Talk:Mercedes-Benz S-Class

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cars Portal
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] POV?

This article strikes me as quite non-NPOV. Perhaps it's due for a rewrite by somebody who's not a die-hard MB fan? Matt gies 01:27, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Amen!...it looks like promotional material rather than the views of impartial analysts.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/ 12.144.5.2 19:27, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think mention of Mercedes low reliability in recent years would be appropriate. Especially given Mercedes high reputation for reliability in the past, and the brand's high prices.

Precisely. And whoever said the 1999-2006 S-Class had 'rounded, graceful lines' is insane!

You are just as guilty of blatant POV for replacing "rounded, graceful lines" with "by no means a beautiful car." You should be ashamed of yourself! Please, let us all try to keep Wikipedia objective! Jagvar
To be quite frank, I think we should abstain from any commentary on the esthetic value of the car's design. What one person finds ugly another finds pretty (personally I like the W220's exterior design). Any reference to whether a car is beautiful or not are by nature POV, even if there is a review to be cited-which largely only have the authority of an op-ed piece to begin with. Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, I hope the article will not be too NPOV. I would like to see an insightful and thought provoking article with a view rather than one that gives just the facts. The car is *** cm tall and all. Please keep the discussion flowing and try to reach a consensus.--who is kushal? 18:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Killed copyrighted text

I've deleted the features from the model list. The text was pulled straight from a Merc corporate page [1] and I'd just as soon avoid any hassles. Anyone wishing to reword this into anything other than a direct copy&paste should see the history entry [2]. --Milkmandan 04:11, 2005 Feb 25 (UTC)

[edit] Template

The Template "Road car timeline was not deleted but rather only moved form References to hitsory since this makes the page more user firendly Gerdbrendel 20:37, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article needs to be edited

They do manufacture the S class (w220s) in South Africa and India; please could somebody verify this? I am not too sure about SA, but I'm sure that the W220 is made in India and they are going to replace it with the W221 soon. Kunalthaggarse

[edit] First S-Class was built in 1991?

This article doesn't make sense as laid out. The purpose of this page should be to explain the place the S-Class group of cars hold in society - the W pages can go into technical detail on each model; Certainly it's not supposed to promote W140 (the most reliable car ever made by humans according to this text, yet in real life a WSJ cover story in early 1990's pointed out W140's unreliability) PLawrence99cx March 2006

Yes the first S-Class rolled of the assembly line as a 1991 model year. The W140 was the first proper S-Class models, meaning that it was the first car to be called the S-Class. Before 1991 and before the W140 there were several models starting witht the letter S, they were refered to as the S-Family. Overall, this article discusses Mercedes' flagship sedans dating back to the fintails of the late 1950's up to the S-Class which started production in 1991 with the W140, before than it just wasn't called the S-Class. Also the statement: "the most reliable car ever made by humans" is totally POV and doesn't belong in the text. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 05:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You get this info where - a Benz press release? The big Benz has always colloquially been known as the "S-Class" in the english speaking world. Also, there is a logic problem here - this is a direct quote from this article: "The "S-Class" name was applied to the whole range with the W108/W109 series of 1965." Only big think that happened name wise was in 1994 Benz moved the 'S' from the back to the front of the model designation - big deal. Since multiple W articles link to this "S-Class" article, the article is clearly meant to cover the entire group of vehicles effectively. PLawrence99cx March 12 2006

If you do plan to enforce this bizarre rewrite of history known as the 'no S-Class before 1991' rule, you have a lot of editing ahead of you. From Wikipedia: "Mercedes-Benz W116: The Mercedes-Benz W116 automobiles were produced from 1972 through 1980. They were large (S-Class) luxury sedans, which replaced the W108/W109. The W116 was succeeded by the W126 S-Class in 1980. They were the most popular S-class built, with around 450,000 sold." Since the no S-Class logic makes no sense to me, can't help you, but good luck with it. BTW - the ref to W140s alleged reliability was actually on the W140 - you might start by fixing that POV. PLawrence99cx March 12 2006

Yes, the article covers the entire group and yes the moving of the letter S is a big deal! Of course in Germany the W116 is known as the S-Klasse too, but officially there wasn't any S-Class until 1991. Okay, yes the MB flagship has been called the S-Class long before 1991 but there was officially no actual S-Class 'til '91. There is often a difference between what people say on the street and what actually is. People may not always use the correct designation. MB realized its name system is confusing and said well, lets just call it what the people are calling it more or less, hence the name S-Class was officially given to the car only after the introduction of the W140. In the 1990s MB simplified all of its model names into classes, so officially there was not S-Class before the W140. Of course, here on wiki we want our info to be of use for everyone, so we have incoperated all the MB flagships into the S-Class article. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

That helps explain the logic of the article - I recommend this explanation of colloquial "S-Class" vs. "official" S-Class be in the text. The article as written is confusing and contradicts itself. Again - countless pages in Wiki refer to this page, so either break those links or create an S-Class page that explains why non-"S-Class" vehicles would link to a post-W140 only page. FWIW - I think this is a bogus explanation - it's like saying that "VW Beetle" is an undefinable concept because VW never actually produced a vehicle with this badge. "S-Class" actually is a colloquial term used by hundreds of millions of people - the fact that Benz decided to use it also is a minor historical footnote. PLawrence99cx March 14 2006

It's not bogus, you said yourself, "That helps explain the logic of the article." Yes, you may think the fact that MB decided to use the name that was already being used "on the street" is "a minor historical footnote," but some may beg to differ. Besides this is an encyclopedia article. I have changed the wording a little, so the article isn't as confusing. Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So we agree on "That helps explain the logic of the article" - super. Now put the very good contextual text from 'talk' into the article. I suggest you look at the "Volkswagen Beetle" page for guidance. It does not start out saying "The first Volkswagen Beetle was produced in 1998." PLawrence99cx March 14 2006

I put om the phrase: "Even though the term S-Class is used to describe previous Mercedes-Benz flagships, such use of the term is colocial. The first offical Mercedes-Benz S-Class (that was actually called the Mercedes-Benz S-Class) was introduced for 1991 as the W140 series." Doesn't that help? Let me know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a Benz scholar, but I found this on German Wiki: "Sie steht für luxuriöse Limousinen und Coupés. Nachdem bereits vorher die Spitzenmodelle von Mercedes-Benz die Bezeichnung S getragen hatten, erschien 1972 mit der Baureihe W116 die erste offiziell so genannte S-Klasse." Roughly it means: "It stands for luxurioese sedans and Coupés. After the top models of Mercedes Benz had already before carried the designation S, 1972 with the series W116 appeared the first officially S-class so mentioned." Hope that helps. My main issue has always been that if a reader is researching say W108 S-Class, they shouldn't mysteriously end up on a page that tells them there was no such thing as an S-Class back then. Looks like that is fixed. Thanks! PLawrence99cx March 18 2006

Actually I'm German but thanks for the translation (good job ;-)). I am also a user on the German Wiki and we actually had pretty much the same debate there as we did just now right here. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:22, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested merge

I came across Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse today. Any reason why it shouldn't be merged into this article? Klasse is just class in German. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this an article in the English Wiki? If so, yes of course it needs to be merged. S-Klasse is just German for S-Class. So, yes I please merge the two articles. Thank you. Regards, Signaturebrendel 17:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is in the English Wikipedia. I didn't foresee an issue, but I figured I'd go through the usual merging process anyway. As it has been seven days with no opposition, I'll merge it in. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, after reviewing the Mercedes-Benz S-Klasse further, there isn't anything to merge. Everything appears to be already in the article, often word for word. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Then the article should be deleted since there is no neeed to have a S-Klasse and S-Class article. Signaturebrendel 04:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I just made it a redirect as redirects are cheap and easy. Potentially someone could search using this term, however, I'd think the chances are slim, so if you want to put it on WP:RfD, go ahead. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

No, its good enough the way it is. I think a redirect is just prefect. Good idea! Thanks. Signaturebrendel 04:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Suspension

There are numberous references to 'Air suspension' in Benz articles, starting with W100, yet they all contain a rather useless link to "Automobile (suspension)" - suggest text or article describing Benz 'Air suspension' setup - anyone know anything about it? PLawrence99cx March 14 2006

As there are other luxury vehicles such as the Lincoln Town Car who use air suspensions, an article on air suspension should contain desriptions of all air suspension. In other words an article for just the Benz suspension would be to specific, rather the article should contain information relating to air suspensions in general. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it's a technology, not a feature found only on one brand. Do you know much about it? PLawrence99cx March 18 2006

Unfortunately I am not an expert on the issue. While I love cars riding on air suspensions, my knowledge on the subject is merely enough for a short stub. But I'm glad we see eye to eye on the editorial attributes. Thanks. Signaturebrendel 02:18, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too NOPV?

IMHO, the article should not be too NPOV. I would like to see an insightful and thought-provoking article with a view rather than one that gives just the facts. Quotations from "reputable" (do we have a consensus on which auto magazines are reputable?) auto magazines will be welcome in this talk page and also in the article page. bare facts like "The car is *** cm tall, the engine's torque is blah blah" would be informative but boring and all. So, please keep the discussion flowing and try to reach a consensus. --who is kushal? 18:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this is an encyclopeadia, not a popular magazine. The article needs to be as NPOV as possible. If that means sacreficing some entertainment value, than that may be unfortunate but neccessary. Regards, SignaturebrendelHAPPY HOLIDAYS 06:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to note, since the recent redesign of the article, the informative aspect was combined with ease of reading in mind; hopefully the added details and context improves the flow and makes the article fact-based and informative yet interesting. Enigma3542002 05:56, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliability

My subject on the reliability of the S-Class, something that was regularly mentioned in reports and reviews of this car, has been deleted. What is the justification for excluding information on reliability? Cars that have a reputation for reliability, such as the Lexus LS, include this information. Why should we not include information about reliability in articles about cars that have a reputation for poor reliability? Jagvar claims that this is refutable and not objective, but what is not objective about Consumer Reports? And if it is refutable, then please, Jagvar, engage in some refutation. Penser 13:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)penser

What is going on here? How is it that important information about the reliability of the S-Class is being deleted under the specious claim that there is not data, or that is opinion on my part. I am virtually the ONLY ONE who has cited their sources. I've provided two references for this information about the S-Class, which isn't exactly some secret, by the way. The car is famous for poor reliability, and that should have a place in an article about the car. Apparently some people here just want the page to sound like a brochure for Mercedes. Now if you want to make the case for why reliability shouldn't be included here, then make the case instead of anonymously deleting my work. Penser 01:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)penser

The last thing I want is for this page to sound like a "brochure." I am just as diligent about making sure that the positive opinions are removed from the page as well as the negative ones. "Reliability" sections are almost always removed in any automotive article because they are just too iffy. All cars have reliability issues. Frankly, I don't see anything particularly significant about the S-Class' reliability issues. A search of Consumer Reports will yield reliability concerns with the BMW 7 Series and Jaguar XJ as well. Now, if the issue of reliability was so enormous that it caused the car to be pulled from production (i.e. the Ford Pinto), THEN it would make sense to dedicate a section of an encyclopedia article to reliability. And even then, you would need concrete statistical data (for example, there were 27 documented deaths attributed to the Pinto's design flaw). If you don't cite statistics, you are not citing measureable data.
Also, Consumer Reports is not the definitive resource on automobiles. It is a publication which offers reviews, and as such can't be considered a concrete resource on its own. Quotes from Consumer Reports are best used to support more objective sources like the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.
All of the automotive editors work very hard for objectivity, and I hope you can understand that. Jagvar 05:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Lets examine your arguments. You claim that all cars have reliability issues. Of course that's true. And all countries have poor people, and crime, and rich people etc. The crucial issue is supplying some aggregate data that gives a general picture of poverty, or crime in a country. Similarly, when discussing cars, aggregate reliability is important. It's one of the top selling points of Toyotas and Lexuses, which are generally boring and plain compared to competitors. Similarly, poor reliability is a well-known problem with recent S-Classes, and it would be bizarre not to have it mentioned in an article about the car.

Do other cars have poor reliability? Yes, and that should be noted in their articles as well.

Cars with poor reliability don't need to be pulled from sale. That typically applies to serious safety defects in particular.

As for statistics, that is what Consumer Reports collects and reports. The statistics they collect (corraborated by Auto Pacific and others) show that owners of Mercedes S-Class (and all other Mercedes) have significantly more problems than most cars in their class.

Consumer Reports is not just "a publication which offers reviews." It is the most influential and respected source of information for car buyers in North America. It is distinguished by several crucial factors:

1. It accepts no advertising. This completely insulates it from pressure to pad its reviews and not be too harsh for fear of losing ad revenue from a disgruntled carmaker. It is non-profit and relies on subscriptions and donations to Consumers Union, the parent organization.

2. It buys all of the cars it tests anonymously at real dealerships. By doing this, it ensure that it obtains a car in a manner similar to how a consumer would buy a vehicle, and guards against getting "a ringer" or a car that is carefully checked for defects and fit and finish.

3. It conducts its own research by surveying its readers, which means that it surveys millions of cars each year.

Penser 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)penser

You make a good case. I do see your point, I've discussed this over at Wikiproject:Automobiles, and we've reached a consensus that, for essentially the reasons you've stated above, the cited Consumer Reports quote should stay (and I have indeed left it intact). We talked about merging reliability with engineering since they are closely linked, and I think someone is going to do that.
So yes, the Consumer Reports information will remain, but just be careful about making sweeping statements in an opinionated tone. For example, I was a little shocked to read "did much to shed the image of reliability that Mercedes-Benz once enjoyed," on an encyclopedia article. At this point, that is my one and only concern.
I am sorry I didn't voice my reasoning on the talk page sooner. It is never my intention to aggravate anyone. Jagvar 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I suppose the tone of an encyclopedia must be more dispassionate. Penser 01:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)penser

Just wanted to note that the notion that there is a consensus on that seems premature - I, for example, have been pretty vocal in my disagreement to including CR results. PrinceGloria 10:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article improvements

Greetings all, I was wondering about how this article could be improved. Does anyone think that perhaps the sections could be adjusted somewhat? I think that the article's flow might be improved if additional subsections are included, rather than having a list of same-level sections for topics of differing importance. For instance, perhaps the Ocean Drive Concept section and S-class robots section could be placed under the heading of "S-class concepts," or since the robots were tested in 1995, under the W140 section.

Furthermore, reading through the article, it seems that in some cases single sentences are counted as paragraphs. That is a newspaper-like style, which works, but perhaps some of those sentences could be combined into a paragraph with a topic sentence added (for instance updates to a vehicle). I am also curious as to the generation infoboxes, as to whether the details included are consistent (W126 in particular). And is it also possible to expand the lead section to better represent the scope of the article?

Also, I realize that the awards section was deleted, due to lack of sources and the way it was written. However, a widely held opinion is that the S-class is the benchmark of the luxury flagship sedan class. Good articles such as Lincoln Town Car include awards sections, highlighting noteworthy achievements of the vehicle. That What Car? magazine awarded the S-class "Best Luxury Car" seven times and Fleet News' listed it as "Luxury Car of the Year" five times speaks to its prestigious reputation as an automotive benchmark. Perhaps these could be included, if properly referenced and entered using an "Indented List with content" (as done in the Lincoln TC article and supported in Wikipedia:Embedded_list)?

Finally, with the addition of references, perhaps the style of notation could be revised to include a references section with identifiable HTML, etc. reference information/links? Just some ideas I'd like to toss out there.

Regards, Enigma3542002 00:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I have some abundance of time today, I have decided to be bold and attempt some improvements. Enigma3542002 05:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
It's looking good, Enigma. Make good use of the edit summaries so it's easy to see what changes you're making. Anyway, kudos and thanks for the hard work. Jagvar 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. I have tried to increase use of edit summaries, although I tend to make a lot of minor edits despite using the preview/sandbox a lot. Anyhow, I have completed most of the objectives I set out earlier. I also went through each of the S-Class generational articles linked from this page, and aligned them to be more uniform in style (hopefully making cross-referencing easier). Enigma3542002 01:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Original article before edits here: [3] Enigma3542002 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S-Class timeline

Per brendel's good suggestion, I have created a simple navigation box for the entire S-Class vehicles. This makes it possible to navigate the S-Class chronology, which is only partially included in the road and classic timelines. Each article has the navigation box now: Template:Mercedes-Benz S-Class lineage. Enigma3542002 08:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Sieht ja gut aus! (Looks good :D). Signaturebrendel 00:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to change the formatting, if possible, so that the "Mercedes-Benz S-Class timeline" isn't collapsed by default? Seems wiki had a change; before if there were 3 such navigation boxes they would autoload in collapsed format. Now it's 2 evidently, with the first not collapsed. It's easier to 1-click navigate the S-Class chronology with the timeline opened, not to mention simple to see the entire S-Class chronology which otherwise is hidden. Perhaps placing the S-Class timeline box above the road vehicle timeline? Enigma3542002 23:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thx to whoever made it so the chronology box remains open. Enigma3542002 20:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope Gerd and all the good people will approach this issue with their usual degree of professionalism - both the article and the timeline are trying to establish an entity that doesn't formally exist in the way it is described - the Mercedes S-Klasses are only the W116 and onwards officially, however well-meaning might the argumentation be that previous models belong to the "lineage". For me, the German article would be quite authoritative here (not to mention facts are facts and it's up to the manufacturer to call a vehicle this or that) - and it only lists the five last models... PrinceGloria 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that the earlier vehicles are not directly called "S-Class," however MB USA themselves advertises the W221 as the "Ninth Generation S-Class." [4] The article makes it pretty clear that the earlier versions were not called S-Class, but were typically the top-ranked vehicle in the MB lineup. Enigma3542002 20:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
One possibility would be to adjust the infobox to show specific S-Class vs. predecessor models by additional labeling. Enigma3542002 20:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's surprising for me - this is the first time I see Mercedes acknowledging (in a way) the pre-W116 models as "S-Klasses". I still believe this is rather apocryphal and can be mentioned in the article, but the article should not deal with cars earlier than W116. Regards, PrinceGloria 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)