No, I doubt very seriously "one angry old man" knows better.
I'm sure the factory engineers know, and it looks like that was this "angry old man's" point, namely that the factory engineers *do* know better, but they're being muzzled by A.) their employer, and B.) the US Government. In this case, he's talking about maintenance of a car that could be pretty reliable, if the *proper* maintenance is done on it.
I consider this plausible because it wouldn't be the first time a car manufacturer made design choices and recommendations, for business reasons, that didn't serve the customer in the best reasonable way, "reasonable", in this case, meaning not causing problems down the road. Older folks will remember the "planned obselescence" policies of GM, Ford, and Chrysler back in the 1970's and 1980's. They will also remember the difference between the Ford Granada and its replacement, the Ford Fairmont. The former may not have been pretty, but it was very reliable, while the latter was a problem-child from birth due to Ford's sucky implementation of the then-new EPA regs. Advancing the Fairmont's timing after purchase fixed most of the problems. Granted, it came at the expense of a little more emissions, but the car would run much better. Why did Ford not do it right? Because it was cheaper to do it wrong and just retard the timing. Customer? They'll be buying another car in 3 years, so goodie for us (Ford)! GM and Chrysler did similar things. GM, Ford, and Chrysler knew their cars. But for business reasons, they made bad (for the customer) recommendations and design choices. I remember those days.
And that's the *other* reason Japanese cars became so popular.
Regarding Mercedes-Benz, remember that they used to tell people, "automatic transmissions are sealed for life, no maintenance required." They had to backpedal on that one due to complaints, remember? This article looks in much the same vein. The car could run very well...with the Proper Maintenance.
