Mercedes Benz fuel challenges
Hubby and I have been looking at the Sprinter chassis with the Mercedes diesel engine for several years. We are almost to the point where we can buy. Recently, I have heard some rumblings from 2 fri...
Forum Discussion
DAWg134 wrote:
I would hope that a bit of common sense would apply to the biodiesel situation. In the link provided by Booster in an earlier post, Mercedes Benz has done a great job of documenting specific concerns they have regarding the different bio formulations, so it's not simply a matter of them hedging their bets against the unknown.
I would assess the warranty impact as follows:
a) You bring in your Sprinter for an alternator failure... MB should replace it under warranty at no cost to you, regardless of what is in your fuel tank.
b) Your oil pump fails under warranty and your crankcase is "clean as a whistle", MB should repair it at no cost.
c) Your oil pump fails under warranty and your crankcase is choked with sludge and there's biodiesel in your tank.... you're on your own for repairs.
Common sense would be good.
Beyond that, your cases (a) and (b) are essentially assured under Magnuson–Moss. A manufacturer (at least in the US) cannot arbitrarily void a warranty just because the owner did or did not do anything particular. They need to establish that the the action in question actually caused or contributed to the failure. Case (c) is more subtle For example, there might be a lubrication-related failure that occurs right after an oil change. This may or may not have been caused by oil dilution due to B20 use, and there would be no obvious way to tell, other than the possible presence of B20 in the tank.
The fact is that such situations tend to be decided not by common sense but by theoretically irrelevant factors such as whether you are the original owner or whether the oil changes have been done at the dealer or not.
I do agree that this situation is no more fair to MB than it is to the owners. But it would be nice if they took an actual clear position on the matter one way or another. Their current ambiguous statements are evidence of wanting to have it both ways (i.e., not discourage sales in the affected areas, but not wanting to take responsibility, either).
