AMG's Airbag & Integrated Seatbelt Issues - Page 12 - Mercedes-Benz Forum

 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #111 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 01:55 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
Good point and this has to do with physics relative to impacts.
The best way to demonstrate accute impact loading v. prolonged loading is to take a straw pinched between two fingertips held upright (use left pointer and thumb if a righty). Then flick the top of the straw. Fast enough and it'll only bend up top immediately beneath the point of contact. Then push on the top of the straw and it'll bend on the bottom due to the moment arm down the straw (from a prolonged load). This display of physics is represented by the upper inboard side of my seat being slightly tweaked forward (by an accute impact from rear seat's right shoulder) and the lower outboard side of my seat being bent forward (by my upper body's prolonged load thru integrated seatbelt). If the rear passenger's load was more directed against the back of my seat (ie. if he didn't fly up the middle to the dash), then both the outboard AND inboard bottoms would exhibit similar failure. But the bottom of the inboard side was not bent (or at least nowhere near as much as the inboard top corner and outboard bottom side). The rear seat passenger's velocity towards the dash was unbelievable. Knowing the airbags wouldn't timely deploy and I was in the seat with the least chance of survival I actually considered wedging myself between the driver and the steering wheel. Knowing the rear seat passenger was in the middle, the thought of him impacting my midsection stopped me. That's when I rose my left gaurd to absorb impact wondering what the limit of human limbs are. You think this is all impossible to do in such a short period, but when you're facing your death, your mind blossoms with more thought than you ever thought possible. I never once gave thought to whether or not MB's airbags could timely deploy during a high acceleration, low velocity impact before. Never even crossed my mind until that moment. It sure helped having an Engineering degree as the first lesson of Physics 101 is "acceleration is NOT velocity and each results in its own vector that produces two separate forces".
1. There is an obvious picture showing a seat bent the opposite way you state.
2. There is no remaining evidence
3. You clearly state in this passage that actually both bottom sides of the seat were bent, one more than the other. (stands to reason as the belted side would have more force on it handling the combined weight of the unbelted passenger and you.


Your response to this is to discuss a high school experiment with a straw and then complement yourself on your engineering degree for all the options you had during the accident? You must be joking. Do you have ANY pictures on the seat bottom, the seat itself, the outside part of the seat, ect?

Having looked closer at the pictures, Ill tell you what I believe. I believe there is no issue with that seat, that the rear passenger clearly slammed into the seat hard enough to twist the entire upper frame on his way forward.

The impact probably damaged or bent the seat locks, followed by your sustained force, which caused them to fail.

On the driver side, you have an unbelted driver flying forward slamming into everything combined with an airbag deployment somewhere in the carnage of his death.
In back you have an unbelted passenger flying forward, breaking your seat on the way by, and dying against the windshield.
And in the passenger seat, we have you slamming forward against a damaged seat which failed and threw you into the dash before the airbag fully deployed, which then threw you back for your head injury.

If you blame anybody, you should be blaming these idiots who didn't belt themselves in. There are thousands of recorded incidents of rear passengers unbelted killing and maiming belted front passengers.

Im amazed that you would discard the most logical explanation, disregard the effect of a full size adult male impacting the back of your seat, and disregard the obvious results of reckless driving combined with no seat belts.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van
JBG3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #112 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 02:57 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
Please explain how my seatback is bent opposite the way I state. It's very clear the inboard side is bent at the top corner yet the outboard side is bent at its bottom, consistent with what I state.

I threw in the bottom outboard side being bent "more than" as a technicality. The Police photographs illustate no bending at the bottom of the inboard side with a clear buckling of the bottom of the outboard side. The use "more than" is to cover a millimeter of bending at the bottom inboard side if it was bent at all down there.

I'm far from complimenting myself. Just thankful that my engineering education and background made me aware enough to consider options for survival. There is a photo of the outboard and inboard sides of the seat. MB omitted the photo of the outboard side to their own Chemical Engineer when he commented on my seatback.

Your physical explaination is absurd! How do you know the impact damaged the seats? The driver's seat looks perfect. How do you conclude I slammed into any seat? What seat is forward of the front passenger's seat?

And do you believe anything in the interior compartment has something to do with justifying the untimely airbag deployments? That's not realistic as NOTHING justifies the delayed airbag deployments.

Again, you continue to reach conclusions that fail to address the fact that the MB CL55's acceleration caused its airbags to untimely deploy resulting in the death and substantial injuries to both front seat occupants, as well as our rear-head injuries.

It's amazing how you believe yourself as great enough to call dead people "idiots" for not wearing their seatbelts. They were Fathers and Husbands, not "IDIOTS" you fool!!! I don't believe there is a seatbelt in the middle of the rear seat of a CL55 since there is a center counsel there. There is no law that requires rear seat passengers to wear seatbelts anyway. To justify the untimely airbag deployments with a dead unbelted driver and dead unbelted rear seat passenger that died against the center of the dashboard is simply absurd. They have nothing to do with each others and that is the most far fetched explaination I've heard so far. Even worse than my own sister claiming we damaged the top/rear scalps against the head-rests when the vehicle came to a rest.

Again, do you think it's possible for a vehicle's own power to impose enough acceleration to crumple it's front end without enough deceleration to deploy the airbags? That's what this all comes down to.

As of the automatic downshift coupled with the most advanced traction control system, please consider the fact that F1 recently outlawed the use of traction control systems given the fact they can make vehicle's hook up FASTER. It's a given that 516ftlb neutral drops only cause damage to transmissions so not only will MB address an uncontrollable lunge condition, they'll also save on repairing warranteed transmissions. As of the seatback, MB even acknowledges their limit by ommitting them from the latest SL65 Black Series model. Let's be logical here instead of judgmental since that's all you've been doing with our time so far.

You never answered if you'd rather impact a wall at maximum acceleration v. constant velocity. For MB to deny any difference is simply a demonstration of their lack of ethics, or lack of basic knowledge. I highly doubt it's the latter. My affidavits have been dismissed since my 4-year education at NYU-Poly has also been dismissed. Yet MB's Chemical Engineer with analytical experience (not design experience) has been qualified to provide affidavits.

It's just a matter of time before the crash test is finally performed. Let's just wait and see what will happen and more importantly, which road MB will choose to continue taking.

Last edited by virage105; 09-14-2011 at 03:01 PM.
virage105 is offline  
post #113 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 03:49 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
6.2AMG's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2009 E63
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post

It's amazing how you believe yourself as great enough to call dead people "idiots" for not wearing their seatbelts. They were Fathers and Husbands, not "IDIOTS" you fool!!!
I doubt he meant they were idiots but simply that they were being idiots for not wearing their seat belts. There's a big difference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
There is no law that requires rear seat passengers to wear seatbelts anyway.
Most states require that all occupants of a moving vehicle wear seat belts. Here's the law in California: (d) (1) ) A person shall not operate a motor vehicle on a highway unless that person and all passengers are properly restrained by a safety belt. Which means that the driver is also liable if any of his/her passengers are not wearing their seat belts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
My affidavits have been dismissed since my 4-year education at NYU-Poly has also been dismissed. Yet MB's Chemical Engineer with analytical experience (not design experience) has been qualified to provide affidavits.
Why is that? What is your area of expertise? Do you hold a graduate degree? Isn't it a private engineering school affiliated with NYU? Is it not recognized as a degree granting institution?
6.2AMG is offline  
post #114 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 03:49 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
There is a photo of the outboard and inboard sides of the seat. MB omitted the photo of the outboard side to their own Chemical Engineer when he commented on my seatback.

Good, you FINALLY have some additional evidence. Why not post it?

Your physical explaination is absurd! How do you know the impact damaged the seats? The driver's seat looks perfect. How do you conclude I slammed into any seat? What seat is forward of the front passenger's seat?

Who said he hit the driver seat? he clearly hit your seat, as we were discussing. Secondly, apparently I confused you, let me rephrase, you slammed forward against the seatbelt attached to your own seat. When I said you slammed against the seat, thats what I meant. That was a little confusing, my apologies.

It's amazing how you believe yourself as great enough to call dead people "idiots" for not wearing their seatbelts. They were Fathers and Husbands, not "IDIOTS" you fool!!!

So the fact that they were fathers and husbands excuses them from exercising the simplest of personal safety and caution when driving? In my opinion, that only makes them greater idiots, for failing to consider what damage their untimely death would do to their families. I find it interesting that in your eyes, not wearing a seat belt is totally unrelated to the outcome of this crash.

I don't believe there is a seatbelt in the middle of the rear seat of a CL55 since there is a center counsel there. There is no law that requires rear seat passengers to wear seatbelts anyway.

So, whats your point? Thats its ok NOT to wear a seat belt? Have you learned nothing from your experience? Did having your friend fly past you and hit the windshield convey nothing? I suppose he had the right to do that, but its pretty likely he would have survived this crash and returned to his family had he belted himself in. That makes him an IDIOT. No ifs, ands, or buts.

To justify the untimely airbag deployments with a dead unbelted driver and dead unbelted rear seat passenger that died against the center of the dashboard is simply absurd. They have nothing to do with each others and that is the most far fetched explaination I've heard so far.

Who said they had anything to do with each other? I stated what I think happened in the crash based on your statements and your pictures. The rear passenger and the front passenger (yourself) certainly have a relationship in this crash, but at no time have I stated the rear passenger hit the drivers seat. Again, time to learn how to read other peoples posts.

You never answered if you'd rather impact a wall at maximum acceleration v. constant velocity.

You never asked. Personally, id rather do neither. Id rather wear my seat belt and drive my car properly, neither of which happened here.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van

Last edited by JBG3; 09-14-2011 at 03:54 PM.
JBG3 is offline  
post #115 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 05:50 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
"Why is that? What is your area of expertise? Do you hold a graduate degree? Isn't it a private engineering school affiliated with NYU? Is it not recognized as a degree granting institution?"
Good question. Affidavits can be qualified based on education OR expertise. I hold a Bachelors of Science in Environmental Engineering which includes more than enough physics to comment on forces imposed by acceleration. Polytechnic University is a private engineering institution that has been issuing degrees since 1891, when they branched off from NYU. Not only are they an ABET accredited learning institution, a substantial number of alumni have been awarded the Nobel Prize. Many breakthroughs we use daily have been developed by Polytechnic Alumni. Recently, Polytechnic merged back with NYU to become NYU-Poly. I am not bragging by any means. Simply stating facts. I hold an FE and passed on the PE portion to obtain a Building Contractor's license but will pick up a PE soon enough. The bottom line is, this education is more than enough to comment on something as simple as the force of acceleration.
virage105 is offline  
post #116 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 08:31 PM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
6.2AMG's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2009 E63
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
That's why I asked. I was curious as to why they won't accept the affidavits. I'm guessing because your field isn't specific to the auto industry. Why not get someone from NYU-Poly to be an expert witness? A former colleague or current faculty? Since you're an alum then use those connections. That's one of the best things that grad school did for me, to give me connections. btw, I was a visiting faculty member at the Tisch School at NYU for two semesters several years ago.


EDIT: Here's an interesting article called "The Myth of the Expert Affidavit" from the New York Law Journal. It's not as simple as you (or anyone) not having a 'proper' education or expertise. There's certainly more going on here in respect to your affidavits not being accepted by the court that you're clearly not aware about. And another reason to hire a legal team.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf The_New_York_Law_Journal_-_The_Myth_of_the_Expert_Affidavit.pdf (106.8 KB, 68 views)

Last edited by 6.2AMG; 09-15-2011 at 03:45 AM.
6.2AMG is offline  
post #117 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-14-2011, 10:16 PM Thread Starter
BenzWorld Member
 
Date registered: Jun 2010
Posts: 152
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
(Thread Starter)
It's a shame since Mechanical Engineering (the degree closest to the auto industry) wouldn't have given me anymore coursework relative to the simple force of acceleration. Yet the E.D.N.Y qual'd a MB engineer with a Chemical Engineering degree and testing experience (not design) based on his experience, not education (since I took more structural/mechanics of structures coursework than he did, and have more certifications).

You're 100% right and I intend to bring in Poly faculty for expert testimony during trial if it reaches that far. With MB bombarding this case with motions to dismiss in 2-federal jurisdictions, I didn't want to waste their time yet.

I'm not into all the legal talk. I'm simply into results. That's why regardless of where this case goes (although I will appeal it shall it be dismissed soon after 2+ years), I'm going to obtain the results of a crash test at maximum acceleration at 30mph. If demonstrated that MB does not adhere to an FMVSS208 standard, all the stories and sieving thru drama won't be able to overshadow that result. I'm not stopping at a settlement either (if they are ethical enough to reach one). I'm stopping at MB addressing the force of acceleration on their occupant restraint systems in their AMG models (or high powered models if not AMG). And assure they never simply outfit a luxury sedan with gobs of power without giving any consideration to scaling up restraint systems accordingly, again. My MB nightmare is finally tailing off but theirs has yet to begin. One thing about my death is the perspective of time. I have a lifetime to address issues everyone else refuses to address, and will one at a time, one step at a time regardless of how long each step takes me. One doesn't return from their own death without a burden of responsibilities/expectations that make this matter seem like a pinky fight.

Funny, cause the Environmental Engineering degree included all the core Masters classes but I would have to take 2-years of electives to obtain my Masters Degree. Everything comes down to money irregardless of logic. I'm sure there was an AMG engineer that bought this issue up and was turned down since managment used law/federal guidelines to make a technical decision that will soon become MB's worst negligent design liability. Having an airbag blow my mangled body backwards after a head-on collision is beyond the limit of when one must stand up and take an action, or force other animals to do so against their will. I'll go to Polytechnic faculty with the test results once in hand so they can use MB's as an example for what the entire auto industry should not do. If MB's insists on having this go any further. My greatest challenge is having that crash test footage in hand and actually communicate with them for the first time, v. just publishing it shall it redemonstrate what I already lived thru. It's a shame they're letting this extend 5++ years after the incident for me while claiming credit for my life and denying the force of acceleration upon a collision's pulse, and ability of their airbags to timely deploy. How does one communicate with such a beast? I'd rather drop that beast to its knees first so they know what it feels like firsthand. It'll be a shame for the 250,000 people that work for MB but some of those folks bought this upon themselves.
virage105 is offline  
post #118 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-15-2011, 03:24 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
6.2AMG's Avatar
 
Date registered: Jul 2010
Vehicle: 2009 E63
Posts: 557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
It's still not quite clear to me as to what is your true intent. You say that you're "suing Mercedes for utilizing safety designs in a modified vehicle that rendered the safety designs not only useless, but clearly capable of imposing additional harm." And that you're "not stopping at a settlement" but will stop if Daimler "scale[s] up restraint systems accordingly." There currently are no regulations that I am familiar with that require a different restraint system design based solely on the horsepower and torque of a production street vehicle. Maybe there should be, but there are not.

It's a good question but it's a question really for the DOT and not Daimler AG. Why not focus your goal and just try to sue Mercedes for faulty airbag deployment and/or integrated seat belt failure for this particular accident, collect the award for damages, and then take the rest of your concerns to the DOT and the Feds, and where it can be addressed in the correct arena.

As long as manufacturers follow current regulations, there's nothing requiring them to do otherwise. Should they? Perhaps. But where is the precedent? Indeed, there are plenty of performance street cars that are more powerful than an AMG. Plus the 2003 CL55 is no longer being produced. And if you are correct about an obvious design flaw, then you also have to determine liability (and then a determination of negligence to assess the proper monetary award.) The only thing you can realistically define is your specific settlement. The rest is intangible.

This is a classic situation. You have no one to sue for your injuries (you did not sue the estate), and so all that remains is the manufacturer. But the car is gone and so the evidence is gone. And Daimler contends that your argument is tenuous and therefore is willing to spend the amount of what they think a settlement might cost them just to keep it from going much further. There's absolutely nothing to lose on their end of the table by doing this. The burden of proof is on you. Had they felt there was a potential issue here, they would have already attempted to settle with you and we'd not be reading this.

"It'll be a shame for the 250,000 people that work for MB but some of those folks bought [sic] this upon themselves. "

The 250,000 employees of Daimler AG will not be affected by any of this. Just a suggestion: maybe tone down the melodramatics a bit and focus only on the facts. As someone here already posted early on in the thread, "[a] bit of free advice if you intend going the legal route mate...First of all leave the emotional baggage of the accident behind. Secondly, control your passion, anger and venom...these have no place in accident investigations."

Anyway, it was an interesting thread to read for a wide variety of reasons. But it's time to quit with my own involvement. Good luck.
6.2AMG is offline  
post #119 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-15-2011, 08:35 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by virage105 View Post
"Why is that? What is your area of expertise? Do you hold a graduate degree? Isn't it a private engineering school affiliated with NYU? Is it not recognized as a degree granting institution?"
Good question. Affidavits can be qualified based on education OR expertise. I hold a Bachelors of Science in Environmental Engineering which includes more than enough physics to comment on forces imposed by acceleration. Polytechnic University is a private engineering institution that has been issuing degrees since 1891, when they branched off from NYU. Not only are they an ABET accredited learning institution, a substantial number of alumni have been awarded the Nobel Prize. Many breakthroughs we use daily have been developed by Polytechnic Alumni. Recently, Polytechnic merged back with NYU to become NYU-Poly. I am not bragging by any means. Simply stating facts. I hold an FE and passed on the PE portion to obtain a Building Contractor's license but will pick up a PE soon enough. The bottom line is, this education is more than enough to comment on something as simple as the force of acceleration.
so by this logic, the fact that other people who went to polytechnic were successful and you have a degree from the same institution, somehow makes your wild guesses, suppositions, and assumptions into facts?

I see we've switched from listing your hardships to listing your accolades. What happened to supporting your statements with logical arguments based on logical facts? Im looking for facts to support your case in all this name dropping, but I haven't seen anything yet.

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van

Last edited by JBG3; 09-15-2011 at 08:40 AM.
JBG3 is offline  
post #120 of 285 (permalink) Old 09-15-2011, 09:26 AM
BenzWorld Senior Member
 
Date registered: Feb 2010
Vehicle: 1983 240D, 1974 240D
Location: RI
Posts: 501
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
To skip all accolades, here is a retelling of both your case, and what I believe happened with what evidence has been posted on the thread-

Issue 1
You say-
The MB was driving around a corner, the automatic downshift caused the driver to lose control and end up on the opposite lane.
your evidence- You possess the education to make this kind of judgement, you believe the car has a recognized problem with downshifting, and the driver was too good to be in that situation anyway, correct? The downshifting issue will be proved in upcoming tests, but as of now, there is nothing tangible corroborating your word on this.

I say-
The MB was driving around a corner, through circumstances that cannot be absolutely known but are most likely driver error, the vehicle ended up in the oncoming lane carrying enough force to completely destroy two cars and kill three people.
my evidence- The car is in the oncoming lane. Thee people are dead. The vehicles are violently destroyed. Personal testimony of the surviving witness AND a third party point to immediately prior passing, speeding, and general recklessness with this specific vehicle and driver, as well as over the course of its ownership.

Issue 2
you say-
In the course of the accident, the seatback on your side failed completely throwing you into the dashboard.
your evidence- You possess the education to make a judgement that it was your weight alone that broke the seat, and thusly, MB is negligent in design. The broken seat locks support you in your assertion, as well as a simple test showing force using a straw.

I say-
In the course of the accident, the seatback on your side failed completely due to rear passenger impact severe enough to completely twist the frame of the seat. The result was that you were thrown into the dashboard.
My evidence- The bent seat obviously hit by the rear passenger. The broken seat locks. The rear passenger in the dashboard area. The severe injuries you sustained. To a lesser extent, the undamaged nature of the other front seat that was not hit by the passenger.

Issue 3
you say-
The airbags failed to deploy in a timely fashion based on the tactic of accelerating into the oncoming car due to a programming error that represents negligence on the part of MB as the situation did not occur to them.
your evidence- you possess the education and presence of mind to predict this event. You were smashed against the dash, and subsequently thrown back against the ceiling of the car by the airbag. The driver suffered similar damage.

I say- The airbags deployed properly, but the driver was not wearing his seatbelt, and so instead of being properly restrained by the belt, and cushioned by the air bag, his body moved forward to meet the dash, and the airbag deployment, DESIGNED around the belt holding the driver in place, pushed him back against the ceiling.
On your side, while you were properly belted, the combination of a severe impact by the unbelted rear passenger and your own weight against the seat resulted in the failure of the seat back, causing you to fly forward to meet the correctly timed deployment of the airbag.
my evidence- The unbelted driver and rear passengers. The broken passenger front seat. The damage to the back frame and broken locks of the passenger front seat. Your severe injuries as a result of this failure, and the deaths of the other two occupants as a result of the extreme personal negligence of NOT belting themselves into the vehicle.

Which argument seems more logical? The one that levels 3 totally unheard of failures at the same time at the car corporation? Or the one that is backed by thousands of precedents of unbelted occupants causing massive damage to belted occupants, and thousands of precedents of death based on ignoring necessary safety requirements?

1983 240D 4-speed, DD
1974 240D turbo 617 swap, W201 5-speed project
Abomination Chevy Astro, 616 turbo swap, T5 5-speed, 4.56 diff. Work van
JBG3 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

  Mercedes-Benz Forum > General Mercedes-Benz Forums > MB Safety & Testimonials

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Mercedes-Benz Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in











  • Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
     
    Thread Tools
    Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
    Email this Page Email this Page
    Display Modes
    Linear Mode Linear Mode



    Similar Threads
    Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
    Bluetooth & Integrated Phone Plug ProvingGrounds W140 S-Class 8 11-17-2013 10:21 AM
    COMMAND COMMUNICATION ISSUES & GATEWAY 500 WARRANTY ISSUES POURCTYSBKON Audio & Telematics Forum 2 12-26-2008 03:40 AM
    Great Deals on 209 AMG'S & 216'S CaliforniaMBGuy C209/A209 CLK-Class 2 09-06-2007 06:05 PM
    Integrated phone issues - seen this before? mkhoo W211 E-Class 1 12-11-2006 05:11 PM
    19" AMG's..anyone else have issues?? DKM C215 CL-Class 2 01-22-2003 12:08 AM

    Posting Rules  
    You may post new threads
    You may post replies
    You may not post attachments
    You may not edit your posts

    BB code is On
    Smilies are On
    [IMG] code is On
    HTML code is Off
    Trackbacks are On
    Pingbacks are On
    Refbacks are On

     

    Title goes here

    close
    video goes here
    description goes here. Read Full Story
    For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome