LOL What can I say... "Lesson learned" like the thread title says.

Anyone else think that the major cause for the R Class failure were its looks?

Im sure if it had a better exterior design, it could/would have sold better.

If you ask me I think it's quite a well designed car except that the head lights could have been designed a lot better. Different looks wouldn't have made a difference, vans are simply not attractive any longer. Families with children are the primary target market for vans, are no longer interested in vans thanks to SUVs. SUVs are just as practical, slight more compacts, have higher resale value and look a lot better. There's really nothing MB could have done which would have made this car a success story.

I wish that it looked more like the GST concept which was an SUV/Van crossover. Kind of in line with the BMW F5. MB didn't execute it properly, so you can bet that the next R-class will mimic the F5.

It better be.

********sigh*********

The R-Class. The darling of the MB lineup, where do I start.

The R-Class didn't make it for many reasons. First there really isn't enough space for it to appeal to typical U.S. minivan buyers. First Strike.

Secondly it is (or was) priced out of the reach of most typical minivan buyers. Second Strike.

Now the next series of reasons are a little more shocking considering all the research Mercedes did on this vehicle.

Mercedes intended for the R-Class to be an upscale crossover/people mover/MPV etc. etc., yet the interior doesn't even match the E-Class let alone the new S/CL classes. It has the same relatively unimaginative interior from the other Bama made vehicles along with some questionable material quality, panel fit and finish. Third Strike.

Then Mercedes badly over estimated the market for crossovers priced like an E-Class or base S-Class (W220). For the price the now gone from the U.S. market R500 could reach when loaded, people expect near S-Class level quality inside and out. Fourth Strike.

Styling, the look of the thing is just too polarizing for a new vehicle segment. This would have been ok if this segment was already thriving, but when you sent out to create a new market segment you have to be stylish, engaging, and beautiful if you will. Exterior, interior or the right mixture of both. (See BMW X6 for reference). Fifth Strike.

Lastly, the changing from the original concept both inside and more importantly outside did the R in. I was wowed back in the early 2000's when the concept debuted as the Vision GST at Detroit. It had a very interesting interior with a twin binnacle/tower setup and an exterior that would have people turning around to take a look, all the dealer had to do is put a Vision GST out front. Sixth Strike.


From the "Yeah Right" section: BMW not building one because it wouldn't fit their image. Everyone here that isn't connected to BMW knows full well that BMW would have built something similar if the R-Class was doing 30K units a year in the U.S. The original ML was a hit so BMW followed up with an X5 and if you can make a SUV fit the BMW "image" then surely they could have made an R-Class type vehicle fit the image. We get this image nonsense anytime BMW decides something won't work, yet we've got a gaggle of crossovers and a giant sedan with a hatch that will be made to fit the image. Oh my what nonsense.

Secondly this BMW F5 may not be an R-Class competitor from a looks and dimensions standpoint as EnI has point out, but it is most certainly a competitor from a market standpoint. If the F5 is based on the next 5-Series or 7-Series it is going to be very expensive for such a vehicle here in the U.S. and it will be aimed the same affluent demographic as the R-Class was aimed at originally. The only differences are the dimensions and the made up (by BMW) niche that it will occupy.


M

Doing an AMG version of it. Sixth strike.

Uh..that would be seventh actually. I forgot about that, but I wouldn't count that as a reason why the R-Class itself failed. The R63 barely got noticed, however I'd say that the R63 was definitely a mistake from an AMG brand standpoint even if it was an interesting vehicle IMO. For better or worse there was nothing quite like it.

M

Yeah, seventh, sorry... Still, a flop too.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the R-Class wasn't going to be a bestseller. In my opinion the expectations within the upper management were way to optimistic. It should never have been made in the first place - and if, then it should have been treated as a low volume product.

Even worse, who the hell needs an R500 and R63 AMG?

I mean this is one heavy car to begin with. The R280 CDI and R320 CDI are really the only choices for me. The R350 is acceptable if you need a gasoline engine, but the R500 and R63 AMG are just pointless. I'm glad they canned the R63 AMG not too long ago though. Pointless car, pointless.

Despite this, my testdrive of the R320 CDI 4Matic gave me some insight into the car and I actually liked it. I've said this before, but if you're looking for a spacious, comfortable, safe and premium family car for vacationing and long distance driving, the R-Class essentially can't be beat by anything in the Mercedes lineup. It's probably a "better choice" in this type of situation than an ML, GL or E-Class T-Modell in my opinion.

I'm not crazy about the design, but it's not that ugly either and it would be my choice from the Mercedes lineup if I had to travel across Europe in comfort and security if I had a big family. Thankfully that isn't the case.

Not really. Design is sometimes not on the list of priorities of shoppers. They want something else, be it comfort, interior space, safety etc. Look at the last generation Lexus LS430 for example: ugly as hell, yet it sold like hot cakes because it offered unbeaten value-for-money standard features and had the Lexus reputation.

And even if it was the design that affected sales, the R-Class was basically in a class of its own, so someone looking for a premium, safe and comfortable family tourer had no choice but to go for the R-Class or change their priorities and consider buying something else.

I personally think the car isn't ugly, but it is not beautiful either. It's somewhere in the middle I suppose. A car that looks "decent" overall. It does look expensive though, especially in the right trim.



I think what killed the R-Class were the following two things:

1) Price: it's an expensive car that was perceived to be similar to a minivan: and a Mercedes-Benz "minivan" at that. This is unheard off in the US, but not in Europe where Mercedes has tons of minivans driving around. This in turn leads to a lack of public acceptance in the US. People just didn't catch unto the car. I mean if you want a Mercedes that is supposed to be spacious, comfortable and safe, you may as well go for an E-Class sedan or estate, an ML or a GL or even an S-Class and you get abundant interior space, comfort, safety and possibly (in the minds of the general public) better styling.

2) Marketing: I think the R-Class was also marketed in the wrong way. Yes, it was marketed as a family car, but the ads also placed too much emphasis on "sport". The R-Class handles surprisingly nimble for such a heavy car, but it's no curve eater. Other issues I had with the marketing were when they compared it to the 1964-1981 Mercedes-Benz 600 Pullman. Blasphemy!