The dealer told us our 1995 SL500 with less than 53000 miles on it needs motor mounts, they said it's just because of the age of the car they have collapsed. Why would that be? The car was babied, it's not like it was used for rock climbing in the backcountry Is this another part that was just poorly designed like the wiring harness? For a car that was supposedly one of the best designs ever made I would expect its parts to last longer than a Ford Pinto.

 

It is the nature of the car. I have seen some 210 chassis E-Classes with 30,000 miles that need engine mounts because the engine is drooping. I guess the rubber will just deteriorate over time and the mounts will collapse.

 

You're right, I just needed to vent. You expect things like brakes, belts, etc., to fail, that's just normal wear and tear. These expensive little flaws aren't something you expect to find in a $10k car so it's frustrating to find them in one that costs 10x as much.

 

Not if it costs $900 to replace it.

 

i can see 4 hours labor maybe at most. the motor needs to be raised and maybe a drop of the steering drag link maybe necessary. what was the reason for the motor mount replacement?

 

I haven't had them replaced yet. The dealer noted it on a routine service check and said it would cost $900 to repair.

 

I have a 1994 SL and I have replaced 2 sets of motor mounts (first time at 45,000 miles and the next set at about 127,000 miles). At 131,000 I was told by my dealership that my motor mounts have colapsed and I need to replace them again. I don't know why they are not manufactured better.