ajm0824

Seems you're better off taking this argument up with Daimler Chrysler.
Show them your proposal. Maybe they'll change their mind on this whole matter.
Tell them we said hi.

scorchie

At this point I am not going to spend further time giving you facts that you refuse to believe because they come from me (and I am not disrespecting your heavy dose of skepticism, I think it's healthy considering what one sees on the internet). If you're truly interested in learning something, I suggest you enroll in some courses at the local community college or a technical institute. At the least, do an internet search and find some likely reputable sources for information.

If you're not interested in learning, then at the least you shouldn't spend your time being a naysayer to industries you obstensibly have no education in. You're just guessing about manufacturing and business practices, and the fact that things aren't done the way you expect them should be some indication that you don't really understand the process.

It's been postulated IN THIS FORUM IN THE PAST that the R&D savings could outweigh the volume purchasing costs. Where were you at that time? The result was that we took the units apart and proved they were different.

Maybe we're all wrong on these hypotheses, it's likely we'll never know for sure. I think I'll adopt a new belief that the primary reason DCAG and MBUSA built a different COMAND hardware for the US was so that you would have something to debate on MBWorld; at this point it is looking to be the most likely theory.

I'll try not to disturb you further in this thread, I apologize.

"Bzzz bzzz!" - Chris Tucker as Ruby Rod in "The Fifth Element"

-s-

scorchie

P.S.: Developing software costs more than developing hardware. Go to the Sindelfingen factory tour and check out the robot that installs dashboards in cars.

-s-

ajm0824

LOL
http://161.58.5.90/element/rubybuzz.wav

Baby Jocko

As I thought, you had your chance and didn't explain a thing. Instead, you took that opportunity to condescend. FYI, I don't care to take a course on manufacturing. It's not that I don't want to gain knowledge, it's just that manufacturing is not near the top of my priority list. That's not to say that I wouldn't want to gain a few trivial tidbits.

If you have more of a clue than you do tact, then explain your 10x the cost for this particular product statement. If not, I'll just assume you were making it up as you went along and we'll have a discussion on another thread. No biggie!

JPM

For the general principle, just consider the chain from manufacturer to consumer. The end price the consumer pays must cover the total cost of manufacture, times a factor to cover the manufacturer's overheads, times a factor to cover the manufacturer's profit margin, times a factor to cover import duties, times a factor for the markup of the regional importer, times a factor the markup of the retailer, times a factor for the taxes payable on the final total. There are many industries where that chain adds up to an overall factor as high as 10, and several where it is higher than that. MB claimed the E-class was the result of a development programme costing more than $2 billion, do you think they recover that by selling at cost?

Baby Jocko

I thought this thread was dead. I guess not.

JPM, you've missed the point. We're not talking about manufacturing costs in general. We're talking about a specific item that has already been manufactured and installed in the end product vs. the same item redesigned, manufactured, and installed in the same end product elsewhere.

Manufacturing cost for THIS item is NOT the debate here. It has only become the debate because a particular poster made an off the cuff remark relating to it. But, in reality, THAT can NOT be the reason why MBUSA decided to manufacture a different COMAND system for the US. Not only would the same item, if sold in the US, not cost more than what Europeans have been buying it for (other than currency conversion), but even if MBUSA were to charge as much as $300 more (presumed cost delta times 10) for this item as an option in the US, the market would buy it in a NY minute!

Mod shops are making $Millions installing DVD and TV tuners. Even Scorchie has done well selling the Euro DVD COMAND at an outrageous price ($2500 - $2700) compared to what MB would sell it for ($1200 + $300 or whatever you want to think would be sufficient to cover the DVD and codec costs). Of course, Scorchie's price covers his costs and offers profit. He has a right to sell it for whatever price the market will bear. The point is, it shows that many E Series owners in the US are even willing to pay 100% higher than what MB would sell it for.

As Scorchie has said, perhaps we may never know MBUSA's reason for manufacturing a separate COMAND module for the US market. MBUSA apparently keeps secrets better than the US government. But, I would say the most rational reason would be what ajm0824 and others have suggested, that it may be illegal in the US (although I have yet to see a confirmation of that). But even then, I wonder if MBUSA has really been able to save money by designing and manufacturing an entirely different hardware module just for the US (or NA) market as opposed to installing a universal COMAND module. Software is not an issue either because there is already different software in the US COMAND module that shows no video options.

I hope this sums up my points sufficiently so that if this tread does continue, at least it can keep from digressing into trivial debate.

JPM

The reason will be cost savings, without any doubt, not legality. Having a DVD playing in view of the driver whilst the car is moving is illegal in the UK, for example, and people have been arrested for it (albeit the latest idiot to be done for this actually had a TV balanced on top of his dash ).

From the info on the MBenzNL site comparing EU and US COMAND units, the differences are no-fits on the main PCB (connectors, video circuitry) and a CD-ROM versus DVD-ROM drive. Easy ways of saving what is, for an automotive manufacturer, a very useful amount of money per vehicle. Bear in mind that automotive manufacturers have little concern for NRE costs such as design changes, tooling changes or producing software, mainly because they force their Tier 1 suppliers to absorb those costs, whilst still making them sign up to supply contracts containing year-on-year price reductions. Just look at some of the almost trivial deletions and simplifications on the MY05 cars and think of what those changes cost in tooling for moulded components compared to the pennies saved per car. My background is in automotive and consumer electronics design and manufacture, and I can tell you from experience that the bean counters at a car manufacturer are totally focussed on the unit cost per vehicle. Rationality barely enters into it, sadly, and the informed consumer is understandably angered by apparently meaningless penny pinching. As consumers become ever better informed, the practice of saving pennies here and there for different markets may start to die out, but only if those consumers make their voices heard at the importers.