I have not noticed that and have always thought the video quality of the backup and 360° cameras were quite good. Maybe the lenses are dirty?

 

No, the quality is certainly good, when taken in isolation. But in comparison to the previous generation E-class (213), and the current Generation GLE, the quality of the camera, at least to my eyes, seemed diminished.

End of the day, they may be making these subtle cost-cutting changes, hoping nobody would notice. I am just speculating.

For instance, in case of the “refreshed” 2024 GLE, they quietly introduced reflector LED headlights as what comes with the standard car. Reflectors are what I’d expect on a Honda Pilot, and not even on an Acura. In a Mercedes, they should never even have passed the initial screening. But probably cost-cutting to stay solvent, due to the extreme austerity triggered by the high energy costs in Germany. Just like changing their parts sourcing for 65% of the car, to non-German sources, unlike just a few years back when 85% of the parts content were of German origin.

PS: The rearview camera thing was just an observation, since I had the prior cars to compare against. Anybody not comparing against the prior car, will not notice any degradation, since the camera is certainly “good enough”

 

Is it clear enough so you can you read the plates? Is the differences very noticeable?

 

It was yesterday night, when I was backing up, that I noticed the difference in clarity. In the GLE450, the view would have been crystal clear…..here it was not. So during the daytime, you may never be able to make out a difference.

 

I think the view is “good enough” for most of the population. Totally functional. As long as the reference point is not the “last generation” products like the 213 E-class or the current GLE.

Make no mistake, I love the car overall, and truly enjoy the driving experience. So these are at best nit-picks, rather than anything close to a show-stopper.

 

So the main difference is at night, I guess they changed the aperture or used a different supplier.

 

Glad you love it and I assume the other improvements made up for it anyways.

 

Is it possible that the lens could have just been clouded by humidity?

 

Yes, exactly. Changing a lens aperture from say a large f/1.8 aperture lens, to say an f/2.8 or f/3.2 lens will result in this exact situation. A big difference in cost for the manufacturer, for sure, in terms of a few hundred dollars per unit.

 

The night was pretty clear with no rain or unusually humid conditions. But I will check it out again, today, after I get back home.

 

The same sort of cost savings when they outfitted the 2024+ GLE standard configuration (and the E-class and the GLC standard configurations) with reflector headlights, vis-a-vis the prior standard configuration being the more expensive projector lights. The upgraded “digital lights” are projectors of course, and can be optioned in, which I personally did, in my All-Terrain.

 

Reflectors as base light on the V167 GLE is a good point, that was really cheap for sure. The pre-facelift base lights didn't have reflectors I don't think.

 

Is the resolution also downgraded?

 

It may or may not be, but one has nothing to do with the other. Aperture is a function of the opening that allows light through while resolution is a function of the image sensor that captures that light. Although, another way to reduce cost is to reduce resolution.

 

I checked the screen image once I got home, and reversed the car. My observations below:

• The resolution is certainly notably reduced, and they try to compensate for it by only using a small portion of the screen to display the image. Doing a full-screen display will immediately show the problem.
• The image is nowhere close to as bright and clear as the prior gen E-class or the current gen GLE. This time around, I paid close attention. A smaller aperture lens (much cheaper) is probably the culprit. But if the prior generation reference point was not available, the performance would be deemed to be good.

The car is great. The engine, the drivetrain, the chassis are all excellent. They just have cut costs wherever they could, to fit their price/margin target, from what I see.

Also the extensive use of wood throughout the cabin (front, sides, rear) within the 213 E-class and the GLE, are all gone, and replaced with the MB-Tex (vinyl/plastic) all around (center console and the concave slabby portion on the top for the non-superscreen versions still are present).

 

I am no photographer so thank you for explaining the differences of both.

 

I see. Appreciate the information, at least the actual drivetrain is good and glad to hear you are enjoying the vehicle.

 

I can believe they saved on a cheaper camera, but the costs would be minimal. Think of the cameras in smartphones, which are much better in quality. The whole 3 camera assembly in a modern iPhone costs Apple about $100.

That said, the E-class has a much bigger screen than the GLE. If you stretched the GLE's camera to the E-class screen it wouldn't look good either.

As a side note, I have a 2022 GLE and the camera is worse than in my wife's 2024 A-class. So maybe they went back to the old cameras in the w214 E-class?

 

Penny pinchers, I guess it adds up.

 

Just to give some perspective, a 50mm f/1.8 camera lens, is priced at $350. A 50mm f/1.2 camera lens, is priced at $2000+. Same manufacturer. People who know what these are, understand why.

A 50mm f/2.8 lens brings in HALF the light of a 50mm f/2 lens. A 50mm f/1.4 lens lets in 4 Times the light of a 50mm f/2.8 lens. Again some perspective on how these minor-appearing specs, lead to these big cost differences.

The GLE has a 12.3” display. The camera image on that full 12.3” display, is bright, clear and pin-sharp. There’s a wow factor to it. If this is stretched a bit to the 14.4” display central screen of the E-class, I doubt there’d be any noticeable degradation. The E-class on the other hand has the 14.4” screen, while the camera image is displayed on a small 6-7” portion of it……and even in that relatively small display area, the image has no “wow factor”……just a “good enough” factor.

“Good enough” is what I associate with a Honda Accord or a Toyota Camry, and not a 95K$ Mercedes.

It is what it is, and we are now beating a dead horse, since the hardware is what it is, and we just have to cope with its shortcomings.

Yes, the 2022 GLE did not use its full-12.3” screen for a variety of things, including say the Apple CarPlay etc., and only a portion of that screen was used. That changed in the 2024 GLE onwards, where the images get displayed on the full 12.3” display area. I am comparing the 2024/2025 GLE with the 2025 E-class. Again, beating a dead horse at this point.

To me, the more important consideration is, if they have been doing such cost-cutting in such obviously easy-to-see areas, what else have they done, to the areas of the car that are not that easily visible ? Mercedes did this kind of cost-cutting once before, in the dual-oval-lights era (210/211 generation) of the early-2000s E-class, where those cars were plagued with a variety of non-Mercedes-like problems, including premature rusting of body panels, and other body problems, mechanical problems and electrical problems. They fixed those cost-cutting problems in the subsequent generations, where they switched back to using premium stuff on an E-class.

And now in the 2024+ models (214 generation), cost-cutting has reared its ugly head up again, and hopefully not in the significant areas of the car.

 

You don't have to look far in all the newset models for cost cutting. All the touch sensitive buttons like on the steering wheel are much cheaper than separate buttons for each function. It's small savings, but I guess every penny counts. I do hate the new style buttons where it's one large moving panel and touch sensor detect which "button" you're actually pressing.

 

Very informative, thank you.

 

They need to bring some physical buttons back.

 

I don’t think there’s the slimmest chance that buttons would ever return. This is a trend across the automotive industry, where the physical buttons/switches/knobs are being integrated into touchscreens and touch controls. Big savings for the automakers, of course, but drastically reduces the usability for the buyers.

For instance, I also have a 2019 Honda Fit with a stick-shift, which at over 70K+ miles, performs as well as the day I got it. As analog a product as you can get. When I need to change climate control or any other such settings, I don’t ever have to look down to see where they are, since I can blindly use my hands to do the necessary changes, due to everything being intuitively laid out using physical buttons/switches and knobs. The touchscreen in the Honda Fit, is purely for the Apple CarPlay and such.

PS: One saving grace for the 214 E-class is that at least for volume control, there is a slider/button. And of course for the emergency flashers. And for changing the drive-modes.

 

Regarding physical verses digital buttons. I agree that it's not as user friendly, particularly with some functionality such as volume and climate control. It does save the manufacture money too since they are less moving parts. They are also less likely to break which is better for the consumer. It may not seem like it because there are software failures and electronic sensor failures, but any time you eliminate moving parts there is the possibility for lower failure rates. Assuming they are not using substandard parts.

Many car manufacturers are swinging too far towards no physical buttons and I'm hoping they realize there should be a balance. With all the functions in cars, it would be impossible to have enough physical buttons. Have you ever tried to send a long text with a flip phone with just number keys? Digital touch screens have a huge advantage as they can change functionality based on current context. There should be some critical functions that always have physical controls. Things like blinkers, wipers, hazards, and gear selection. There could be others I'm not thinking about, but the rest is up for debate. Volume would be nice, but I would settle for better implementation of the control already in place for the W214. It should work in a similar way the cruse control works, but maybe in reverse. A single tap on the plus/minus should move it one unit up/down. Swipe right/left should move it faster. I'm good with the climate controls being digital as long as they are always there. I've gotten use to most of it, but would like some refinement. Maybe a software update will get us there. Until then, I'll adapt or use voice commands for some things.