R-Class Mercedes calls R-Class a "lesson learned"

[bmer]

Bordel j'étais censé avoir l'air cool en parlant français et là j'apprends que tout le monde le parle. Bien joué les gars, vraiment bien joué.

LOL What can I say... "Lesson learned" like the thread title says.

 

[Cashmere]

Anyone else think that the major cause for the R Class failure were its looks?

Im sure if it had a better exterior design, it could/would have sold better.

 

[Centurion]

Anyone else think that the major cause for the R Class failure were its looks?

Im sure if it had a better exterior design, it could/would have sold better.

If you ask me I think it's quite a well designed car except that the head lights could have been designed a lot better. Different looks wouldn't have made a difference, vans are simply not attractive any longer. Families with children are the primary target market for vans, are no longer interested in vans thanks to SUVs. SUVs are just as practical, slight more compacts, have higher resale value and look a lot better. There's really nothing MB could have done which would have made this car a success story.

I wish that it looked more like the GST concept which was an SUV/Van crossover. Kind of in line with the BMW F5. MB didn't execute it properly, so you can bet that the next R-class will mimic the F5.

 

[Deleted member 25]

LOL What can I say... "Lesson learned" like the thread title says.

It better be.

 

[Merc1]

********sigh*********

The R-Class. The darling of the MB lineup, where do I start.

The R-Class didn't make it for many reasons. First there really isn't enough space for it to appeal to typical U.S. minivan buyers. First Strike.

Secondly it is (or was) priced out of the reach of most typical minivan buyers. Second Strike.

Now the next series of reasons are a little more shocking considering all the research Mercedes did on this vehicle.

Mercedes intended for the R-Class to be an upscale crossover/people mover/MPV etc. etc., yet the interior doesn't even match the E-Class let alone the new S/CL classes. It has the same relatively unimaginative interior from the other Bama made vehicles along with some questionable material quality, panel fit and finish. Third Strike.

Then Mercedes badly over estimated the market for crossovers priced like an E-Class or base S-Class (W220). For the price the now gone from the U.S. market R500 could reach when loaded, people expect near S-Class level quality inside and out. Fourth Strike.

Styling, the look of the thing is just too polarizing for a new vehicle segment. This would have been ok if this segment was already thriving, but when you sent out to create a new market segment you have to be stylish, engaging, and beautiful if you will. Exterior, interior or the right mixture of both. (See BMW X6 for reference). Fifth Strike.

Lastly, the changing from the original concept both inside and more importantly outside did the R in. I was wowed back in the early 2000's when the concept debuted as the Vision GST at Detroit. It had a very interesting interior with a twin binnacle/tower setup and an exterior that would have people turning around to take a look, all the dealer had to do is put a Vision GST out front. Sixth Strike.


From the "Yeah Right" section: BMW not building one because it wouldn't fit their image. Everyone here that isn't connected to BMW knows full well that BMW would have built something similar if the R-Class was doing 30K units a year in the U.S. The original ML was a hit so BMW followed up with an X5 and if you can make a SUV fit the BMW "image" then surely they could have made an R-Class type vehicle fit the image. We get this image nonsense anytime BMW decides something won't work, yet we've got a gaggle of crossovers and a giant sedan with a hatch that will be made to fit the image. Oh my what nonsense.

Secondly this BMW F5 may not be an R-Class competitor from a looks and dimensions standpoint as EnI has point out, but it is most certainly a competitor from a market standpoint. If the F5 is based on the next 5-Series or 7-Series it is going to be very expensive for such a vehicle here in the U.S. and it will be aimed the same affluent demographic as the R-Class was aimed at originally. The only differences are the dimensions and the made up (by BMW) niche that it will occupy.


M

 

[PanterroR]

Doing an AMG version of it. Sixth strike.

 

[Merc1]

Uh..that would be seventh actually. I forgot about that, but I wouldn't count that as a reason why the R-Class itself failed. The R63 barely got noticed, however I'd say that the R63 was definitely a mistake from an AMG brand standpoint even if it was an interesting vehicle IMO. For better or worse there was nothing quite like it.

M

 

[PanterroR]

Yeah, seventh, sorry... Still, a flop too.

 

[cawimmer430]

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the R-Class wasn't going to be a bestseller. In my opinion the expectations within the upper management were way to optimistic. It should never have been made in the first place - and if, then it should have been treated as a low volume product.

Even worse, who the hell needs an R500 and R63 AMG?

I mean this is one heavy car to begin with. The R280 CDI and R320 CDI are really the only choices for me. The R350 is acceptable if you need a gasoline engine, but the R500 and R63 AMG are just pointless. I'm glad they canned the R63 AMG not too long ago though. Pointless car, pointless.

Despite this, my testdrive of the R320 CDI 4Matic gave me some insight into the car and I actually liked it. I've said this before, but if you're looking for a spacious, comfortable, safe and premium family car for vacationing and long distance driving, the R-Class essentially can't be beat by anything in the Mercedes lineup. It's probably a "better choice" in this type of situation than an ML, GL or E-Class T-Modell in my opinion.

I'm not crazy about the design, but it's not that ugly either and it would be my choice from the Mercedes lineup if I had to travel across Europe in comfort and security if I had a big family. Thankfully that isn't the case.

 

[cawimmer430]

Anyone else think that the major cause for the R Class failure were its looks?. Im sure if it had a better exterior design, it could/would have sold better.

Not really. Design is sometimes not on the list of priorities of shoppers. They want something else, be it comfort, interior space, safety etc. Look at the last generation Lexus LS430 for example: ugly as hell, yet it sold like hot cakes because it offered unbeaten value-for-money standard features and had the Lexus reputation.

And even if it was the design that affected sales, the R-Class was basically in a class of its own, so someone looking for a premium, safe and comfortable family tourer had no choice but to go for the R-Class or change their priorities and consider buying something else.

I personally think the car isn't ugly, but it is not beautiful either. It's somewhere in the middle I suppose. A car that looks "decent" overall. It does look expensive though, especially in the right trim.



I think what killed the R-Class were the following two things:

1) Price: it's an expensive car that was perceived to be similar to a minivan: and a Mercedes-Benz "minivan" at that. This is unheard off in the US, but not in Europe where Mercedes has tons of minivans driving around. This in turn leads to a lack of public acceptance in the US. People just didn't catch unto the car. I mean if you want a Mercedes that is supposed to be spacious, comfortable and safe, you may as well go for an E-Class sedan or estate, an ML or a GL or even an S-Class and you get abundant interior space, comfort, safety and possibly (in the minds of the general public) better styling.

2) Marketing: I think the R-Class was also marketed in the wrong way. Yes, it was marketed as a family car, but the ads also placed too much emphasis on "sport". The R-Class handles surprisingly nimble for such a heavy car, but it's no curve eater. Other issues I had with the marketing were when they compared it to the 1964-1981 Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman. Blasphemy!

 

[Yaz]

You know, I noticed a trend with Mercedes. They NEVER get it right the first time. It's mostly the next generation of that model they get right. They just don't seem to learn from their mistakes or maybe it's the fact that it's being built in the States.

For example:
The W221 is what the W220 should've been.
The W211 is what the W210 should've been.
The W164 is what the W163 should've been.
The W169 is what the W168 should've been.
The R171 is what the R170 should've been.
And this is the case with the R-Class. I'm gonna tell you right now that the next generation R will blow this one away.

I just hope the GLK doesn't go that route... I have big hopes for that thing.

 

[PHYBENZ]

You know, I noticed a trend with Mercedes. They NEVER get it right the first time. It's mostly the next generation of that model they get right. They just don't seem to learn from their mistakes or maybe it's the fact that it's being built in the States.

For example:
The W221 is what the W220 should've been.
The W211 is what the W210 should've been.
The W164 is what the W163 should've been.
And this is the case with the R-Class. I'm gonna tell you right now that the next generation R will blow this one away.

Um the W220 was like 5 generation of S class along with the E. I don't think you can draw a comparison to those models. The ML you have a point and you should add to that the A.

 

[justanthony]

Hehehe. Agree wif the w164 and 211

 

[Yaz]

Um the W220 was like 5 generation of S class along with the E. I don't think you can draw a comparison to those models. The ML you have a point and you should add to that the A.

True (and of course I knew that ), but I was referring to the over all design. I'm comparing those two because of the link between them.. they're both have the same platform code, 200 series. It's like one is version 1.0 and the other is 1.1. It's just a minor update between them. It takes them another try at it to get it right. This could also be applied to the Maybach brand, we just gotta wait and see what the next Maybach will look like.

Don't get me wrong here, I love the W220, but the W221 blows it away. I know a lot of people who were disappointed with the W220 after they experienced the W140. It was nice and all, but it didn't have that awe factor. The W221 has been praised by everyone and I doubt that was the case with the W220.
The same goes to the W210 and W211. This is probably the reason why MB is keeping the 200 series platform on the E for a third generation .

 

[Merc1]

You know, I noticed a trend with Mercedes. They NEVER get it right the first time. It's mostly the next generation of that model they get right. They just don't seem to learn from their mistakes or maybe it's the fact that it's being built in the States.

For example:
The W221 is what the W220 should've been.
The W211 is what the W210 should've been.
The W164 is what the W163 should've been.
The W169 is what the W168 should've been.
The R171 is what the R170 should've been.
And this is the case with the R-Class. I'm gonna tell you right now that the next generation R will blow this one away.

I just hope the GLK doesn't go that route... I have big hopes for that thing.

I get what you're saying here, but only with the truly first generation vehicles like the SLK, ML and A-Classes. The E and S models weren't first generation, they were just a victim of poor management at the time. I too have come to really dislike the W210, a great looking car but really lacking in some key Benz areas.

The first ML and A though were just so half-arsed that Mercedes should be ashamed of themselves. I still like the first generation SLK though and I don't see it as even half the mess that the first ML or A were.

M

 

[Yaz]

Thanks Marcus.

You really like the R170? I cringe everytime I see one, just like the first W163. They just don't look right.

As for the W220 and W210 (v 1.0) , you know that I know they're not the first of their classes, but it took them an "update", W221 & W211 (v 1.1) to get it right. We didn't have a W141 S-Class neither did we have a W125 E-class

 

[Merc1]

Oh ok I see...you're on the numbering scheme. It does seem to hint at that huh?

Yes the first generation SLK is Sacco era Benz and has that basic wedge look that so defined Mercedes of the time and it became a very interesting car late in its life with the V6 and AMG version.


M

 

[tennmb]

What MB needs to understand is that the R has a fabulous interior. The dimensions and room are phenomenol. I'll have people pay 10k more for the GL, which has less room, because of the look. That's it.

If MB could simply reconfigure the sheet metal to more squared angles with SUV overtones, and provide a towing package, they'd have a hit. flatten out the overly rakish hood, sqaure off the headlamps, and I think you've got something.

The GL is too small inside to adequately compete with many fullsized SUVs. But this shows you how much overpriced the GL really is. The GL is identicl to the ML in the front and rear seat.

The R is bargain at $55k, but the look keeps many away. I personally like the R, and got my dad one through the emloyee purchase program. I've sold a few because I like the car.

 

[Merc1]

Well if anyone would know exactly why you would, as usual your direct experiences are appreciated here.

I think Mercedes may do exactly what you say and try the same concept probably with a little more space for luggage behind the last row of seats, but make the overall package much more attractive to the eye. As Yaz pointed out Mercedes usually nails the second version of a totally new concept. I'd kill to see the drawings and plans for the next R.

M

 

[coolraoul]

What MB needs to understand is that the R has a fabulous interior. The dimensions and room are phenomenol. I'll have people pay 10k more for the GL, which has less room, because of the look. That's it.

If MB could simply reconfigure the sheet metal to more squared angles with SUV overtones, and provide a towing package, they'd have a hit. flatten out the overly rakish hood, sqaure off the headlamps, and I think you've got something.

The GL is too small inside to adequately compete with many fullsized SUVs. But this shows you how much overpriced the GL really is. The GL is identicl to the ML in the front and rear seat.

The R is bargain at $55k, but the look keeps many away. I personally like the R, and got my dad one through the emloyee purchase program. I've sold a few because I like the car.

What bugs me about the R is, of course the way it looks (not that bad, but the front is weird and the whole is too fat) but also the inside.

The design of the interior is so-so. Not very innovative or attractive.
There is a lot of place. Clearly it is a fabulous cruiser, especially with the two captain seats in the middle row.
But the finition, c'mon...The plastics look cheap, the moving parts feel light...The armrest they put instead of the third seat is awfully made...

Of course I exaggerate, but for the price you get a car that is poorly designed and poorly finished. Too much for only one car... Even if it is not that expensive, it was launched at a too high price and now nobody wants it.

The absence of a third seat was a terrible mistake. Two independant seats is perfect, but if you have a foldable third in the middle of them. Because otherwise either you can't take the fifth, or he seats in the luggage space and you can't take what you want with you.

The GL looks very good, have a waay better finish and material quality, has three seats at the rear and two foldable in the luggage space...Much more convincing.