http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Jul06/1...lity_Test.html

I don't see as many "old" BMW's, say 10+ years of age, on the road pulling daily duty, as I do old M-B's. An old Benz just seems to retain it's charm as it ages. Maybe the link above explains why.

 

124ftw. There are alot of e30 and e36s down here though...

 

The W124 was an end of an era. I wish they still built Mercedes Benzes like that......

I had a 1972 Bavaria 3.0 that was a tank, too. 209,000 miles on it. I wish they still built BMWs like that.......

Those days are over for both brands.

 

It's funny, it was in some Magazine, that I read: A W124 in prime condition can still get parked in front of the restaurant at Valet Service.... While a BMW E2x (competing 5-Series) certainly will not.

I rarely see old Bimmer's driving around either, but tons of older Benzes. Benzes indeed seem to age "like a fine wine" and well maintained examples of good models will usually become insta-Classics, IMO.

Fact is, the new models are better than the older ones in every which way, by a long-shot. Of course they are, because they're technical evolutions. The older Benzes had a much higher supremacy gap between them and the next car back then, and they sure charged for that (this cutting $10+K off MSRP off of a "Luxury Car" nonsense was nonexistent with M-B back then).

For example: Back then, in a Benz you were safe, while in anything else you were very not safe.

Now, In a Benz you're safest (IMO), and in almost anything else, you're still safe.

 

fwiw, that sort of stuff is what I hate about owning a Mercedes. There are some of us who dislike the over-baked snobbery of the brand.

And who cares what valets think (in fact they think very little about the car you drive, they've seen them all and all they want is a decent tip.)

imho, it's a blemish on these cars that people buy them for some sort of perceived status. That's part of why they get such negative stereotyping.

 

I think it's a cultural perception that anything that resembles wealth and success also has a negative stereo type due to the type of people that purchase those items. Of course it's not just with cars.

 

Very good points. MB's are nowhere near the most expensive cars on the road.

 

Keep in mind: those older Mercedes cost what they did (a lot!) because they cost a lot to build. There is some good old-fashioned "I will drive this forever" snobbery baked in there, too.

Couldn't agree more about the valets. As far as I'm concerned, I hope they DON'T like my car!

 

AWESOME video!

 

Very impressive on the E though. Damn impressive.

 

Thanks, Speed. I think there are 2 or 3 additional videos that show further punishment to the Benz, for those who have time or interest to see more. I thought posting the videos would add a bit of levity and perspective that the group might enjoy.

 

Of course. It's not Mercedes' fault though. They built prime cars since the inception of "Cars", and we as a society, use them as a "vehicle" to show-off certain things about ourselves (generally speaking). Many people, like me, do love the history and elements of the brand that allow people to even be so snobbish about it, and are proud to drive it, and do have a sense of accomplishment acquainted with it, etc. However, it's that douchey, braggart type (who in reality lack in true self confidence), that can ruin it for everyone, by smearing the brands name due to the way they act with it.

I think that line about the W124 is simply to honor the car, and prove a point about how quickly a good Benz can become a Classic/Modern-Classic.

For the record, I have never, and hopefully will never Valet my car. I don't even like to eat at Restaurants that require Valet. I'm not the "stereotypical" Benz owner, and it allows me to treat, and perceive the brand in a more innocent light, sans many of the negative connotations. I don't have many friends in real life who own Benzes, I don't hang around people who belong to car groups that judge a car based on its price/brand/status, etc. So in my "real life", I don't let the negative social aspects equated to a Luxury brand, or "who else drives my car", etc. ruin my ownership experience.

Funny observation, but very obvious. If you go to the "levels" in this Forum (C, E, S, SL, etc. Classes), you immediately notice how the crowds generally change as the cars get "higher" in number, AND/OR you notice a difference in personality and attitudes when it comes to Sedan Forums, VS Roadster owners, Coupe, AMG, etc. owners.

For example, the only Forum (that I've gone to) that has screen names with text like: "xxxxBeNZZ", "KEEP JOCKIn' MY BENZZ", "YOU LOVE MY BENZO", are guys in the C-Class Forum, which is obviously not only the cheapest way to get into the brand, but is a car that barely speaks for the entire brand in so many ways.

 

Absoultely. The snob-appeal of the brands makes it unappealing to me. I don't want to draw attention to myself.

The Mercedes' from the W124 and further back still retain their attraction after so many years and still look timeless, but I don't feel the same way about the cars afterwards. They age just a badly as a Ford in terms of styling. The end of an era truly ended with the W124.

 

I stopped watching the first video when the women started smacking the car with the baseball bat - however the power windows on that old W124 seemed much smoother than my 3 month old W212.

 

I disagree. I think the W210 and W220's, for example, when equipped with AMG Pack, and in top condition, still can look stunning and timeless.... The W210 admittedly being the more polarizing of the two, as the design was arguably one of M-B's less timeless approaches.

I never found the W124 to be all thaat captivating (from an M-B enthusiasts standpoint), for some odd reason. I have seen some these days that are well kept and well done, that still drop my jaw, but all in all, I prefer the W126 to it.

 

+1. I wish they would make a model where they take all the extra crap out of the car which isn't safety related (alot of that they can keep too) and return to building well built cars that are designed to last. I liked Mercedes better when most people viewed them as odd curiousities as opposed to status symbols and left them to those of us who just wanted a really good piece of engineering and workmanship.

 

Then you'd have all the modern day tech soldiers crying about no cup holders, Bluetooth, auto trunks, 10,000 Watt Sound Systems, Keyless Go's, etc. etc.

They just can't win, can they.

 

Everybody likes technological progress; better motors, better transmissions, and the latest Sat Navs, etc.. And we all expect that sort of progression.

All good brands have excellent technology and each new model is better in that respect than the previous model. They don't go 'backwards' in that area. You couldn't sell any new cars.

But the production process has been designed to be way more cost efficient and profitable, and the supply chain is super streamlined (starting with the implementing of JIT inventory decades ago.) It has to be, there's just absolutely no other way to stay competitive and profitable. Efficiency is paramount now and that means the price of cars is actually less than they were 20 years ago. If they kept building cars without such changes in production, a basic E350 would probably cost $100k plus today.

But build quality has suffered. And all brands are dealing with the same issues except perhaps for certain ultra expensive super cars. (And it's not about sharing parts bins or platforms. That's been going on in the industry since day one.)

There's no way that Porsche, for example, could ever build the 993 again. The costs would be astronomical. And in fact, that's why they brought in Toyota to teach them efficient and profitable mass production. But you can readily see (and any mechanic will tell you) that the build quality of the 993 is superior over the 997.

But on the other hand, the engineering and technological advances of the 997 dwarf the 993. It's a better car performance-wise. Yet it lacks the build and material quality. So yeah, we get more advanced cars in that respect. But at the sacrifice of some of that build quality of the past. The build quality of the 993 is so desirable and which makes it a model that is actually worth more than most modern 997s on the resale market. But the 997 definitely has all the technological goodies and the performance.

And I seriously doubt Daimler could ever build the tank-like W124 again and offer it at a reasonable selling price.

Hey, I want everything. Super build and assembly quality and materials, and super performance and high tech goodies, and all with super reliability. And all for no more than $75k

 

Well said and quite true.

Case in point: My 92 300CE coupe cost me about $70k in 1992, so how do they build a new one and with a V8 to boot for the same $ 19 years later?

The info you cite for Porsche is spot on; I've been driving these cars since 1982.

 

I'll put my position more succinctly. I just wish Mercedes would build a car that most owners didn't think that it would be foolish to own out of warranty.

 

That could also be said for BMW, Audi, Jag and most competitor's cars.

 

Agree with a lot of what you say, but the 993 was a product of very lean, near bk times for Porsche. It's the last of the aircooled yadda yadda, but there is a lot of compromise in that car, and -- relative to it's peers, was no paragon of quality. And, knock on wood, my 997 has been almost trouble free through its first 5 yrs. My sense is that lack of bulletproofness in modern cars is a product of their complexity, not a lack of comparative quality.

 

Relative to the 996? The model that came after? With RMS and IMS issues and imploding motors that Porsche failed to address until after 2006? Now that was truly a compromise car.

As far as construction, the 911, 964, 993 are just different animals than today. And Porsche had always been in and out of 'lean' years. Hence the perpetual hand me downs from previous parts bins. I merely used the 993 as an example since it tends to share the same position as the W124 in these sorts of arguments. Which is why I said, "for example."

Nothing inherently wrong with a post 2006 997 and current 997.2 whatsoever, they're a fantastic evolution from the original. That's not the point. And aside from the 996 and early 997s, all models have been pretty bulletproof.

But the build and material quality has changed quite a bit from before the assembly line built 996 and today. And reliability in the later 997 and current 997.2 is fine. Also not my point. But build quality and materials is definitely different, pretty much anybody can tell that.

And part of the reason Porsche was going broke was because of its high production costs. And that's why they streamlined production. And also became a bank ()
It was out of necessity. They got it perfect now and have the highest profit margin per unit in the industry.

The 997.2 beats the pants off earlier models in technology and performance. They've sold more 997s than any 911 variant; over 150,000 of them. But the bits and pieces, the overall build, the way the door no longer makes that "Porsche tink" sound when it closes, no more true dry sump (except of course in the GT3, GT3 RS, GT2 and Turbo) is all very real.

 

One thing a lot of people make points about is how new cars "use a lot more plastic".

Of course this is true, but many don't take into account the fact that plastic parts on the interior (and exterior) are not done as cost savings measures, they're done as safety measures, and are legally required. For example, those Classic cars with REAL chrome, steel, hard surfaces, etc. right in front of your face are major safety hazards if you get into an accident. Not to mention, the inefficiency of their weight, etc.

Obviously, in this day and age, we adapt, and judge the plastics used on different cars, as plastics greatly vary in quality themselves.

As for the Porsche's, of course, there is that classic Porsche "tink" to the doors, and I could get in a pre-996 and instantly have nostalgic soulful Porsche memories brought back by the unique scent, etc. I'd say that a lot of what's more "quality" can be debated, depending on who you ask, but what the older cars have are real materials.... Not plastic recreations, which I just covered. That is something that is an obvious and natural factor that gives off a more quality feeling in certain ways.

The 996 interior was just a bit upsetting overall. The 997's is an improvement, but what really bothers me about it is, that very flat, extremely unrefined/utilitarian slab of non textured plastic all throughout the center console area.

And just to add, I feel that when you start noticing "mass volume" effects in place in car interiors (just about every car out there nowadays), what you lose more-so than anything, is that non-tangible "soul". At least, to me, that's the rarest thing to find in a modern car, as compared to a Classic car.

 

That's funny because not many people know that scent. It's discussed often on pre-996 Porsche forums. It's absolutely unique. A blind person familiar with it would recognize the car immediately. People even joke about formulating a perfume with that scent. Eau d' leather with a trace of oil. Or Dry Sump #5.


Actually the main reason people gravitate towards any one specific car is usually based on those intangibles than simply all things tangible. That's partly why choice is so subjective. And those intangibles are actually important in one's life (be it cars, food, attraction to other humans, etc..) So "soul" does have value and meaning. Without it we'd be just a bunch of boring rational bean counters.