulty electronics. In my experience with dozens of cars , CR seems to hit it right on the head. Decade after decade. They do their own internal statistics but have


Everything you'll ever need to know about car reliability without commercial bias:


By the way the most important point of the whole dissertation is around 3/4 down the whole thing, CR's reliability findings have never been disputed by any manufacturer, in fact manufacturers use it as Quality analysis for their own QA programs!
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2...-faq/index.htm


Its not perfect but the best by far.

 

You are absolutely correct...this rating is derived from actual owners...or as the article says "magazine, and on-line subscribers." So yes that speaks volumes...however it also denotes that specifically the CLA's rating is based on a single year and not the 3 years typically used. It mentions the Outlander sport had a good reliablity rating but was not a CR recommendation based on the road test. Conversely the S Class scored high in the road tests, but received a subpar reliability rating..and of course these are "predicted reliability" scores...in either case I think it's worth paying attention to...

 

On sale started September 2013 in USA, sold in EU nearly a year before that.

 

Couldn't agree with you more! I love these one post testimonials that imply that if MY car is ok, every car is ok, and YOUR car is the outlier ... I got a lot of that when my two transmissions in two brand new 2014 e550's went south ...

 

I love it when people try to put words in peoples mouths they never intended. It's just one persons experience. Thats all. We aren't curing cancer here. Relax, this is just an auto form.

 

Interestingly it states that the fastest growing complaints by far involve infotainment systems: audio, navigation, and in-car communications. Previous surveys indicated unresponsive touch screens, poorly functioning multifunction controllers; as well as an inability to sync smart phones...also getting the voice command system to recognize verbal commands...the Infinity Q50 leads the pack in this area. Hopefully this won't be a problem as the "newly" designed infotainment system has been a topic of many spirited discussions...

 

Well there are already enough complaints about the touchpad online to know that to be a real issue... albeit a rather minor one. Airmatic is what I'm the most interested in seeing longterm.

 

Both are typical sources of information, as follows:

Initial Quality Study (IQS) is 3 months in service
Vehicle Dependability Study (VDS) is 3 years in service

Both are used and help complete a total assessment.

 

Er, from the news brief, the 2013 Dependability Study looks at the probs over 12 mo of cars purchased 3 yrs prior.... Meaning that the CLA and current-gen S-class have no bearing on a study released in early 2013.... And that their data won't be "available" until the 2017 Dependability Study.

 

True and the minimum number of responses is 100. However among statisticians the smallest representative sample is 35 (I use to know where that number came from but its been a while). Thus their representative sample from a "random" population ( if there really is such a thing), more than passes mathematical muster. As they point out this could be a fluke of a brand new model and it may improve next quite significantly, but it still a reason for concern. Mercedes had been doing pretty good the last few years since most of their models were pretty mature, all these models with subpart reliability are quite new. Unfortunately about ten years ago MBs reliability was in the shutter for a while.