Are you kiddin' me? Taking something out of context like that to make some convoluted point? Really? Sheesh. The spectacular feat isn't that the Sprinter hit 559K miles, which the article says in very plain English, and right after the line you quoted they go on to say what, exactly, the spectacular feat is. They say, very matter of factly, that the mileage alone is not, in fact, a spectacular feat. What's the matter with you? Do you hate Sprinters so much that you're willing to make crap up and purposely distort facts to bolster your own opinions?
To challenge a statement of mine, by twisting it into a blatant falsehood, is something I find particularly insulting.
"So, even those guys there on that site (overseas Mercedes fanatics) are truly truly amazed of the "spectular feat" that this Sprinter hit 559K miles."
That's a lie. The article says no such thing, not even close.
For the brain damaged among us, I quote the salient part of the article, in context, that you so badly wish to distort out of context:
"But the distance alone is not enough. To make headlines, your car (or van) has to be truly bad ***, or at least peform some additional type of spectacular feat. This Sprinter has done exactly that. Despite its immense travels, this Sprinter has not needed a single repair (aside from the usual wearing parts, of course). Not too shabby, if I do say so myself."
From the press release:
"And, apart from the usual wearing parts, the van has not needed a single repair. The newspaper courier relies on the Mercedes-Benz van for his work and this constant companion has never let him down yet. ... Since its market launch in 1995 well over a million models of the Mercedes-Benz Sprinter have been sold and it has enjoyed tremendous success – as numerous “Van of the Year” awards and a wealth of satisfied customers can testify."
Why you would take something so plainly stated, so unambiguous, and then distort it into a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, is beyond me. You contend that the article states the exact opposite of what it clearly states. Why would you do that? Is it because it better fits with your convoluted perceptions of reality? Do you not have the mental capacity to comprehend the article in its entirety? Do you have a general reading comprehension problem? Or is it that you merely have some warped anti-Sprinter agenda and you think the readers here on EO are so stupid as to not be insulted with your distorted propaganda, one that anyone, anyone, who reads the article at the link I posted can plainly see?
So, again, do some actual research with European articles and news reports, read about what this van does in Europe, and about how successful it is over there, and contrast it to here, and look at what might be the reason for the cavernous (perceived) disparity. I contend that if you think American, you're going to have problems with a European vehicle, but treat it like a European vehicle, think European, and you'll have European results. I've had an odd, nagging problem with belt tensioners, but other than that, the only maintenance and repair that I've had to deal with is routine maintenance and routine wear parts. I've owned a Ford and a Sprinter, and I've treated them differently from each other. Imagine that.
Leo: Yeah, cetane is different here and in Europe, and it may very well be a factor (I think it probably is), but it's not likely to be a factor for many of the "horror stories" that we hear about, like early transmission failures in particular. Nearly every "horror story" we hear about can be traced to what Greg talks about, either the owner or the mechanic mistreating the van by using fluids that aren't on The List or by some other improper maintenance or operating failure.
Low cetane can cause some specific problems, but the key is it will cause those problems if the low cetane is ignored by the owner. If the Sprinter is treated like a Ford, and the problem of low cetane not addressed, then it's going to manifest itself as a problem later on. If you deal with it (cetane boosters and injector cleaners on a regular basis), it's not a problem. Again, we're back to the problem of people buying "not a Ford", and then expecting to treat it like a Ford, and get mad when it doesn't perform like a Ford. If you want something that walks, talks and acts like a Ford, get a Ford. If you get a Sprinter, treat it like a Sprinter, not like a Ford. More importantly, quit complaining that it's not a Ford and that it doesn't act like a Ford. It should be plainly evident to all that a Sprinter and a Ford are, in fact, different vehicles.
Because a Ford will run fine with low cetane fuel, and a Sprinter won't, that doesn't mean a Sprinter is better or worse than a Ford, it merely means they are different. Some people think that because a Ford runs fine on low cetane fuel, then a Sprinter should, too. That's absurd. That's like buying a Corvette and then complaining because it requires high octane gasoline, when your soccer mommy van doesn't.
If you like Fords and don't like Sprinters, then ta-da don't get a Sprinter. If you want a Ford with extra room that you can stand up in, don't get a Sprinter and pretend it's a really big Ford. It's not, and it has to be treated as if it's not.
Nearly every out-of-the-ordinary problem with a Sprinter can be directly traced back to either operator error or improper maintenance or repair. Not all, but the vast majority of them can. For example, how many Sprinter owners pull up to a shipper or cons, put the vehicle in park, and then get loaded or unloaded, heavy skids. The torque those skids put on the transmission while in park is extremely high, and will contribute to te early demise of the transmission. It may or may not be a problem with a Ford, but it is with a Sprinter. A Ford transmission may very well be able to handle those additional stresses, but the Sprinter's NAG1 transmission cannot.
Stating that it should be able to handle it is irrelevant as to whether it can. Defiantly treating it as if it should, and then having the transmission fail, isn't a fault of the Sprinter, it's a fault of the owner. Period. This is but one example of owner failure that results in the Sprinter being called a POS because they have to pour thousands of dollars into it.
With a Ford, oftentimes with automotive freight you have to break down the top layer of the skid, load the skid into the van, then rebuild the top layer inside the van, then reverse the process on the other end. Does this make the Ford a POS? You bet it does, as breaking down, rebuilding and then reversing the process countless times over the course of a year results in thousands of wasted man-hours and dollars loading and unloading freight. That doesn't happen with a Sprinter. Oh, but, but, but, that's just something you have to do if you own a Ford. Yeah, well, there are some things you just have to do if you own a Sprinter, too, and some of them are different than you do with a Ford. If you have a Ford, you have to be mentally prepared for breaking down skids every now and then. If you have a Sprinter you have to be mentally prepared to deal with it's unique characteristics, as well. And they are different characteristics than as with a Ford. Shocking, I know, but it's true.
