Close

    • Class action suit against Daimler AG / Mercedes due to M156 V8 (63 AMG) engine defects

      A class action suit is being brought against Mercedes / Daimler AG due to alleged defects in the M156 V8 motor. The suit states that these defects are due to premature wear. The premature wear taking place as a result of the material used in the camshafts. The camshafts used are made of cast nodular iron. The valve lifters used however are made of 9310 grade steel. In the official complaint it is stated that the combination of these metals as designed is contributing to premature wear of the M156 motors. This can be due to improper heat treating of the metals or improper offset. The main sticking point is that Mercedes and AMG have known about this since 2007 when service bulletin S-B 05.20/20b was released. We will keep you updated on the details as this goes forward.




































      This article was originally published in forum thread: Class action suit against Daimler AG / Mercedes due to M156 V8 (63 AMG) engine defects started by Sticky View original post
      Comments 842 Comments
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sincity Click here to enlarge
        Isn't it always the case?
        Unfortunately, yes.
      1. mramg1's Avatar
        mramg1 -
        And the sound of crikets beginsClick here to enlarge
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        This sure did get quiet.
      1. masonh's Avatar
        masonh -
        http://mbworld.org/forums/search.php?searchid=8813698


        i think this maybe the guy who is suing MB.

        i didn't actually read the entire 42 pages here,but early on i saw people asking what mods he had and who he was and etc.it looks like he was willing to try anything out on his car and had odd sounds right after leasing the car.check out the company he bought the "chip" and tune from.

        i just bought an '07 E63 so i am hoping that the motors are sound and there are just a few cases out there with problems.i will say mine has 74,000 clicks and it is strong and the motor is free from odd sounds other than the typical valve train noise these cars produce.

        i love this car and this is a great forum btw.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by masoh Click here to enlarge
        http://mbworld.org/forums/search.php?searchid=8813698


        i think this maybe the guy who is suing MB.

        i didn't actually read the entire 42 pages here,but early on i saw people asking what mods he had and who he was and etc.it looks like he was willing to try anything out on his car and had odd sounds right after leasing the car.check out the company he bought the "chip" and tune from.

        i just bought an '07 E63 so i am hoping that the motors are sound and there are just a few cases out there with problems.i will say mine has 74,000 clicks and it is strong and the motor is free from odd sounds other than the typical valve train noise these cars produce.

        i love this car and this is a great forum btw.
        It's possible, he sure did make a good number of posts regarding noises from the engine.

        Comments on the forum are appreciated.
      1. Sincity's Avatar
        Sincity -
        They should add possible failing head bolts to the list of items on this suit.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sincity Click here to enlarge
        They should add possible failing head bolts to the list of items on this suit.
        When did the head bolt issue start?
      1. Sincity's Avatar
        Sincity -
        There is an ongoing thread in mbw. On some cars, headbolt failure may lead to a hydrolocked engine. There is a TSB out there and confirmed by my SA. No one is able to get a copy. Perhaps you may assist in digging around with your contacts? Talk to Steve @ Weistec.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sincity Click here to enlarge
        There is an ongoing thread in mbw. On some cars, headbolt failure may lead to a hydrolocked engine. There is a TSB out there and confirmed by my SA. No one is able to get a copy. Perhaps you may assist in digging around with your contacts? Talk to Steve @ Weistec.
        I'll see what I can do about getting the TSB.
      1. pit-pony's Avatar
        pit-pony -
        Whats going on with the law suit anyway?
      1. SLS AMG's Avatar
        SLS AMG -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by pit-pony Click here to enlarge
        Whats going on with the law suit anyway?
        I was wondering the same
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        No idea I'll get an update for you guys.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Update:

        Mercedes motioned to dismiss the lawsuit. Everyone is waiting to hear back on the court's ruling.
      1. SLS AMG's Avatar
        SLS AMG -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Update:

        Mercedes motioned to dismiss the lawsuit. Everyone is waiting to hear back on the court's ruling.
        Thanks for the update @Sticky
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SLS AMG Click here to enlarge
        Thanks for the update @Sticky
        My pleasure.
      1. Sonny's Avatar
        Sonny -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Update:

        Mercedes motioned to dismiss the lawsuit. Everyone is waiting to hear back on the court's ruling.
        Very interested to see what the court decides. Please keep us updated when you learn more.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sonny Click here to enlarge
        Very interested to see what the court decides. Please keep us updated when you learn more.
        Absolutely.
      1. Sonny's Avatar
        Sonny -
        I wrote this in the other MB forum, and wanted to share here as well:

        The class action is still in the pleadings phase...

        Defendants filed motions to dismiss and a motion to strike in April, 2012. The court considered the motions and in light of a recent Third Circuit (US Court of Appeals) opinion, the court, on August 14, 2012 ordered the plaintiffs to submit supplemental briefing as to why the Court should not strike the class allegations in accordance with the Third Circuit’s recent and precedential Opinion. The court further ordered the defendants may file a reply to plaintiff's supplemental briefs. The supplemental briefs and any reply briefs are due later this month (September, 2012).

        At issue is whether the plaintiff's amended complaint is too broad because it is written to include all owners/lessees of 2007-2011 models equipped with M156 engines and not limited to owners who's vehicles have experienced an alleged defect. The plaintiff's acknowledge that many such owners' vehicles have never experienced the defect [or more specifically effects of the alleged defect].

        The Third Circuits precedential opinion holds that lead plaintiff's in a class action must show that a common class-wide defect caused the class members damages. At issue before the Third Circuit was a class action where it was alleged that vehicles' tires would go flat and need replacement. The Third Circuit held that it was abuse of discretion for the district court to find that a lead plaintiff in a class action could show that a common class-wide defect caused the class members damages without individual proofs. The Third Circuit noted the importance of causation. They mentioned that any tire can go flat for reasons unrelated to design defects in the tires.

        But, because plaintiff's allege that the defects in the engine are in the design and manufacture of the parts, the design defect covers all parts manufactured according to the design. Plaintiff's further contend they must be given an opportunity to prove the alleged defects in the complaint.

        The presiding district court appears to have ordered the plaintiffs to file supplemental briefs as to why the court should not strike the class allegations in light of the Third Circuits precedential opinion.

        This case (Chan v. MB) is very interesting because the damage to the M156 engines that plaintiff alleges is caused by the design defects would seem more specific than the facts involving tires going flat and needing replacement in the case that was the subject of the Third Circuit's opinion.
      1. Sticky's Avatar
        Sticky -
        Sonny, thank you very much for the update.
      1. Sonny's Avatar
        Sonny -
        Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
        Sonny, thank you very much for the update.
        My pleasure.