Confused about the head bolt issue
Abstract
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
ANALYSIS
Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change. This risk/benefit analysis was created out of the development of product liability, culminating at Judge Learned Hand's BPL formula, where if the expected harm exceeded the cost to take the precaution, then the company must take the precaution, whereas if the cost was liable, then it did not have to. However, the BPL formula focuses on a specific accident, while the risk/benefit analysis requires an examination of the costs, risks, and benefits through use of the product as a whole. Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the design changes which would have made the Pinto safer. However, just because it was legal doesn't necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is difficult to understand how a price can be put on saving a human life.




A wide press coverage of a broad based problem would cost MB/AMG a lot in reputation and undo a lot of the marketing efforts for the brand.
The best way out is for MB to cover the repair even after warantee expiration, otherwise the lawyers will uncover a class action opportunity.
A wide press coverage of a broad based problem would cost MB/AMG a lot in reputation and undo a lot of the marketing efforts for the brand.
The best way out is for MB to cover the repair even after warantee expiration, otherwise the lawyers will uncover a class action opportunity.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Hopefully Merc63 will weigh in here. He's another member who's been pushing this issue along but hasn't posted on it for a while. He mentioned at one time he had seen cases in other AMG-model sub-forums here...I haven't looked for them at all. But to answer your question, all platforms most likely are suspect. Many more C's are sold than other AMG models so it stands to reason they are much more visible.
Hopefully Merc63 will weigh in here. He's another member who's been pushing this issue along but hasn't posted on it for a while. He mentioned at one time he had seen cases in other AMG-model sub-forums here...I haven't looked for them at all. But to answer your question, all platforms most likely are suspect. Many more C's are sold than other AMG models so it stands to reason they are much more visible.
It seems like it happens around 40+k miles. Search the other forums you will find some good reads.. Enough to give you a bit of a worry if you are out of warranty...
When BMW had issues with the s54 they gave out 7 yr 100k mile warranties. I expect something like this from MB.
Cheers, Pickles.
Abstract
The cases involving the explosion of Ford Pinto's due to a defective fuel system design led to the debate of many issues, most centering around the use by Ford of a cost-benefit analysis and the ethics surrounding its decision not to upgrade the fuel system based on this analysis.
ANALYSIS
Although Ford had access to a new design which would decrease the possibility of the Ford Pinto from exploding, the company chose not to implement the design, which would have cost $11 per car, even though it had done an analysis showing that the new design would result in 180 less deaths. The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change. This risk/benefit analysis was created out of the development of product liability, culminating at Judge Learned Hand's BPL formula, where if the expected harm exceeded the cost to take the precaution, then the company must take the precaution, whereas if the cost was liable, then it did not have to. However, the BPL formula focuses on a specific accident, while the risk/benefit analysis requires an examination of the costs, risks, and benefits through use of the product as a whole. Based on this analysis, Ford legally chose not to make the design changes which would have made the Pinto safer. However, just because it was legal doesn't necessarily mean that it was ethical. It is difficult to understand how a price can be put on saving a human life.
I'm VERY interested to follow your story.....as I guess we all are....but your "story" is a bit closer to home for me!
Please keep us posted &... Good Luck, Pickles.
Please keep us updated I am an 09 C63 owner with 40,000km's on the clock and have reached warranty maturity. I did however extend my Mercedes Road Care Assistance whatever that is?
Hope I don't have to jump in the ring with MB Australia on an engine problem....Cheers
James
is this correct? because there is not an official bulletin to look at this possible problem




