Mercedes-benz Vows Turnaround

[redline]

DaimlerChrysler AG is confident it can boost operating earnings at its Mercedes unit by more than $5 billion through a combination of higher revenue and cost cutting.

Eckhard Cordes, Mercedes-Benz chief, told analysts attending the Geneva auto show of the $5 billion financial targets and later reiterated the targets for reporters at an event in Stuttgart, according to press reports.

The big increase in Mercedes-Benz profitability will represent a huge turnaround from the fourth quarter of 2004, when DaimlerChrysler's luxury car unit was barely profitable. DaimlerChrysler executives, however, offered relatively few specifics about the turnaround plan but at least part of the effort will revolve around making smart profitable.

DaimlerChrysler spokesman also confirmed that Cordes had told analysts in Geneva that the group's target was to achieve break-even at Smart in 2007. In addition, the spokesman also said there was only a very slim chance the smart formore off-roader will reach the market, basically confirming a report published last week in Handelsblatt, Germany's top financial newspaper.

Speculation around the future plans for smart has been intense lately because the unit continues to produce red ink and has undermined Mercedes-Benz' financial performance. At the other end of the market, the launch of the ultra-luxury Maybach limousines also has sputtered.

Juergen Schrempp, DaimlerChrysler chief executive officer, acknowledged during an interview with The Wall Street Journal that smart has a "profit problem." The Smart brand, however, creates sympathy for DaimlerChrysler, he said during a recent interview with the Financial Times. Quality problems and a weak dollar also have hurt Mercedes-Benz, Schrempp suggested.

A combination of strong euro, the cost of launching new vehicles and the spending required to fix quality problems, particularly on E-Class sedans, as well as losses at the Smart unit, slashed operating profit at Mercedes to just $25 million in the fourth quarter of 2004 from $900 million a year earlier. In addition, Mercedes-Benz' operating profit was cut in half during 2004.

Most outside analysts think moving Mercedes margins up to seven percent in three years will be difficult, given the euro's continuing strength, high raw material prices, job guarantees for German employees, and the need to subsidize Smart over the next couple of years.

Mercedes, however, is in the midst of launching several new models, including a new M-Class sport-utility vehicle, two crossover sport wagons, and a revamped full-size S-Class car during the current calendar year. The new models will give the group's fortunes a major boost. Stronger economic growth in Europe also will give boost the Mercedes group's outlook.

In addition, the new models are vital to Mercedes' efforts to protect its U.S. market share, which is under intense pressure from competitors. Mercedes sales dropped 17 percent last month in the U.S. Cordes blamed the decline in on model changes in the U.S. but relatively low productivity at the company's assembly plant in Alabama is already raising eyebrows. "They're going to build 160,000 vehicles a year with 4000 employees. Chrysler can build twice as many vehicles with half as many employees," noted one observer.

Problems with faulty diesel pumps on cars in Europe also hurt sales, Cordes said. Blame for the faulty pump was placed at the feet of a supplier but still was a setback for Mercedes' efforts to rebuild it reputation for quality. Overall, sales of Mercedes-Benz brand cars dropped 16.2 percent, to 61,800 vehicles, but sales of smart units rose 31.3 percent, to 10,500 cars.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/images/gallery/tmb/9281_image.jpg
Mercedes-Benz plans to bring over the B-Class to compete with the growing crossover market.

Credits:
Article By:
Joseph Szczesny
March 7th, 2005
Thecarconnection.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Brabus to Expand Smart Tuning Program

Smart is hoping to convince European motorists that small doesn't necessarily mean slow. The automaker, a division of DaimlerChrysler, rolled out the latest in a series of micro-cars co-branded with Brabus during the Geneva Motor Show. The Brabus Xclusive, a version of the four-seat forfour, will boast a 177-hp motor capable of launching the little five-door from 0-100 km/h in just 6.9 seconds. And while the original Smart City Coupe could barely make minimum speed for the German Autobahn, the new model will deliver a top speed of 221 km/h (138 mph). The suspension of the Xclusiv has been lowered just over one inch for improved handling and aerodynamics. The vehicle also will offer premium features, such as leather seats. Meanwhile, Smart will also introduce a stripped version of the forfour, this model eliminating the stability control system, and priced about 1000 Euros less than the standard model. The automaker, which is based in France, has been struggling to end the losses that have plagued it since its inception. Questions about long-term strategy have led to a delay and possible cancellation of another planned model, the formore, a mini-SUV targeted at the U.S. market.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/images/gallery/tmb/9238_image.jpg

Credits:
TCC Team
(2/13/2005)

[nokia8860]

Ive been waiting for that B class to get here!

[55 ON IT]

Drop Chrysler if they want to do a real turnaround!

[jnolte]

cost cutting= cutting quality! uh oh for mercedes

[MrSpace]

we are getting the B class here in canada and not you gna gna gna

Etienne

[Dr. ///AMG]

I am so buying a brand spanking new B class when it comes out!!!!!

[krk230]

damn i love the B-class too...especially the front-end...looks very "muscular" and cute at the same time...lol... ;) :P :D

though i've heard that it won't be available in the States... :o :(

[Vodka G]

yeah i saw the B-class at the Toronto autoshow

and its not that $$ at all

[krk230]

Originally posted by Vodka G@Mar 10 2005, 01:47 PM
yeah i saw the B-class at the Toronto autoshow

and its not that $$ at all
how much is it?

[slk320]

Originally posted by 55 ON IT@Mar 9 2005, 10:52 PM
Drop Chrysler if they want to do a real turnaround!
Read profit reports. Chrysler is one of the main reasons why Mercedes is still sturviving. Chrysler's profit makes up for Mercedes's lost earnings. Buying Chrysler was the smartest move on Daihmler's part.

[Brabus]

Mercedes is just in a small slump. They will always remain king :)

I will buy either a B or A class depending on what comes here first!!

[Ozzie Bob]

I'll trade you guys A Classes for B Classes ;)

Seriously though, MB has to lift their game. I still love the Star, but I won't buy a new model until all the BS is sorted out.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by slk320@Mar 10 2005, 12:51 PM
Read profit reports. Chrysler is one of the main reasons why Mercedes is still sturviving. Chrysler's profit makes up for Mercedes's lost earnings. Buying Chrysler was the smartest move on Daihmler's part.
and no matter how many threads we post up with that fact...there will always be people looking for scapegoats.

[Hank]

i'm buying me a lexus

[nokia8860]

Originally posted by Ozzie Bob@Mar 10 2005, 01:13 PM
I'll trade you guys A Classes for B Classes ;)

Are B Classes there already? If so what you think about them? Roomy inside?

[krk230]

Originally posted by Hank@Mar 10 2005, 03:44 PM
i'm buying me a lexus
getting the GS you always wanted? :P

come on! bust out that SL55 ballah... :banana: :ph34r:

[55 ON IT]

Originally posted by Renn 208@Mar 10 2005, 01:40 PM
and no matter how many threads we post up with that fact...there will always be people looking for scapegoats.
Call it what you want. But, we all know that pre-merger mercedes cars were built with a much more higher quality, then post merger cars. With a lack of a better word, in my opinion Chrysler has cheapened the once prestige Mercedes image. It sure did lose my very humble respect in some ways. I'm sure I'm not the only who feels somewhat similar. Would dropping Chrysler help Mercedes? Who knows, but I'm sure it wouldn't hurt. Would Chrysler survive without Mercedes? I highly doubt it.

[Renn 208]

In a merger of non-equals...the little guy does not bring down the parent by being profitable. I've had first hand experience, and it just doesn't work that way.

The brand dilution brought on by chrysler is miniscule in effect compared to the damage done by the drop off in MB reliability. The contribution numbers tell a pretty clear story...but hey, believe in what you want.

[aintME]

Originally posted by Renn 208@Mar 10 2005, 11:03 PM
In a merger of non-equals...the little guy does not bring down the parent by being profitable. I've had first hand experience, and it just doesn't work that way.

The brand dilution brought on by chrysler is miniscule in effect compared to the damage done by the drop off in MB reliability. The contribution numbers tell a pretty clear story...but hey, believe in what you want.
speaking of chrysler. who do you think has had a larger influence/effect? mercedes or iacocca? they both seemingly brought a brand back from the dead. the 300c is quite possibly the K-car of this decade :P

i'm not so sure that MBs have their niche in the market for being reliable. that being said, their drop off sure as hell hasn't helped. many people in the past, and some still do, purchase their MBs for their exclusivity. of course, this is before the intro of the baby benzes.

is chrysler profiting at the expense of mercedes? i don't know. you have the 300c put together w/ a good number of mercedes parts; the same with the crossfire. it's a smart move of course by the parent company in terms of return on their investment.

here's the thing. if i bought one of the last w210s or R170s, i'd probably be pissed. here i spent about 50Gs on an E320 when a 300c SRT-8 trumps it in everyway for about 10Gs less. the same can be said with the crossfire vs. the slk. smart money would go to the chrysler products. it would definitely make me think twice about buying another benz.

would most people who are looking at benz products be likely to buy a chrysler? one would think they aren't direct competitors. for me personally, i'd be more inclined to look at mercedes' direct competitors. IMO, benz is pretty lucky that BMW totally bangled their entire lineup. :D

it can be said that both entities have learned from this merger. chrysler has learned to build better cars for the masses. mercedes has learned to build cheaper cars for the masses. in the end, they both are selling. the business of business is business. even if it leaves a bad taste in some benz owners mouths.

[55 ON IT]

Originally posted by Renn 208@Mar 10 2005, 11:03 PM
In a merger of non-equals...the little guy does not bring down the parent by being profitable. I've had first hand experience, and it just doesn't work that way.

The brand dilution brought on by chrysler is miniscule in effect compared to the damage done by the drop off in MB reliability. The contribution numbers tell a pretty clear story...but hey, believe in what you want.
Numbers are numbers and can be easily manipulted, just like bogus hp numbers. Am I saying this is the case now? Maybe, maybe not. it really doesn't matter.

Honestly, you don't feel that the reliabilty factor goes hand and hand with merger? Maybe it's just me that feels that way, but we all believe what we want right?

Also, the brand dilution being miniscule to you might be quite the opposite the other's. But hey, we all have an opinion right?

I respect your opinions AJ, these are just mine and only mine.

[slk320]

I don't think Jaguar's reputation was diminished by their merger with Ford. Likewise, Saab didn't suffer from its GM merger...

Most people who buy Mercedes, buy it for its marquee and prestige. They don't know or don't care about the Chrysler subsidiery (or Mitsubishi for that matter), but they do not want their neighbor who makes half as much as they do to drive one also. Thats all...pure and simple.

Mercedes is loosing quality not because of its Chrysler merger, but because of C class, C Coupe, CLS....need I saw more? Also global competition is keeping Mercedes on its toes..its no longer the only dog in the yard. Now BMW 745, Lexus LS430, Jaguar XJ8, Audi A8, VW Phaeton, even the "affordable" Bentley GT all want to play in the same field...and some are more sucessfull then others. In every Car magazine, in this comparison the Mercedes will not come up to the top three... the line up usually is : 1) Lexus, 2) BMW 3) Jaguar and 4) Mercedes.... Thats a fact. And its a huge fact when potential buyers who are no longer chasing the "marquee" make their decisions.

There are two ways of conducting business. The Rolex model and the Toyota model. Under the Rolex model, you manufacture only a few trully high-end pieces and keep your brand exclusivity super high by controlling pricing, controlling marketing and sales. You do not make a "baby rolex" or an "afforadble" rolex, becuase you cheapen the image.

The toyota model is you make as many different products as possible, starting from the super cheap, disposable Scions to the ultra high class, luxury LS430. THen find a buyer for each, but not at the expense of Marquee, but at the promise of reliability, high quality and good customer services (and prices).

Mercedes went from the Rolex model to the Toyota model...hence the demise.

and 55 ON IT, I understand your point perfectly! You are pissed that here comes a Chrysler...cheap American PIS that can whoooooop the 55 from here to Sunday. I was pissed at the crossfire when I had my SLK too. Now my money seek a better value. Would I rather drive a W211 E500? YES! Is that a smart move? NO, considering features, specs and quality you get for the money.

[Hank]

now when was mercedes ever considered for 'smart money'? i thought i bought it for prestige? shiet.

[Renn 208]

"Meanwhile MB's contribution went down the toilet (20MM Euros vs. 784MM a year ago)"

So if numbers are being goosed, I'd have to wonder about the when, why, and how. Where did 760,000,000 Euros go in one year? Was this a festering loss that was hidden away until now? Are they claiming losses greater than reality? If the numbers are being inflated like HP, that's some pretty serious manipulation...and perhaps we should all short DCX if that's the case.

More likely though...I'd say that these are real losses. Yes, every large company "manages" its bottom line...but not to the tune of more than $1B USD...at least none of the companies that live.

Additionally, yes, MB has been lucky that BMW bangled its lineup...otherwise BMW would be even further ahead in sales than it already is.

Yes, I agree with you and your bro's points that those who bought outgoing MB models should be pissed by cheaper faster equivalents from Chrysler, but the question that lies at the heart of this topic is what has been the cause of MB's decline, and what has the greatest effect? I guess that's something that might never be settled...

So far the arguments are as follows:

1. The merger did it
a. Introducing Chrysler into MB diluted the exclusivity of MBs
b. people's perceptions change, no longer want an MB
c. reliability goes down because MB puts all its effort in Chrysler?

2. The merger didn't do it
a. MB has too many new model introductions to add to an already fat lineup. Reliability suffers
b. MB enters segments it has no business entering...
c. Mclaren builds SLR, MB builds Maybach...are these making money or bleeding it?
d. SMART's losing money...how much? who knows

It'll be more than interesting to see how DCX handles this going forward. Both serious marketing and operational mis-steps are to blame, although you both indirectly bring up a good point that it's primarily the operational problems that are getting popular press...In any case, there's going to be plenty learned from this.

I've actually got my own theory on why DB had to have the merger...and perhaps that's why I'm not to quick to blame the merger for Mercedes's problems. But I'll share that one some other time.

[Hank]

Originally posted by krk230@Mar 10 2005, 03:47 PM
getting the GS you always wanted? :P

come on! bust out that SL55 ballah... :banana: :ph34r:
don't mess, the new gs is tyte! foo.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by Hank@Mar 11 2005, 09:08 AM
now when was mercedes ever considered for 'smart money'? i thought i bought it for prestige? shiet.
also a very good point!

[kameraguy]

Originally posted by aintME@Mar 11 2005, 09:22 AM
i'm not so sure that MBs have their niche in the market for being reliable. that being said, their drop off sure as hell hasn't helped. many people in the past, and some still do, purchase their MBs for their exclusivity. of course, this is before the intro of the baby benzes.

Well, for me, in the 80's I would visit my uncle (who is a huge MB fan), and he would give me his car magazines. I distinctly recall seeing ads on how MB were built to last, as evidenced by that old MB with 1,000,000 miles and still running. And how they explained the MB badge program where they "awarded" drivers grille badges based on mileage.

Back then, being the impressionable kid that I was, I beleived MB's were the ultimate expression of reliability. Especially since they weren't cheap, it seemed there was a reason for the premium price tag.

Also, my family who owned MB's at that time would always tell me how trouble free their SL or SECs were, whereas my one uncle who had an XJ8 would always have his car in the shop (pretty much confirming what we always hear about Jags of that era).

So at least for me, I always thought of a MB as a quality and reliable vehicle based on the older ad campaigns and owner experiences from the mid eighty's to early 90's.

[55 ON IT]

Whoop on a 55? You know and I know that's hardly the case, but we all choose what we want to believe.

Maybe Chrysler is helping in some ways. Like in making sales for rental car companies and even the taxi cab industry. I've personally seen quite a few Pacificas and a few C's. Of course not the HEMI versions! But, I'm sure those two industries alone helped boost some sales numbers.

And if you think Jaguar's name hasn't been some what blemished. Go check out the base line Jag, and you see it's nothing short of a Ford Taurus.

[slk320]

For the moment I will ignore the first remark as I have nothing to proove to anyone by "paper racing" people ont he internet, but I will address the other points;

1) Chrysler's contribution to DC is quite evident by a 300% increase in sales since the merger. Chrysler is selling out in record numbers, not only to rental car companies (and by the way a "C" is the HEMI verison of the 300, so the rental car companies are buying the 300 model, not the C) but to the direct competition of luxury super sedans, retro nostalgia buffs (PT Cruiser), enthusiasts (CRossfire, SRT6) and tuner market (Neon SRT-4). Chrysler is not only gaining market share, thanks to the hugely positive press coverage, international magazine awards and being on top 10 list of every automotive research sourse, but with the strategy of utilizing parts bin sharing system that promotes a high quality, inexpensive models like the C or Crossfire that share majority of the mechanical parts with its Mercedes bretheren for tens of thousands of dollars less.

Innovation...its surely a factor here as well. While Mercedes side of DC sees itself as the conservative, old world, starch, tuetonic brand, they see Chrysler is the playpen of ideas, where sheetmetal takes flight of fancy and new designs are tried out. The high belt line, gunslight windows, chopped top design of the Pacifica, 300 and Crossfire is industry's first and very innovative, thats why the cars are super hot right now. The HEMI revival is amrketing genius...more people know of the tag line "Hey, does that thing have a HEMI in it?" then they know what AMG letters stand for... Thats why Chrysler buy out (not a merger) was a great idea for Mercedes. They will be able to test their ideas and hopefully start making Mercedes cars visualy exciting...again.

In terms of Jaguar's name being blemished, I am willing to bet you that most Jaguar owners do not see their cars as Ford's (I didn't) and if anything, Jaguar sales are up, quite a bit, since the take over, as Ford's assurance of fumegation of the electronic gremlins in the Jaguar brand really brought up the reliability factor. As a result of the merger, Jaguar is more reliable, better customer service and more readily available parts, which allows the customer to win on all sides. Much like Chrysler is winning by merger with Benz.

I understand that everyone has an opinion, but other then purely emotional outbursts, I would like to see people who believe that the merger has hindered Mercedes to provide some coherent (read: structurally sound) arguments using statistical data, industry analysis, etc...

[redline]

Originally posted by slk320@Mar 11 2005, 11:01 AM
I don't think Jaguar's reputation was diminished by their merger with Ford. Likewise, Saab didn't suffer from its GM merger...
Perhaps you should use another example, such as Volvo. People don't see Saabs as GM's because they use a global platform which comes from Opal (a europe only brand) where as the Chrysler/MB merger you can purchase both vehicles here in the states. Plus, while Saab didn't hurt from its merger with GM, GM hurt from the merger. Since the purchase of the brand in 1989, its lost and estimated over 20 million.

And yes Jaguar's image has sure been tarnished by the Ford ownership! Common, X-Type Wagon in the STATES?!? Are they crazy? Plus every Jaguar owner knows (and sees) the small trim pieces stuck in there... the door locks, handles, window switches. Hell, even Aston Martin uses these pieces.

[Hank]

lol.. to the chinese, we will not buy chrysler cuz it's bad karma. sounds like 'kwai si le'.. translation... "almost dead"

[aintME]

Originally posted by Renn 208@Mar 11 2005, 09:09 AM

I've actually got my own theory on why DB had to have the merger...and perhaps that's why I'm not to quick to blame the merger for Mercedes's problems. But I'll share that one some other time.
care to share? anything similar to honda/toyota/nissan creating the acura/lexus/infiniti name brands to partly bypass import restrictions? i remember that from years past but never knew if it was a myth or truth.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by aintME@Mar 11 2005, 02:37 PM
care to share? anything similar to honda/toyota/nissan creating the acura/lexus/infiniti name brands to partly bypass import restrictions? i remember that from years past but never knew if it was a myth or truth.
that's pretty close...but I'd guess that the motivation doesn't do so much with import restrictions (cause for all intents and purposes MB has none in the US) but more with penetrating market segments.

It's a part of the whole move from the past (Germany makes high end goods, Japan makes reliable goods, china/korea make cheap goods) to where the world is going (international competition at all of a company's traditional "core" markets, and the end of stereotypical national strengths).

As a quick example, look at the transformation of Gold Star/LG and Samsung. Just 10 years ago, Korea was only known as the home of cut-rate labor and cheap manufacturing. Who'd of thought that they'd be attacking the high end market.

Back to cars, you hit it right on the head with the introduction of the Japanese "luxury brands"

The bottom line is that MB's trying to deal with a world vastly different from the times of the w124 and the w140...and they're hitting some serious speed bumps. (And I'd argue that they made the speed bumps themselves)

As a reference, Kenichi Ohmae's been writing about this kind of stuff since the late 80's. It's just that now we're starting to see the fall out in Germany (from the perspective of Mercedes), and the growth of the Asian Nations. And it's all a battle being fought for US consumers.

Sorry that this isn't the full explanation of "why did D-B buy Chrysler?" but I'm sure I'll get to that at the right point.

Let me add the caveat that I'm not some "I'm right, you're wrong" know-it-all with all the answers to MB's woes. What I do give however, is my interpretation of what I've seen come to pass, and what I think might happen in the future--or at the very least, where I'd like things to go in the future.

[Brabus]

Very interesting disussion here... A couple of points:

1) Every empire will fall. Basically, Mercedes will have it's troubled times. But if they play it right, they will survive and keep providing the kind of cars that people expect from them. Even a strong company like BMW was on the brink of bankruptcy about 5 years ago. In the car industry there were rumors and fake logos going around with the "GMW" logo on them. But as we can see, they bounced back and are doing fairly well.

2) Mercedes-Benz isn't doing as poorly as people may think. Mercedes is a company that wears many hats. While they may not have booked many profits that past quarter, I think that we might have some "bath taking" in this particular situation. Their reach extends far beyond the consumer car market, even though that's their main foundation. Basically, the bottom lines it that MB is smart. Even though they're in a slump, they're smart enough to know how to get out.

[Renn 208]

:werd: They managed to live past WWII, they better be smart enough to make it past this.

Although...we could use another Neubauer or Uhlenhaut ;)

dunno if ron dennis and norbert haug are up to it though

[oosix]

Renn, what are you, still taking classes at the johnson school? You're recollection of the principals after all these years is amazing.

What ever the reasons for MB's current state, there's no denying that these last generations of MB's have been crap by historic standards. Construction has been hollow, design thought is sub par, materials are relatively cheap feeling, and lets not even mention reliability. From the looks of things, it's not going to get better anytime soon. Than again, everything is cyclical.

At least the flagships are still decent.

[Renn 208]

Originally posted by oosix@Mar 12 2005, 03:32 PM
Renn, what are you, still taking classes at the johnson school? You're recollection of the principals after all these years is amazing.

haha! nope...way out of school now! but sometimes my work mindset starts creeping into my posts! :P

btw...are you there now? if so, is BenDaniel still rockin the yellow flower car?

[98c43amg]

Well I'll tell you ... DaimlerChrysler's issues definitely stem from something other then "lack of interest". I just came from the NY Auto Show, and =all= the DaimlerChrysler sections were the most packed by far ... MB? ...couldn't freak'n move (or even see much of a car :angry: ) ; Dodge ... packed ; Chrysler ... packed. Walk through most GM booths ... crickets. (All the Ford family companies were doing pretty well too.)

[Knight Rider]

Originally posted by slk320@Mar 11 2005, 09:01 AM
I don't think Jaguar's reputation was diminished by their merger with Ford. Likewise, Saab didn't suffer from its GM merger...

Most people who buy Mercedes, buy it for its marquee and prestige. They don't know or don't care about the Chrysler subsidiery (or Mitsubishi for that matter), but they do not want their neighbor who makes half as much as they do to drive one also. Thats all...pure and simple.

Mercedes is loosing quality not because of its Chrysler merger, but because of C class, C Coupe, CLS....need I saw more? Also global competition is keeping Mercedes on its toes..its no longer the only dog in the yard. Now BMW 745, Lexus LS430, Jaguar XJ8, Audi A8, VW Phaeton, even the "affordable" Bentley GT all want to play in the same field...and some are more sucessfull then others. In every Car magazine, in this comparison the Mercedes will not come up to the top three... the line up usually is : 1) Lexus, 2) BMW 3) Jaguar and 4) Mercedes.... Thats a fact. And its a huge fact when potential buyers who are no longer chasing the "marquee" make their decisions.

There are two ways of conducting business. The Rolex model and the Toyota model. Under the Rolex model, you manufacture only a few trully high-end pieces and keep your brand exclusivity super high by controlling pricing, controlling marketing and sales. You do not make a "baby rolex" or an "afforadble" rolex, becuase you cheapen the image.

The toyota model is you make as many different products as possible, starting from the super cheap, disposable Scions to the ultra high class, luxury LS430. THen find a buyer for each, but not at the expense of Marquee, but at the promise of reliability, high quality and good customer services (and prices).

Mercedes went from the Rolex model to the Toyota model...hence the demise.

and 55 ON IT, I understand your point perfectly! You are pissed that here comes a Chrysler...cheap American PIS that can whoooooop the 55 from here to Sunday. I was pissed at the crossfire when I had my SLK too. Now my money seek a better value. Would I rather drive a W211 E500? YES! Is that a smart move? NO, considering features, specs and quality you get for the money.
That is the best description of the problem Mercedes-Benz I have ever read!!! Couldn't have described it better myself. Excellent work. I think that I will email your post to MBUSA this weekend and see if I get a response.

[Childish///AMG]

A "Class" B class I will get one when one of them arrives B) B)