Mercedes Hardware - Pierre's latest video January 2025

[R129 UK]

Has anyone else seen this? If so, what are your thoughts?

I don't see any issue buying DIN / ISO grade fixings.

Do Mercedes get theirs made elsewhere to an even higher standard?

Also, no mention of 1 time use parts e.g. stretch bolts which could cause issues for anyone blindly following the advice.

 

[gsxr]

If it's a name-brand, quality DIN / ISO bolt of equal rating - shouldn't be a problem. I do agree that the hardware included with some aftermarket kits (Febi subframe bushings, for example) may be junk.

There's no mention of the fact that many original fasteners have been replaced / superceded by Mercedes, with items that are NOT the same as original. Many/most originals from the W124 era were plated, while some of the current replacements you'd buy from the dealer are gray coated instead (cost reduction and/or environmentally friendly).

Even worse, some supercessions are not functionally identical - often having an incorrect head design. For example: One of the fan clutch bolts (not M119) were changed to internal Torx instead of hex-socket head. Probably made sense to the bean counter who approved this, however the problem is the MB special tools designed for clutch R&R only work with hex-head bolts, not Torx.

As a bonus, some hardware is simply NLA. The only option is finding good originals at a junkyard and cleaning them for re-use if needed.

 

[Kridre]

Most of the old MB hardware was made by Kamax or Verbus. Most were zinc plated with yellow chromate pasivate (I think), even 10.9 grade or higher bolts. Nowadays every 10.9 or higher bolts are black oxide or flake zinc coted because traditional zinc plating can reduce strength of bolt that are 10.9 or higher. Search for hydrogen embrittlement. There are additional steps that you need to do after plating to prevent this from happening, but I never saw anyone doing them.

Flake zinc coating is also used because its more eco friendly and traditional yellow pasivate is really toxic for workers that did this process. Today yellow coatings have nothing in common with the old stuff besides color, at least in the EU.

If you're going to reuse old bolts you can re zinc plate everything that is 8.8 or below. Everything 10.9 I would reuse as it is or just buy good quality brand new bolts even if they are flake zinc plated. If they are available buy them only at the dealer. Flake zinc coating is not that durable as old plating, but I don't know if many of us are still riding this cars in salty winters.

There is also cadmium plating used in military and aerospace. It's more durable compared to traditional zinc plating and you can have it in yellow color. Issue is that it is also banned in most countries for commercial usage because of toxic fumes that this process produces.

 

[gerryvz]

Re-using MB hardware is something also that I always try to do. I throw very little original MB hardware away. Do I bother re-plating anything? No, as long as the hardware is structurally good and the threads are good.

I don't like the new "substitutions" of a lot of Allen hardware used, with hex head or Torx head bolts. Usually I eschew using the newer hardware unless I have no choice in the matter. Again, re-using the older stuff is preferable, and for things like fan clutch bolts I even have a couple or three spares of the original Allen hardware (not that I've needed to use it).

For a lot of hardware that comes with aftermarket kits (i.e. as mentioned the Febi subframe bushings, or flex discs) I will opt to throw it away and re-use the existing hardware.

 

[AMG5PT4]

When I see a W126 at a JY, I often go just to gather hardware, hose clamps, tie wraps. I have spent $2-3k having MB hardware re-plated to that nice rainbow yellow plating. Oh, and countless hours at a wire wheel on my floor grinder cleaning the hardware before taking to the plater. Only MB hardware on my cars.

And @gsxr is right about original hardware being NLA - especially hex head Allen bolts that are now replaced by e-torx or straight hex head bolts and nothing new from MB is yellow zinc plated. Some really expensive bolts are still available - W126 dog bone thrust bearing bolts with the big round plate that bolts the rubber bushings to the dog bone carrier - they are about $200/ea! Most on JY cars the large round plates are bent because numb-nuts use them as jacking points. And the W126 rear sub frame bolts that look like Saturn 5 rockets - I believe they are NLA. Those monsters could hold the weight of two w126's.

 

[R129 UK]

Re-using MB hardware is something also that I always try to do.

I also don't throw anything away, even stretch bolts which might be useful for aligning components for "pre-assembly" and later swapping out 1 by 1 for final assembly but I'm also mindful that some parts such as rocker cover cap head screws / bolts can become quite worn on the drive geometry from the number of R&Rs over the years so I replace these on a case-by-case basis using DIN / ISO equivalents.

An interesting discussion here, much more informative than the YouTube video comments when I watched it last night.

 

[gerryvz]

Cousin Pierre's comments are directionally accurate, but are of limited benefit; but that is the case with most of his videos to be honest. He is looking very very broadly across decades of MB models and chassis -- and his "sweet spot" tends to be 1950s through 1980s. We tend to take a narrower, and more focused look at things with a more late 1980s to mid-1990s focus.

 

[R129 UK]

I might be mistaken but seeing this always makes me chuckle, I don't EVER remember seeing any comment from PH in response to a question posted by a viewer on ANY of his videos:




At least Mr Bergsma [aka "Uncle Kent" - Ed.] disables comments on his uploads...

 

[gerryvz]

Yeah, Uncle Kent started turning off comments on his videos some time back. LOL. He didn't used to.

Indeed, don't recall seeing Cousin Pierre answer any comments on his videos. There was quite a bit of 500E-related banter on his recent video dissing the 500E, and not a reply in sight.....

He certainly knows this forum too, but I've never seen him post here. Dollars to donuts that a lot of these shop owners (including Uncle Kent and Cousin Pierre) come to this forum as an information resource when an M119 or .034/.036 enters their shop doors. Certainly we have quite a few other shop owners and mechanics as members here - as viewed by the email addresses of various members I've seen (not counting @jhodg5ck )

 

[gerryvz]

Cousin Pierre pontificates on the “point in time” when MB changed from engineering-driven to “cost-driven” being the changeover from “number-then-letter” badging to “letter-then-number” badging, in 1993….

 

[gsxr]

I personally LOVE the change in naming convention. It was simple, logical, and made sense. The "great system" Pierre describes was nonsensical. Why do I care that people know I drive a Mercedes by only telling them a model number? Why would I want a bigger number to imply a bigger, more expensive chassis? And this number-before-letter doesn't somehow mean you are analytical, cerebral, and an attentive driver.

The cost-driven change did begin in the early 90's, but the models affected by this did not come to market until the mid-90's at the earliest (W210 in 1995/1996 is arguably the earliest example; some might claim it was the W202 in 1994). Chassis engineered prior to this (mostly) maintained "good" engineering through the rest of production, i.e. the 140 and 129 chassis through 1999 and 2002, respectively. These chassis didn't turn magically into garbage when the tunk badge letter moved ahead of the number.

He is correct that some of the bad changes did sneak into the existing "good" cars, the most egregious example being the biodegradable wire harnesses which appeared circa late 1990 / early 1991 on the new EFI fuel systems. This happened before his magical naming-convention break point. (Just watch, some BaHaT commenters will now start claiming that pre-facelift / pre-name-convention cars have good harnesses. ) His distaste for the OM606 is totally unwarranted, IMO... that is a spectacular engine, an improved version of the 603.

 

[emerydc8]

Well, at least he thinks the W124 and W140 made it past that brown line.

I got a text last night from a close friend in Laguna Niguel who has a W220 (2001 S430) which is a garage queen. He was going to put something in the trunk but the battery is dead and the trunk won’t open, even with the “nail-looking” metal key. He’s in his early 80s and dealing with health issues so of course I wanted to help. I did a search and found a YouTube video of a guy who had the same problem, along with a string of replies thanking him for the solution. In order to charge the battery, which of course is in the trunk, he removed the front passenger foot panel and found some terminals to tap into and charge from there. Within minutes of charging there is ostensibly enough juice to open it. Apparently, if the battery is totally dead not even the manual key will open the trunk. What kind of engineering is that? He said the AAA guy couldn’t figure it out so he left. I suggested there may be a remote somewhere under the hood. Maybe this is the kind of design Cousin Pierre is referring to.

 

[gerryvz]

The thing is, that the W124 and W140 DEFINITIVELY DID NOT make it past that cutoff line. Negative cost-related changes had already begun being made starting in 1992 to the W124 and 1993 for the 140.

In our cars, this is evidenced by the movement from the aluminum cam oiler tubes to the plastic ones - that's just one example of where they thought they could save a few bucks per engine. Perhaps removing the silver lettering and detachable round star on the M119 airbox too (after first just molding a painted star into the airbox).

Having owned a 1992 model year 300TE and two 1995 model year E320s, there were numerous but very subtle "cheapenings" in the interior materials; this started with the phasing in of the M104-based models for 1993. 1993 was also the year that MBUSA dealers moved from real leather owner's manual pouches to "pleather" pouches that did not contain as many internal pockets, and were about three steps down from the leather ones.

In the W140s, they increasingly phased in A TON of "cost saving" items after the first couple of years (1992, 1993). A couple of example of this would be the aforementioned cam oiler tubes; but also the elimination of the trunk-mounted parking poles (corner markers), and the elimination of the hydraulic door-closing mechanisms. But there were MANY more cost-savers phased in on the W140s in a vain attempt by MB to try to reduce the bleeding and lessen the lack of ROI for the enormous R&D outlay that the W140 had.

By the end of cost-cutting at the end of W140 production, they had succeeded in taking out a very measurable percentage of total W140 cost as compared to the first couple of model years.

Also -- contrary to popular belief, the biodegradable wiring harnesses that MB phased in, had NOTHING to do with cost-cutting. They had EVERYTHING to do with new Euro regulations that mandaded increasing recyclability of a higher percentage of automobiles. And the insulation on the "biodegradable" harnesses was compliant with this improved recyclability and "less waste" mandate.

 

[R129 UK]

I think Pierre has sadly finally lost the plot on this one. The biggest travesty in the Mercedes naming convention history is the change in more recent years where a 4 cylinder with a turbo or electric motor or 2 has a big number stuck on the back as a simulated equivalent to the earlier nomenclature format.

Numerous other tangents were negotiated within the overall ranty delivery of this upload.

How do his Patreon members think they are getting anything resembling value for money from all that pompous pontification?

 

[gsxr]

The thing is, that the W124 and W140 DEFINITIVELY DID NOT make it past that cutoff line. Negative cost-related changes had already begun being made starting in 1992 to the W124 and 1993 for the 140.

True: The 124 and 140 did have some amount of cost-cutting affect production. HOWEVER. This was mostly smaller things, like the plastic oil tubes, or pleather owner's manual pouches. The majority of the chassis was still a million-mile Mercedes. The facelift 124's, or late-90's 140's, don't have things wear out or fall apart that were fine on earlier models.

The real problems started when the cost-cutting was applied at the beginning of design & engineering... like the 210. The interior quality was vastly inferior - IME/IMO - compared to the 124. I joke that the dashboards came pre-cracked from the factory. They rattle and shake. The door panel retaining pieces fall off the panels and must be reattached with epoxy. The seats are not as robust. Front spring perches... massive rust issues (related to Euro regulations affecting body/paint)... cheesy switchgear (compared to 124/140 discrete switches)... rear window regulators that last for five window cycles... etc. Now, the 210 had a ton of new features/enhancements that were really cool. But the step backwards in quality was a painful exchange. Previously million-mile car, now 200kmi car. Previously a Mercedes, now a very nice Camry/Accord with 3-pointed star on the hood.

 

[emerydc8]

It's not a major issue, but when did they change the rubber material for the side mirror boots? Was it around this time too.? I think the late 80s used better rubber that didn't crack.

 

[gsxr]

It's not a major issue, but when did they change the rubber material for the side mirror boots? Was it around this time too.? I think the late 80s used better rubber that didn't crack.

The 124 mirror booties seem to have changed around 1989, give or take a year. Definitely prior to Pierre's number/letter reversal cutoff.

 

[gerryvz]

It's not a major issue, but when did they change the rubber material for the side mirror boots? Was it around this time too.? I think the late 80s used better rubber that didn't crack.

1990 was the last year with the good mirror boots.