GM / General Motors: Mercedes-Benz hit with suit

News article in Today's Toronto Star. I guess this means that drivers have
no clue about conventional vs. synthetic oils.

Mercedes-Benz hit with suit
Claim says firm recommended wrong motor oil

Follows similar action by U.S. customers in 2001


TONY VAN ALPHEN
BUSINESS REPORTER

Mercedes-Benz Canada Inc. has potentially caused millions of dollars in
engine damage to customers' cars because the company recommended the wrong
oil under a maintenance program, a driver charges in a class-action lawsuit.

Michael Malc of Toronto, who bought a 1998 Mercedes C230, says in a
statement of claim that the auto maker's maintenance reminder system called
for oil changes between 15,000 and 30,000 kilometres. But the company didn't
tell him and other owners servicing should occur much earlier if they used
conventional instead of synthetic motor oils, the statement said.

In July, 2001, Mercedes informed customers in Canada and the United States
that they should switch to synthetic oils that the company recommended to
ensure no engine problems. Mercedes sold about 40,000 models in Canada
equipped with a "flexible service system" or maintenance reminder sensor
from 1998 to mid-2001

However, Malc says in the claim on behalf of himself and other Mercedes
drivers in Canada that vehicles sustained and continue to suffer "abnormal
and excessive engine wear and damage" because of the long intervals between
changes of conventional oil earlier.

The earlier oil recommendation continues to constitute a safety hazard and
exposes car occupants and others to potential bodily injury if an engine
seizes on the road, he added in the claim filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice.

The claim, which has not been proved in court, seeks millions of dollars in
potential damages covering repair and maintenance costs for alleged
excessive engine wear, reduction in the value of vehicles, overpayment for
models, extra expenses for pure synthetic oil and higher exposure to injury.

Mercedes-Benz said yesterday there is "no merit" to the claim and the
company plans to defend itself vigorously.

JoAnne Caza, director of marketing and public relations for Mercedes-Benz
Canada, said the claim is a "copy cat" of a class-action lawsuit that a U.S.
driver launched in 2001. The parties eventually reached a settlement that a
Pennsylvania court approved earlier this year.

In that settlement, Mercedes-Benz USA provided an extra warranty that covers
engine damage caused by use of conventional motor oil in models with the
flexible service system equipment, advising them of the need for maintenance
soon. The warranty coverage, which is transferable in a sale, applies for 10
years or 150,000 miles (about 250,000 kilometres).

Under the terms, Mercedes also gave U.S. owners and lessees of 1998 and 1999
models a $35 (U.S.) discount on scheduled servicing including an oil change.
Owners of newer models won't get the discount because they are still under
warranty coverage.

Lawyers for the lead plaintiff estimated the class-action lawsuit covered
about 667,000 drivers in the United States.

In Canada, Caza said there were a "relatively low" number of warranty claims
arising from problems because of the use of conventional mineral based motor
oils.


"The conditions in Canada are different," she said. "It's not as much of an
issue in Canada."

In addition to the claim, Malc filed a notice of motion in court recently to
certify it as a class-action suit. His lawyer Harvin Pitch said the motion
will likely be heard next year.

In his claim, Malc alleges Mercedes-Benz was negligent in promotion of its
flexible service system equipment and in recommending use of conventional
oil. Customers relied on such promotions, he says.

Bit offtopic, innit? But does that mean you've bought the Pacifica...

;-)
DAS
--
---
NB: To reply directly replace "nospam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Art Begun" <com> wrote in message
news:iSbvb.10976$news.atl.earthlink.net...