|
W212 E-Class reliability -- stats ASAP
I wanted more up-to-date auto reliability information that included actual repair rates. So in late 2005 I started getting people together to make this possible. TrueDelta now reports absolute repair rates that make the differences between cars much clearer. Results are updated four times a year, so it's possible to have results for new models like the W212 very quickly and then track cars closely as they age.
We've had very good participation by owners of the W204 C-Class, so were able to provide reliability stats well ahead of anyone else. I'd like to do the same for the W212 E-Class. Just a matter of how soon enough owners sign up and participate. Participants simply report repairs the month after they occur on a one-page survey. When there are no repairs, they simply report an approximate odometer reading four times a year, at the end of each quarter. To encourage participation, participants receive full access to all results, not just those for the E-Class, free of charge. For the details, and to sign up to help out: Car reliability research |
Not many cars signed up yet...not many owners yet?
|
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 3709455)
Not many cars signed up yet...not many owners yet?
|
Still not many signed up, I'm afraid. We had a much stronger response for the new C204 C-Class two years ago, and so had some results quickly. Maybe not many have been bought?
Anyone who has bought a W212, and would help provide the first reliability stats for the car anywhere can read the details here: Car reliability research |
It'll probably take a while. I'm seeing barely any new E's at all in L.A, or Vegas, when the 204 dropped I saw them everywhere (obviously different price point). Economy ain't helping of course.
|
Added my E350. Although I hope I don't have anything to report for a long time. haha
|
Another E550 has been added to the database, however I will not be taking delivery of the vehicle for another 2 weeks... and I echo the comments above.:y
|
If the new E-Class is like the current C-Class, and unlike the GL, you'll be okay.
A few more owners have signed up, so I've added the 2010 to the survey. That said, we'll need more participants to provide reliability stats. Help make this happen: Car reliability research |
How well are these selling lately?
More owners have been signing up, but more remain needed. |
Signed in.
|
Signed up the E-350
|
signed in
|
signed in
|
when you get a sample size of 30 and a years worth of data, pm me the results.
|
Why not be one of the 30?
We've got enough people waiting for others to be the ones providing the data. So far a dozen owners have signed up. A good start, but more remain needed. Car reliability research |
Signed in.
|
Doing much better lately--18 owners now signed up. Too late for an intial result next month, but one in May now seems likely.
If you're one of the 18, thank you, I certainly appreciate it. Not yet signed up? We'll need about 40 owners signed up for a full result. Details here: Car reliability research |
Caution
I signed up for TruDelta's reliabilty survey with a previous car. Not all that pleased with it, but some may like it.
I felt the sample size on some vehicles were way too small for reliable information. Also, you could not post problems that occured prior to join the survey. In addition, trips to dealer may be meaningless. In one instance, the 2009 Genesis, it appeared some problems were surfacing, but then TrueDelta tried to rationalize it by saying it was a new car. Will they do same for W212? Does this affect reliability of surveys? |
Signed up my new E350 and my new ML550.
|
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 3898208)
I signed up for TruDelta's reliabilty survey with a previous car. Not all that pleased with it, but some may like it.
I felt the sample size on some vehicles were way too small for reliable information. Also, you could not post problems that occured prior to join the survey. In addition, trips to dealer may be meaningless. In one instance, the 2009 Genesis, it appeared some problems were surfacing, but then TrueDelta tried to rationalize it by saying it was a new car. Will they do same for W212? Does this affect reliability of surveys? You can post old problems to the site. This is done using a second, simplified survey. They just won't be included in the analysis, to avoid distorting the results. The 2009 Genesis was an all-new luxury car, so I felt that an "average" reliability score was pretty good. I did say the same thing when the C204 C-Class had a similar result. In general I often note when a car is in its first year. The repair frequency was still posted, it was still termed "average," and people are free to interpret the numbers as they'd like. I don't see how this would affect the reliability of the surveys. The survey asks people whether or not the car was in the repair shop. It's a yes or no question, not open to individual interpretation. |
Judging from the number of survey responses so far, we will have an initial reliability stat for the W212 in May. As far as I kinow, this will be the first such stat anywhere.
If more owners sign up and participate, this could be a full result. Otherwise, it will be a partial, less precise result. Not yet signed up? Details here: Car reliability research |
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 3919560)
Judging from the number of survey responses so far, we will have an initial reliability stat for the W212 in May. As far as I kinow, this will be the first such stat anywhere.
If more owners sign up and participate, this could be a full result. Otherwise, it will be a partial, less precise result. Not yet signed up? Details here: |
I think there's already an entire thread here on my review. This thread is not about my personal impressions of the E-Class.
I'm hardly the first person to crticize the car's steering. And if someone else has a different opinion, or simply doesn't care about steering feel all that much, I'm perfectly fine with that. These are just my personal impressions. I never tell people what they should like and dislike about a car. But this is really beside the point. Your post implies that, if I want people to participate in the survey, I shouldn't honestly provide my impressions of the car--anywhere (the review in question is not on the site). Do you want someone who alters what they say to make people happy reporting reliability stats? Maybe you do, but I wouldn't. |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 3919583)
Before signing up for Mr. Karesh's survey, you might want to read his review of the W212. I'm sure Mr. Karesh will enter the link on this site.
An objective and subjective Review surely wouldn't dictate how 212's score on OWNER surveys on his Site, I'm sure. ;) |
signed in
joined, added gas mileage & repair history :-(
|
Full Disclosure
Originally Posted by K-A
(Post 3919785)
And what does that have to do with anything? :rolf:
An objective and subjective Review surely wouldn't dictate how 212's score on OWNER surveys on his Site, I'm sure. ;) Also, if he is going to repeatedly solicit people to join his survey site, they should be aware of what he has already concluded about the vehicles. |
I have no personal interest in how any car rates in the reliability survey. My sole interest is in accurately reporting how reliable a car is, whatever that happens to be.
Also, in my view there are no perfect cars. They all have strengths, and they all have weaknesses. I'm not the sort of person who sees things as either all good or all bad. I am well aware that some people do see everything in black and white, and don't grasp that there's any other way to see things. |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 3921000)
He did much more than just give his driving impressions.
Also, if he is going to repeatedly solicit people to join his survey site, they should be aware of what he has already concluded about the vehicles. Michael Karesh contributes to TTAC, and as a contributing writer it's his right to let the chips fall where they may according to him. TTAC doesn't fear the pull of advertiser's dollars and says whatever they feel like about the industry. However, True Delta (not TTAC) is simply a collection of user information designed to help get a feeling for the reliability of specific autos. Nothing more and nothing less. He solicits data everywhere, not just on MBWorld. What the owner of True Delta feels about your car or mine, has absolutely no bearing on the data. |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 3921000)
He did much more than just give his driving impressions.
Also, if he is going to repeatedly solicit people to join his survey site, they should be aware of what he has already concluded about the vehicles. Like it or not, you're car isn't perfect, and lots of people won't like it. A good Reviewer will state their opinions, and even better ones won't do it with soft-ball comments. It's not like he has a personal vendetta against the car, or that any of you/us have a vested interest in the success of the 212. If it isn't up to par for him, then so be it. I don't like the 212 all so greatly either, but I'm not going to lie to people if they ask me what I've heard about its Reliability. I think you shouldn't be so uptight as to trying to "warn" people against contributing to something that will ultimately only help THEM and YOU, the cars consumers and owners. :crazy: |
Question
Mr. Karesh.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but did your review state that you would not recommend the 2010 W212 because of hard seats and light steering? Also, on your TrueDelta website, didn't you have an "opinion" as to why the Hyundai Genesis had low reliability reports. If so, this is more than just commenting or reviewing on a vehicle's pros and cons or reporting reliability information as received. |
I'd answer you here, but as others and myself have repeatedly noted this is simply not relevant to the topic of this thread. The driving experience and reliability are two entirely different things.
There's already another thread on this forum on my review. If you want to discuss the review, that's the place to discuss it. I often note in a comment when a relatively complicated luxury model is all-new. I made the same comment for the Genesis that I made for the C-Class. It's not my opinion that both cars were all-new, this is a matter of fact. It's also not simply my opinion that both, by having average scores, did better than others such as the Cadillac CTS and Jaguar XF in their first years. As much as you're trying to make the case that I am, I play no favorites with the reliability stats. |
Conspiracy theorists. :)
|
Conspiracy theories tend to be more entertaining than the truth.
We should have at least a partial result for the W212 in May, and could even have a full result if enough owners participate. Not yet signed up? Help us provide the first reliability stats for the W212: Car reliability research |
I added my car, but for some reason it says, 2010.5 E-Class. My car is a regular 2010 E-Class. How can I change that?
|
Thanks for the heads-up, fixed. I check for these twice a month.
|
It's looking like we will have an initial result in May. But more participants remain needed for a full result.
Not yet signed up? Details here: Car reliability research |
Need just 10 to 15 more owners for a full result.
Looking forward to having at least a partial result in May. |
We'll have a partial result for the new E-Class next month, with a preview for participants next week.
It looks like we'll fall a few responses short of a full result this time around, but if two or three more owners sign up and participate we should have one in August. Not yet signed up? Details here: Car reliability research |
Make that a full result next month--ended up with excellent participation by W212 owners, and so more responses than initially expected.
Thanks, guys. We are going to be right at the minimum for a full result, so additional participants would still be very good to have. Car reliability research |
That stat next week, with another update in August. The more owners participate, the more precise these stats will be.
|
I take these outside surveys with a grain of salt. Owners who are satisfied expect as much from a new car in its first year and are less inclined to answer an outside survey. On the other hand, a dissatisfied owner wants everyone to know and is more motivated to answer. Factory surveys would be the exception because owners have a vested interest in the results.
|
The survey process is designed to avoid this potential issue. If you look at the actual results, you'll find that the reported repair frequencies are if anything lower than you might expect. With some new models hardly any owners have reported a repair.
|
Tell us here what the results are
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4076114)
The survey process is designed to avoid this potential issue. If you look at the actual results, you'll find that the reported repair frequencies are if anything lower than you might expect. With some new models hardly any owners have reported a repair.
Last time I went to your site, you had to join in order to view reports on W212. I am particularly interested in how many cars are in the pool, especially if you can differentiate between 350's/550's/sports/luxury/RWD/4Matic, etc. Thanks |
No result until later this week, and I'll be posting it to the thread next time around.
|
We have an initial reliability stat for the new W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through March 31, 2010. As far as I know this is the first such stat anywhere.
With a reported repair frequency of 56 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class is very close to the average for all cars, which is quite good for an all-new German luxury car. A big thank you to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in August and November. With more participants, we could provide more precise information and cover all model years. Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability comparisons |
How Many
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4092652)
We have an initial reliability stat for the new W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through March 31, 2010. As far as I know this is the first such stat anywhere.
With a reported repair frequency of 56 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class is very close to the average for all cars, which is quite good for an all-new German luxury car. A big thank you to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in August and November. With more participants, we could provide more precise information and cover all model years. Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability comparisons How many cars are in the pool now? Any breakdown as to sedans vs. coupes, 350 vs. 550, RWD vs. 4Matic? thanks, |
We had responses for 26 sedans, not split by powertrain. Not nearly enough data yet for that. I'd like a larger number, but with this sample size it's clear that most owners have had no repairs at all so far and that these aren't trouble-prone cars.
I've been treating the coupe as a separate model, and there aren't nearly enough owners signed up yet to include it in the survey. |
Will sign up, but ???
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4092671)
We had responses for 26 sedans, not split by powertrain. Not nearly enough data yet for that. I'd like a larger number, but with this sample size it's clear that most owners have had no repairs at all so far and that these aren't trouble-prone cars.
I've been treating the coupe as a separate model, and there aren't nearly enough owners signed up yet to include it in the survey. |
It says "MOST owners have had no repairs," not all of them. The 56 per 100 is an extrapolated figure.
|
Still Confused
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4093278)
It says "MOST owners have had no repairs," not all of them. The 56 per 100 is an extrapolated figure.
So, actually 6 vehicles had to be taken in for non-routine repairs or is it 14 or some other number? Also, why do you not include repairs that were not successful. It seems to me that this is a most significant finding for a car. If I register my vehicle, the trips to the dealer and mileage up till now would not be included, correct? |
It's actually only four. I'd love to have more data, and we will in August. Past experience suggests that, despite the small sample size and extrapolation, this result is more likely to stay about the same than to change much.
One reason for this is that I have intentionally selected a metric with relatively low variance, to make the most of small sample sizes. Introduce other variables, such as repair shop competence, and the variance would increase and a larger sample size would be needed to maintain the same level of accuracy. Hence the focus on successful repair trips. I would love to have a separate stat for the success rate of repairs, as this can be a major source of dissatisfaction, but this must wait for a future time when more people are involved. Correct on the last point--the analysis collects data going forward to prevent whatever past experience might have motivated someone to participate from potentially distorting the results. |
for Michael Karesh-Reliability
Out of 26 vehicles, only four have gone in for repairs and this gets a 56 out of 100 and a yellow (caution) light?
The more I look at this, the less I understand it. While I have concerns re: Consumer Reports, they require a minimum of 100 vehicles before they reach any conclusions. Their stats are also much easier to understand. The person who participates because he has has unresolved problems is the one that really needs to be in the sample. Also, the information is much more useful and valid if all information re: the vehicle since day one is included. What about the people that had four trips for a problem before they found your site? They have to ignore what has happened already. Reliability is a function of history - all of it, not part of it. Appears to me that you have way too little information to establish any kind of rating. |
Four in a little over three months. Over an entire year this calculates to about 14.5.
You might think you understand more about CR because they hide almost everything. It's like saying you better understand what's going on with your car from the idiot lights than the instruments. Instruments are harder to read than a light that is either on or off. If a car has an average rating in CR, about how many problems have been reported per 100 cars? Pretty basic information, but can you get it from their ratings? You're concerned about the time period covered by my results. What time period is covered by their results? CR has a minimum sample size of 100 cars, but they also end up splitting much finer hairs. To do what they do they should have a much larger minimum sample size, at least 500. Partial histories work just fine. The results stay pretty stable for most models quarter after quarter even though the time period keeps changing. You've got to remember that the data are being pulled from multiple cars, not just one car. You might miss something with one car because it fell outside the window, but you'll get the same with another. It evens out. |
What about people who bring their new car in for service because they think something is wrong but in actuallity it's fine.
|
Doesn't count. Only successfully completed repairs count for this analysis. This way we know that not only did the owner perceive a problem, but the repair shop confirmed it and was able to do something to make the problem go away.
|
Bogus?
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4094854)
Four in a little over three months. Over an entire year this calculates to about 14.5.
You might think you understand more about CR because they hide almost everything. It's like saying you better understand what's going on with your car from the idiot lights than the instruments. Instruments are harder to read than a light that is either on or off. If a car has an average rating in CR, about how many problems have been reported per 100 cars? Pretty basic information, but can you get it from their ratings? You're concerned about the time period covered by my results. What time period is covered by their results? CR has a minimum sample size of 100 cars, but they also end up splitting much finer hairs. To do what they do they should have a much larger minimum sample size, at least 500. Partial histories work just fine. The results stay pretty stable for most models quarter after quarter even though the time period keeps changing. You've got to remember that the data are being pulled from multiple cars, not just one car. You might miss something with one car because it fell outside the window, but you'll get the same with another. It evens out. Time period for CR is from date of delivery till survey completed-ALL information is considered. For example, they did not report on 2009 E Class because not enough data available. You report on as few as 18 cars and then say it is a small sample and infer it may not be valid. They do not split hairs anymore than you do. I know because I just completed my fourth survey in April. Did yours on a previous car a couple of years ago. You are just rationalizing away the deficiencies in your system. Too few cars, too little information - simple as that. |
I would certainly like to have larger sample sizes. The best way I know to achieve this is to get more people involved. Saying "I'm not participating because the sample sizes are too small" contributes to the problem you're complaining about. Not to mention your earlier attempts to discourage owners from participating. You're the last person who should be complaining about the sample size.
I label anything under 25 cars as a "partial result" that is asterisked on the site and only visible to signed-in members. I report partial results because many people feel it's better to know how a fairly small number of cars have been doing than to know nothing at all. Incorrect on CR's time period. Their survey includes the past year. Anything before that period should not be reported. I've also learned that memories fade fast, within weeks. So many participants no doubt forget to report repairs that occurred earlier in this time period. This makes CR's information far from complete. Also incorrect on that CR doesn't split hairs any finer than I do. Look more closely at what they're reporting, though it isn't easy since they don't divulge much. They report on 16 or so subsystems. This effectively splits the sample 16 ways. What's 100 divided by 16? What's the minimum difference between the different dots in their results? Do you know? The answer: one problem per 100 cars. At their minimum sample size this means that a single response can easily mean the difference between one dot and another. This is what I mean by splitting hairs far finer than I do, and far finer than their minimum sample size permits. And where is CR's result for the 2010 E-Class? We'll updated our stats again in August, and then again after that in November. They'll have their first results, covering through roughly April, around November. |
???????????
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4095693)
I would certainly like to have larger sample sizes. The best way I know to achieve this is to get more people involved. Saying "I'm not participating because the sample sizes are too small" contributes to the problem you're complaining about. Not to mention your earlier attempts to discourage owners from participating. You're the last person who should be complaining about the sample size.
I label anything under 25 cars as a "partial result" that is asterisked on the site and only visible to signed-in members. I report partial results because many people feel it's better to know how a fairly small number of cars have been doing than to know nothing at all. Incorrect on CR's time period. Their survey includes the past year. Anything before that period should not be reported. I've also learned that memories fade fast, within weeks. So many participants no doubt forget to report repairs that occurred earlier in this time period. This makes CR's information far from complete. Also incorrect on that CR doesn't split hairs any finer than I do. Look more closely at what they're reporting, though it isn't easy since they don't divulge much. They report on 16 or so subsystems. This effectively splits the sample 16 ways. What's 100 divided by 16? What's the minimum difference between the different dots in their results? Do you know? The answer: one problem per 100 cars. At their minimum sample size this means that a single response can easily mean the difference between one dot and another. This is what I mean by splitting hairs far finer than I do, and far finer than their minimum sample size permits. And where is CR's result for the 2010 E-Class? We'll updated our stats again in August, and then again after that in November. They'll have their first results, covering through roughly April, around November. Furthermore, CR has never "extrapolated" results based on an inadequate sample, nor have they said "above average [repair trips], but typical for a new car." as you have in the past. BTW, I take what CR reports with a grain of salt, especially their car reviews. |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 4096589)
I have completed at least four of their surveys and read the explanations they have for their ratings, how many problems per car, etc., etc., etc. None of what you said is accurate re: CR. Maybe you need to subscribe to CR or if you do - read the stuff they send you.
Furthermore, CR has never "extrapolated" results based on an inadequate sample, nor have they said "above average [repair trips], but typical for a new car." as you have in the past. BTW, I take what CR reports with a grain of salt, especially their car reviews. You've misquoted me. Check what I actually wrote. But, yes, I say what I say. I don't simply repeat what someone else says. I don't base what I do on what CR does. Why should I? Here are CR's actual instructions, from a copy and paste, not based on memory: "If you had any problems with your car in the past 12 months that you considered SERIOUS because of cost, failure, safety, or downtime, select the appropriate box(es) for each car." Some relevant critiques I've written on CR's methods based on a very careful reading of their actual words and actual results: Consumer Reports' new rating system Consumer Reports survey critique Thousands of people have read these, including people at CR. No one has every factually refuted anything in them. Simply saying "not correct" proves nothing. |
MKaresh-Let's make a deal?
You have your opinion and I have mine. You know what you know and I know what I know.
So, let's let it go and stop this silly arguing. |
Works for me. It has become quite silly when the meaning of "in the past 12 months" is a matter of opinion.
|
We'll have updated results in August, with a preview for participants next month. As has been noted, a larger sample size would make the results more precise. So I hope more owners can sign up and participate.
Car Reliability Survey |
Why? JD powers has already given an initial report and ranked MB #2. You are wasting your time.
|
Originally Posted by petee1997
(Post 4127811)
Why? JD powers has already given an initial report and ranked MB #2. You are wasting your time.
|
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4127982)
Some people want to know what happens (or doesn't happen) after the first 90 days.
I find the qualitative ratings provided by Truedelta to be much more informative than CR, whose information base is IMO much more subjective and therefore prone to greater inaccuracy. But, let's get back to the OP topic. It is very encouraging to see that the W212 has done so well in this IQS and that Mercedes as a brand is back to being a high quality manufacturer. In contrast, if you look at the brand rankings, BMW has fallen dramatically. My guess is the now 4 year long problem of HPFP failures in the 3.0 L gas twin turbo engine has severely dented BMW's reliability ratings. |
I don't see why so many people are so pissy about these Reliability Ratings.
Who cares if JD/CR/BS, etc. does it, the more information the better. No reason to deter someone from gathering info. About BMW's TT motors, this problem could even get worse once they're forced to use TT's more and more. As well, M-B is about to start using TT's more, so I wonder if they'll get hit with some problems. If seems Turbo motors are usually prone to more problems, more expensive repairs, and less confidence in longetivity (unless you're Porsche, lol). |
To me I usually dismiss much of these stats as most are taken very early in the ownership even before someone has much experience with what ever vehicle is in question. Powers surveys usually come to me within a couple of weeks after taking delivery. Most owners at this early time are still enamoured with their purchase and really do not even know if something is not quite correct. A survey after say 2 years of ownership and maybe 25K miles would tell lots more.
|
Originally Posted by K-A
(Post 4129195)
.
About BMW's TT motors, this problem could even get worse once they're forced to use TT's more and more. As well, M-B is about to start using TT's more, so I wonder if they'll get hit with some problems. If seems Turbo motors are usually prone to more problems, more expensive repairs, and less confidence in longetivity (unless you're Porsche, lol). DI requires high pressure fuel pumps. BMW's have witnessed HPFP failures. Unfortunately so have the Porsche 997.2 models with DI. Also Audi have had increased carbon issues with DI now as well. A lot of design will be tested in the real world and so we'll hear about all sorts of issues for a while. Mercedes is going DI now, too. Diesels motors are DI and their pumps are much higher pressure than gasoline DI pumps. But the difference is that diesel fuel acts as a lubricant. They have a solid history. Manufacturers are rushing to develop more than adequate power and torque under stringent fuel consumption and emission regulations. A lot of it is relatively new engineering (Remember when fuel injection came out? It had years of headaches at first.) So, yeah, expect all kinds of new issues. Although eventually things will get fixed as the issues start showing up. Consumers will be the real world guinea pigs as usual. Anyway, it's nice to know that the factory decided to build the car correctly so that it works for the first 90 days. But internal design failures rarely happen in 3 months. The following 5-10 years is the real question. |
logged mine
|
Thanks, Lance.
Interesting info on DI, 220S. And definitely true that most mechanical problems appear after the first 100k miles. The BMW HPFP problem is an exception. Most DI systems aren't having this problem, at least not yet. This coming week we'll start previewing the next set of results to participants. The preview results will be updated as responses come in. To help provide the best possible information on the W212: Car reliability research |
Originally Posted by 220S
(Post 4129476)
The problem is with the direct injection.
DI requires high pressure fuel pumps. BMW's have witnessed HPFP failures. Unfortunately so have the Porsche 997.2 models with DI. Diesels motors are DI and their pumps are much higher pressure than gasoline DI pumps. But the difference is that diesel fuel acts as a lubricant. They have a solid history. Manufacturers are rushing to develop more than adequate power and torque under stringent fuel consumption and emission regulations. A lot of it is relatively new engineering (Remember when fuel injection came out? It had years of headaches at first.) So, yeah, expect all kinds of new issues. Although eventually things will get fixed as the issues start showing up. Consumers will be the real world guinea pigs as usual. Anyway, it's nice to know that the factory decided to build the car correctly so that it works for the first 90 days. But internal design failures rarely happen in 3 months. The following 5-10 years is the real question. |
Originally Posted by DerekACS
(Post 4155616)
The high rate of HPFP failures with the twin turbo 3.0L BMW engine seems to have occurred primarily in the USA, where ethanol/gas blends are common. In Canada, this fuel mix is not widespread and the HPFP failures I'm told have been of a far lower percentage of engines than in the US. Ethanol/gas blends have also played havoc with marine outboard engines.
Under Bush, gas companies were mandated to sell an ever-increasing amount of ethanol. E85 hasn't exactly taken off, so where's all of that ethanol going to end up? Thank you, ethanol lobbyists. |
Originally Posted by DerekACS
(Post 4155616)
The high rate of HPFP failures with the twin turbo 3.0L BMW engine seems to have occurred primarily in the USA, where ethanol/gas blends are common. In Canada, this fuel mix is not widespread and the HPFP failures I'm told have been of a far lower percentage of engines than in the US. Ethanol/gas blends have also played havoc with marine outboard engines.
A fix will be found esp in respect to any fuel lubrication issues, but there may be compromises, we'll have to wait and see. I'm sure BMW has kept detailed records on failures and where they occur. |
Solving the HPFP issue certainly should be a very high priority within BMW. It's costing them a lot of money, and probably quite a few customers as well. Certainly not good for the brand's image.
Updated stats next month. For the W212 E-Class, we especially need more participants for the 2011. Though more 2010s would also be helpful. To help provide better information on these cars: Car reliability research |
We have an initial reliability stat for the new W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through June 30, 2010.
Other sources of car reliability information won't cover the more recent months until the summer or even fall of next year. With a reported repair frequency of 59 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class remains about average, which is quite good for an all-new German luxury car. Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in November and February. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability comparisons |
Still confusing
Does that mean that 59% (59 out of 100) E class cars needed repairs? That doesn't sound like average to me.
|
Trust CR more.
Originally Posted by sosh
(Post 4129238)
To me I usually dismiss much of these stats as most are taken very early in the ownership even before someone has much experience with what ever vehicle is in question. Powers surveys usually come to me within a couple of weeks after taking delivery. Most owners at this early time are still enamoured with their purchase and really do not even know if something is not quite correct. A survey after say 2 years of ownership and maybe 25K miles would tell lots more.
|
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 4210655)
Does that mean that 59% (59 out of 100) E class cars needed repairs? That doesn't sound like average to me.
I remember when people used to count the number of initial defects per car--and two or three was considered decent. An average of half a repair per car during the first year sounds pretty good to me. We have additional stats for the percentage of cars with no repairs, but do require at least nine months of responses for each car to calculate this. You won't learn the actual average or actual scores from CR, because they only give you dots. Fewer repairs are reported to CR partly because of how their question is worded and partly because their survey covers the entire previous year--and I've found that many people often forget about all but the most serious repairs after just a couple of months. A large sample size cannot correct for this. |
More confused now.
[quote=mkaresh;4210814]It's extrapolated over 12 months, and some cars require more than one. So the percentage with 1+ repairs is actually around 50. The average is a little lower, about 40, but this is close enough to regard it as about average. This is for any repair, even a rattle or misaligned trim.
We have separate stats for the percentage of cars with no repairs, but do require at least nine months of responses for each car to calculate this. Are you saying that you do NOT include cars with no repairs in your stats to arrive at the 40 per 100 needing repairs? In other words, my reports (zero repairs) over last six or seven months have not been included in your reliability stats? |
Whether or not a car has had repairs does not affect whether it's included.
All cars for which we have a response at the end of the quarter are included in the regular "repair trips per year" statistic I've been posting here. I also post a second, additional (I said "separate" earlier, but "additional" might be clearer) set of results for the percentage of cars with no repairs and the percentage with three or more in the last 12 months. The regular stats are an average. These separate stats are not averages, but absolute percentages. In some ways they're clearer and more useful, and no one else provides anything like them, but they also require more data. Here's the page with all of those we have so far: TrueDelta Nada-odds and Lemon-odds stats To include a car in this analysis we need at least 9 months of data on it. We have this much data on only three W212s so far, so no stat yet. But remember we'll have another update in just three more months. In November we might have this much data on 25+ cars, possibly including yours. If so, we'll have these additional stats. |
We'll start previewing the next update to participants in just a couple of weeks.
Some 2011s have been enrolled, but more will be needed before we can provide some initial stats for the second model year. To help provide better information on your year: Car reliability research |
All four rotors were warped @ 3k on the clock! I actually started a thread about it and others are having the same issue. MB took care of it and replaced all around. So far w/ another 3k on the clock all is good. However, this does not affect my liking of the car and I would def get another one, when lease is up.
|
They turned them, or replaced them? Replaced suggests that they installed bad parts.
|
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4278429)
They turned them, or replaced them? Replaced suggests that they installed bad parts.
|
Updated reliability stats next month.
As always, the more owners participate, the better the information we can provide to everyone. Car reliability research |
Recall
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4307696)
Updated reliability stats next month.
As always, the more owners participate, the better the information we can provide to everyone. Car reliability research |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 4307993)
How will the recall on 100% of the 2010's effect the stats?
|
From what I've heard, the Recall was for very early '10's fyi, not all of 'em.
|
Starting this month we have a new question to measure, as objectively as possible, the severity of a problem. Many people have been asking for reliability stats that weight problems by how severe they are, and once we have enough responses with the revised survey we'll start providing this.
Also, updated reliability stats this month. As always, the more owners participate, the better the information we can provide to everyone. Car reliability research |
We have an updated reliability stat for the new W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through September 30, 2010.
Other sources of car reliability information won't cover the months since April until the summer or even fall of next year. With a reported repair frequency of 41 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class has improved so it is almost "better than average." Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in February and May. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability comparisons |
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 3922565)
Mr. Karesh.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but did your review state that you would not recommend the 2010 W212 because of hard seats and light steering? My 2009 Volvo is the superior car in this regard. I am not going to hide or pretend something "just because". Driving the E350 showed me just how good the Volvo is. |
Originally Posted by rovermark
(Post 4376830)
I agree fully with Mr. Karesh - the seats are hard and uncomfortable. And I would also say the standard leather is less than "nice", a bit rough and does not possess the softness you would expect. Steering is a bit light too. This was my opinion after a test drive of the car.
My 2009 Volvo is the superior car in this regard. I am not going to hide or pretend something "just because". Driving the E350 showed me just how good the Volvo is. LOL, I have to say, whenever I drive my volvo, which is usually just to move it in the driveway out of the way, I do admire how comfortable the seats are..:naughty:..and it's only an s40 2001, hehe..... I will admit, the seats in my 550 could be better.........:crazy: |
Originally Posted by rovermark
(Post 4376830)
I agree fully with Mr. Karesh - the seats are hard and uncomfortable. And I would also say the standard leather is less than "nice", a bit rough and does not possess the softness you would expect. Steering is a bit light too. This was my opinion after a test drive of the car.
My 2009 Volvo is the superior car in this regard. I am not going to hide or pretend something "just because". Driving the E350 showed me just how good the Volvo is. |
The M-B Tex will last forever.
Seat comfort is necessarily subjective. Clearly a number of people within Mercedes-Benz find the seats comfortable, or they wouldn't be the way they are. |
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4440205)
The M-B Tex will last forever.
Seat comfort is necessarily subjective. Clearly a number of people within Mercedes-Benz find the seats comfortable, or they wouldn't be the way they are. It's easy to get used to something if it's all you've got. :) |
I think that auto seats are a bit like shoes. It can be hard to find just the right fit and is subjective person to person. I have read reviews of e350's where the seat comfort was praised and others less so. I personally found the mb tex seats in the new e350 comfortable from the cushioning perspective but uncomfortable untimately due to the dual seat cushion, where you have one cushion under your butt and a second cushion in front of that which creates a horizontal gap between the two cushions(this physically bothered me). I find the vertical creases and stiching in the leather seats more comfortable, although more cushioning would be an improvement. I think the desire to keep up the image of the e class as a sport sedan as opposed to the luxury sedan that it leans more toward, keeps Mercedes from providing more plush seating. I just bought the e550 sport with the dynamic seats(a ton of fun, work great!!) and previously owned a 2000 e320 4matic and still also own a 2001 e55(full Kleeman mods). The e55 has by far the most comfortable and nicest seats. Not sure how this thread got on to this topic. Thanks. Ned.
|
I actually find the seats to be very comfortable. More-so than my W211's.
I think they're a perfect mix, that lean more toward Luxury, but have that sporty firmer feeling as well. The Leather equipped E-Class was kind of a let down for me, all in all, as I didn't find the material to feel all that different from M-B Tex. The cushioning I didn't really pay attention to, but I do think I remember my seats almost subconsciously seeming a tiny bit "flat" in comparison. |
Originally Posted by ngerstman
(Post 4442384)
The e55 has by far the most comfortable and nicest seats.
I think they should be available as an option at least on the E550. I guess MB feels that AMG owners would get upset, or it might undercut AMG sales. I'm an AMG owner and it wouldn't bother me for the E550 to get the same seats. Why should one have to buy a larger S Class just to get better seats? BMW offers their Nappa leather and multicontour seats as an option in both the 550i and the 535i as part of the M sport package and the active ventilated seat package. |
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 4376753)
We have an updated reliability stat for the new W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through September 30, 2010.
Other sources of car reliability information won't cover the months since April until the summer or even fall of next year. With a reported repair frequency of 41 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class has improved so it is almost "better than average." Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in February and May. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability comparisons Just hit 18,000 miles (12 mos old) in my E550. No mechanical issues so far except recall for power steering. |
My e550 is two weeks old with just 500 miles on it. Does the stereo sound improve much as it breaks in? Does the base get better. Right now I find the bottom end lacking, but I'm a pretty demanding audiophile. I ripped out the stock stereo in my 2001 e55 and put in an upgraded stereo. Thanks. Ned.
|
We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through September 30, 2010. Other sources of car reliability information won't cover the months since April until the summer or even fall.
With a reported repair frequency of 41 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the new E-Class has improved so it is almost "better than average." Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in February and May. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through December 31, 2010.
Other sources of car reliability information won't cover the months since April until the summer or even fall of this year. With a reported repair frequency of 54 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the W212 E-Class remains about average. Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in May and August. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through March 31, 2011.
With a reported repair frequency of 39 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the W212 E-Class remains about average. We'll have further updates in August and November. With more participants we could provide more precise information and cover additional model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Confused again
[quote=mkaresh;4721565]We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through March 31, 2011.
With a reported repair frequency of 39 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the W212 E-Class remains about average. Appreciate your doing these, but when it was 41 per 100 in February, it was "almost better than average," now at 39 per 100 it "remains about average." What does it take to get to better than average? |
37 or 38. It is very close. Of course, if it were 37 then it would be better than average--but not far from "average."
|
We have updated our car reliability stat for the W212 E-Class to include owner experiences through June 30, 2011.
With 24 repair trips per 100 cars per year, the 2010 E-Class is now better than average We'll have further updates in November and February. With more participants, we could provide more precise information and cover all model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through September 30, 2011.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 13, small sample size 2010: 31 Both are better than average. Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in February and May. With more participants we could provide more precise information and cover additional model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have updated our reliability stats for the E-Class (on our redesigned site) to include owner experiences through December 31, 2011.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 26, better than average, small sample size 2010: 30, better than average Thank you, once again, to everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in May and August. With more participants, we could provide more precise information and cover all model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
:ythanx karesh
|
We have an updated reliability stat for the W212 E-Class based on owner experiences through June 30, 2012.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 26, better than average, small sample size 2010: 65, worse than earlier and worse than average We'll have further updates in November and February. With more owners involved we could provide more precise information and cover additional model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2012.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 24, better than average, small sample size 2010: 50, about average We'll have further updates in February and May. We'd love to provide more precise stats and fully cover all model years--just a matter of getting more owners involved. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We have updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through December 31, 2012.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 24, low 2010: 46, moderate, small sample size Thank you, once again, everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in May and August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Through Dec. or March 2013????
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 5601946)
We have updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through December 31, 2012.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011: 24, low 2010: 46, moderate, small sample size Thank you, once again, everyone who has been helping. We'll have further updates in May and August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons I do recommend that as many people as possible participate in these surveys. You can also access specific repairs performed. |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through March 31, 2013.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011 E-Class: 23, low 2010 E-Class: 63, moderate, small sample size We'll have further updates in August and in November. With more participants we could provide more precise stats and cover all model years. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through June 30, 2013. (Another source is about 14 months behind.)
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011 E-Class: 37, moderate 2010 E-Class: 63, moderate We'll have further updates in November and February. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
<duplicate post>
|
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2013.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011 E-Class: 45, moderate 2010 E-Class: 59, moderate We'll have further updates in February and in May. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through December 31, 2013.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2011 E-Class: 43, moderate 2010 E-Class: 54, moderate, small sample size We'll have further updates in May and in August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see the repairs behind these stats, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Our reliability stats for the E-Class now include owner experiences through March 31, 2014, making them nearly a year ahead of other sources.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 32, moderate, small sample size 2011 E-Class: 42, moderate 2010 E-Class: 78, high Thank you, once again, everyone who has been helping. Next update in August. For a deeper dive, including the stats for other cars and repair descriptions, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through June 30, 2014 (making them about 14 months ahead of some others).
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 26, low 2011 E-Class: 39, moderate 2010 E-Class: 71, high Next updates in November and in February. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. For repair descriptions, the stats of other cars, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2014.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 26, low 2012 E-Class: 19, low, very small sample size 2011 E-Class: 62, moderate 2010 E-Class: 67, moderate Additional participants always helpful (especially if you see "small sample size" next to the year, or no stat at all). To view the repairs behind these numbers, check the stats for other cars, and sign up to help improve this information (next update in February): Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
E Class Reliability
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 6272270)
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2014.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 26, low 2012 E-Class: 19, low, very small sample size 2011 E-Class: 62, moderate 2010 E-Class: 67, moderate Additional participants always helpful (especially if you see "small sample size" next to the year, or no stat at all). To view the repairs behind these numbers, check the stats for other cars, and sign up to help improve this information (next update in February): Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
What happened to the 2013 model year? It seems to skip right over it.
|
Originally Posted by topspin2000
(Post 6273901)
What happened to the 2013 model year? It seems to skip right over it.
|
Hopefully they are better
Originally Posted by DerekACS
(Post 6273517)
Thank you, Michael, for posting this information. It's good to see that the W212 just keeps improving on its reliability. My 2015 E250BT 4M thus far has been flawless. :y
|
Originally Posted by El Cid
(Post 6274061)
Hopefully they are better, but it is possible that as they age, more problems will begin to surface. That is pretty much what happened with the 2010 and 2011.
|
Since 2006 or so the German brands have all greatly improved the reliability of their cars during the first few years, and perhaps as far out as four or even six years (when the CPO warranties end). But they still have work to do after that point.
When recommending cars, I have few qualms about recommending a Mercedes for people unlikely to keep it more than 3-4 years. But for people who say they'll keep a car over six years, not so much, at least not yet. The latest cars could prove reliable for 8-10 years, there's just no way to know at this point. |
I think one of the big issue of the early 2000's cars was tied into the brake by wire system. My dealer kept me out of trouble with regular updates but I know a number of folks who had issues. A lot of people never got used to it.
Also, my 2008 W211 had significant differences in toys vs. the 2003. There were fewer gadgets which makes me wonder if they just didn't really clean up the electrics. BMW I am told still today has electrical issues. |
Signed up. It's free. What's all the hubbub, bubb? :nix:
If you don't want to participate, then do not participate. :y |
Originally Posted by Cocca
(Post 6330825)
Signed up. It's free. What's all the hubbub, bubb? :nix:
If you don't want to participate, then do not participate. :y |
1 Attachment(s)
New stuff this time. We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through the end of 2014. Plus we've added reliability trends graphs. These indicate how a model's reliability has changed as it has aged, and how different model years performed when the same age.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 20, low (my mother's red wagon has been flawless) 2012 E-Class: 36, moderate, small sample size 2011 E-Class: 45, moderate 2010 E-Class: 44, moderate We'll have further updates in May and in August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. Especially need more 2012s, 2013s, and 2015s. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons To view the new graphs, select "reliability trends" in the breadcrumbs at the top of the page. Or check out the attachment. German cars often have a bump around the 4-year mark, I suspect because that's when the original warranty ends. |
Today I remembered why I haven't joined your site as a contributor already.
I tried to join today, bur your "join" page doesn't like my email address ... says it looks like it's designed to "shunt" emails and wants a different email address. Same thing happened the last time I tried to join, so what am I to do? |
Sorry for the trouble. Two options:
1. Join with a different address, then change it. 2. Email me (michael@) and I can manually set up the account. |
We've had great participation by owners of the 2014 E-Class (thanks, mom!--she's one of them). But far fewer owners have enrolled a 2015 so far. We need more of them to provide stats on the second model year.
Same for the 2013--many people appear to have waited for the updated car. So if you have a 2015 or 2013, I especially hope you'll join. (If you have a 2010-2012 or 2014, more of those is also always helpful--you can't have too large a sample size.) As stated in the OP, participants receive free access to all of the resulting information, for all cars, not just the Focus. www.truedelta.com/join |
Recently got a 2015 E350 RWD and added it. But it's leased.
|
Thanks, leased is fine.
|
I highly recommend this site. One advantage is that you can the actual comments of the participants as to what was wrong and what was done to fix it.
I wonder if there is a point where cars get better as they get older. For instance, the 2010 models may be improving because all the "new" model problems have been fixed? Of course, one thing that improved the 2011-2014 models was all the problems that surfaced in the 2010's and that MB fixed at the factory. |
So, how have these cars been doing lately?
Our reliability stats for the E-Class now include owner experiences through March 31, 2015. (Others are nearly a year behind.) In terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 24, low 2012 E-Class: 35, low, small sample size 2011 E-Class: 58, moderate 2010 E-Class: 28, low We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 75, 4 Next updates in August and in November. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. For repair descriptions, the stats for other cars, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability |
Bump to the top, as this is great information!!
I'm a big data guy! so of course more data points mean more reliable information! |
Thanks for the earlier bump!
Our reliability stats for the E-Class now cover the year ending June 30, 2015. (Others are over a year behind, and so report how these cars were doing when a year younger.) Repair trips per 100 cars: 2014 E-Class: 26, low 2012 E-Class: 45, moderate 2011 E-Class: 52, moderate 2010 E-Class: 19, low We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 74, 4 If a model year isn't listed, then we especially need more owners involved. For the descriptions of all reported repairs, results for other models, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2015.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2014 E-Class: 25, low 2012 E-Class: 56, moderate 2011 E-Class: 52, moderate 2010 E-Class: 19, low We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 85, < 1 We'll have further updates in February and in May. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. To see how competitors compare, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Looks like the 2010 E Class is doing very well based on your sites data collection.
|
Matter of time
Originally Posted by jahquan3
(Post 6648074)
Looks like the 2010 E Class is doing very well based on your sites data collection.
|
My 2010 nothin at 34k miles. It's a Bull.
|
Sometimes the repair frequency declines after the warranty ends because people opt to live with problems instead of fixing them. This could explain the peak with the 2011s and 2012s, as those were in the last year of the warranty.
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through the end of 2015, about eight months ahead of other sources. In terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year--lower is better: 2014 E-Class: 21, low 2013 E-Class: 14, low, small sample size 2012 E-Class: 58, moderate 2011 E-Class: 46, moderate 2010 E-Class: 29, low We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 86, < 1 We'll have further updates in May and in August. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. For the repairs behind these stats, reliability information on other models, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Or problems fixed
[QUOTE=mkaresh;6727821]Sometimes the repair frequency declines after the warranty ends because people opt to live with problems instead of fixing them.
Or it could mean that the problems have been fixed and earlier models are in really good shape now. |
[QUOTE=El Cid;6728276]
Originally Posted by mkaresh
(Post 6727821)
Sometimes the repair frequency declines after the warranty ends because people opt to live with problems instead of fixing them.
Or it could mean that the problems have been fixed and earlier models are in really good shape now. More data certainly helps in identifying such patterns. For those who aren't already participants, I hope you'll consider it: www.truedelta.com/join |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through March 31, 2016, making them nearly a year ahead of other sources.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2015 E-Class: 32, moderate, very small sample size 2014 E-Class: 24, low 2013 E-Class: 20, low, small sample size 2012 E-Class: 70, high 2011 E-Class: 34, low 2010 E-Class: 50, moderate We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 86, < 1 Thank you, once again, everyone who has been helping. Next update in August. For a deeper dive, including the stats for other cars and repair descriptions, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Been a member for years on my last 3 cars. I like the access to the info. So join if you have not, they are pretty good about not bothering you all the time for info.
|
I agree with screw9991le. Only emails once in awhile to remind me to update my repairs. Good resource with info on all cars out there.
|
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through June 30, 2016. Reliability information elsewhere is based on a survey conducted in April 2015--well over a year ago.
Repair frequencies, in terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year: 2015 E-Class: 51, high, very small sample size 2014 E-Class: 26, moderate 2013 E-Class: 15, low, small sample size 2012 E-Class: 55, high 2011 E-Class: 43, moderate 2010 E-Class: 65, moderate We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 85, < 1 We'll have further updates in November and next February. The more owners participate, the more comprehensive and precise these will be. For the repairs behind these stats, reliability information on other models, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Up to 23k miles, not one issue except standard maintenance service performed
|
Just joined with my '14 E350 :)
Edward |
We've updated our reliability stats for the E-Class to include owner experiences through September 30, 2016. In terms of repair trips per 100 cars per year (lower is better):
2015 E-Class: 80, high, very small sample size 2014 E-Class: 36, moderate 2013 E-Class: 21, low, small sample size 2012 E-Class: 39, moderate 2011 E-Class: 42, moderate 2010 E-Class: 66, moderate We have two additional statistics, "Nada-odds" and "Lemon-odds", to indicate the percentage of cars with no repairs in the past year and those that required 3+ trips to the repair shop: 2014 E-Class: 70, < 1 2010 E-Class: 49, < 1 Additional participants always helpful, especially for years without stats or with small sample sizes. For the repairs behind these stats, reliability information on other models, and to sign up to help improve this information: Mercedes-Benz E-Class reliability ratings and comparisons |
Outstanding reliability:
Loaded 2014 E350 (LED lights, Distronic Plus, Massage seats, Premium, parking assist); 30500 miles; 2018/09/14; Not a single problem. Ordered from factory - 2 month wait. |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:32 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands