History: After Weiss v. MBNA

The 1993 US consumer lawsuit against 140 is almost completely forgotten today. The incident itself may no longer be important, but it left a permanent mark on our cars. As the most important market for the S-Class, American consumers’complaint matters. Mercedes-Benz quickly made technical improvements to the 140 in response to the complaints. Today I would like to summarize the following findings over time.

This is how it started. As a regular foreigner, I am not a prophet, but I have long insisted on collecting all information about 140. Until one day, I picked up a very small brochure, it was just a 4 page folder and it said “CONFIDENTIAL DEALERSHIP USE ONLY” on the cover. This piqued my interest because at first I misread it as “CONTINENTAL DEALERSHIP USE ONLY”. English is not my first language and sometimes my reading skills plummet when they are fully capitalized. I am very curious because CONTINENTAL tires are not used in the North American market. Then I read the booklet and discovered something even more interesting.

The title of this brochure is “UNDERSTANDING S-CLASS TIRE PERFORMANCE”, now God may forgive me why I misread CONFIDENTIAL as CONTINENTAL, it’s about tires. This small brochure has 6 pages filled with dense small print. Its core content is an introduction to the recent lawsuits MBNA has suffered, as well as self-questions and answers to some questions. You could say this is a salesperson training material, and it’s not that confidential. Of course, MBNA’s confidentiality work is good. Apart from the records in legal documents, I have not found any media reports on this.

Case

Details of the case can be found in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey – 899 F. Supp. 1297 (D.N.J. 1995) May 11, 1995. In January 1993, two owners of a 1992 500 SEL, Norman Weiss of Florida and Bert M. Bez of Michigan, filed two separate complaints against Mercedes-Benz of North America, Inc. In November 1993, after a court hearing, the two cases were merged and Mr. Weiss was identified as the representative of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any 1992 or 1993 Mercedes-Benz S class automobile.

Plaintiffs allege that all S-Class vehicles suffer from “a serious defect.” The defect is alleged to be a tendency for the S-Class’ steering system to vibrate or shimmy when the car is driven at speeds over 50 miles per hour and the tires on the car had been used for three to five thousand miles. The plaintiffs also alleged that Mercedes concealed this defect from future and previous purchasers even after it received complaints of “uneven and or rapid tire wear on all [S-Class] models,” regardless of the tire brand. The concealment is asserted to have occurred despite internal memoranda identifying the problem as being endemic to the S-Class. The autos weight was seen as being “a big factor.”

Interestingly, the plaintiff also submitted that during the period of alleged concealment of defects, Mercedes advertisements mentioned: The new Mercedes Benz S-Class as nothing less than the car of a lifetime, with performance, comfort and safety features like no car before , and claimed that the automobiles were engineered like no other car in the world. Its safety steering system features an impact-absorbing steering wheel and that its automobiles are the most dependable in America, with manufacturing tolerances somewhat finer than the width of a human hair .

Having said this, I think many existing 140 owners are familiar with the above NVH issues. Between 80 km/h and 120 km/h, the steering wheels of many vehicles will vibrate. This problem can involve many parts, but one often overlooked cause is an out-of-balance driveshaft. These problems plagued their first owners 30 years ago, and Mercedes responded to these brand-new cars like this: each vehicle in the S-Class differs in weight and is “equipped with tire… of varying size and rating.” Mercedes’ warranty for S-Class vehicles specifically excludes the tires.

As documented, on 11th day of May, 1995, ORDERED that the settlement agreement between the parties be and it hereby is confirmed; and it is further. ORDERED that counsel fees in the sum of $11,250,000 be awarded to plaintiffs’ counsel. Please look at this number carefully. Look at that number carefully because it is 15% of the settlement, which was $75 million in this case. In fact, no one received more money than the lawyer, all S-class owners just received a coupon to buy a new S-class or SL-class, depending on the model they owned. of different denominations, they are:

1992 Model Immediate Value

• 300 SD $2,400 300 SE $2,400
• 400 SE $3,000 500 SEL $4,200
• 600 SEL $5,700

1993 Model Immediate Value

• 300 SD $2,400 300 SE $2,400
• 400 SEL $3,000 500 SEL $4,200
• 500 SEL $4,200 500 SEC $4,200
• 600 SEL $5,700 600 SEC $5,700

The immediate value of the certificates issued to lessors and lessees of the automobiles are one-third ( 1/3 ) and two-thirds ( 2/3 ) *1300 respectively, of the above-described amounts. These certificates are freely transferable. A third option is available if the holder of the certificate decides not to buy or lease a new Mercedes during the four-year period, but remains in possession of the certificate. This is the cash redemption feature of the settlement agreement. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the certificates can be redeemed for half their immediate value in cash starting three years after the settlement date. Cash redemption is available throughout the entire fourth year post-settlement. So even though the settlement amount was claimed to be $150 million, the court adjusted the cash value of the amount to half when awarding attorney fees.

The specific trial and investigation process of this case is unknown. Interestingly, over 30,000 class notices were sent out, these are S-class users in the United States. silence can be considered tacit consent to the settlement, the number of potential class members who have opted out or opposed settlement is approximately 100. Some objects stated that they had not had problems with the S-Class Mercedes and felt no compensation was due to class members. A final objector, Ms. Sachs, suggests that this settlement will lead to the diminution in value of the automobile since the 1992-93 S-Class will be labeled defective. Stated differently, the objector contends that the diminution in value has not been factored into the resale market. She further contends that the lost value will exceed the value of the certificates. 

Back to the brochure in my hand, according to the printing information MS-94-310-10a, it should have been printed in 1994. The aforementioned settlement date was May 1995, so MBNA and Mercedes began taking action to resolve the issue as early as 1994. There is much space in Brochure attributing the problem to the tires, and according to the brochure, Z- and V-rated tires used in MY1992 and MY1993 have a natural tendency to form a temporary flat spot when parked for more than several hours and to wear more quickly than less performance-oriented tires. This is caused by the soft and special rubber. The flat spot causes a mild, temporary vibration in the steering wheel.

The customer service approach are:

• An S-Class Value Commitment Program, started in February 1993, provided product enhancements on all ’92 and ’93 S-Class cars. The program included the installation of new suspension bushings and modified steering damper and ball joints (if necessary).
• During M.Y. ’93 production, S-Class cars were equipped with new bushings, steering damper and ball joints.
• Development of a new tire-the H-rated-began shortly after the introduction of the Value Commitment Program: – the Z-rated tire is the optimum high performance tire, especially for high speed driving; however, based on feedback from our customers regarding different driving preferences, we worked with our tire suppliers to develop a tire with less flat- spotting tendencies and better wear characteristics; – it took just six months to bring this tire to market, and we have made it available to our S-Class customers.
• H-rated tires became standard equipment as of M.Y.’94 (except on the S600 where the Z-rated tire remains the optimum tire capable of matching the high performance characteristics of this automobile).

Apparently, MB realized that this was a technical problem and started to solve it at a very early stage. The reason for the delay in settlement may not be technical, but compensation. The legal document makes no mention of technical improvements at all, nor are they included as part of the compensation amount. Regarding tire flat spot, I consulted some experts in the tire industry. Maybe they are too young and they do not think flat spot is a troublesome enough problem. But I’m not new to this personally, my 1994 S 500 coupe was parked for over 1 month after the new Michelin Pilot Sport 5 was installed and when I drove the car again the whole car was shaking, that feeling was just like me Reason for replacing tires: 3 out of 4 tires have bulges. This feeling completely disappeared after about an hour of driving. The answer given by MB in brochure is that this can be solved after a few miles, but since they admit that flat spotting can occur in a few hours, this is indeed a bit difficult to accept. The brochure further explains the differences between different rate tires.

• Mercedes originally chose Z-rated tires because they offer the best combination of safety and performance and although Mercedes has some of the best testing experts in the auto industry, it’s not humanly possible to anticipate all the conceivable responses and/or preferences of the diverse universe of consumers.
• Z-rated tires are made of relatively soft, special rubber compounds that have both the strength and temperature resistance necessary for safe use at very high speeds and provide a very high level of per- formance and excellent traction.
• H-rated tires have been expressly designed to accommodate the size, handling and driving performance of an S-Class and yet still deliver limousine comfort and sports-car-like handling but with a lower maximum speed rating.
• H-rated tires offer: a smoother ride, lower rolling resistance for better fuel economy, a quieter cabin and all-season tread for better inclement weather traction.
• The only limitation on the H-rated tire is that it is not recommended for speeds in excess of 130miles per hour; however, knowing all the benefits of the H-rated tire, most of our owners agree that this tire offers an excellent tradeoff.

In the final Q&A section, MBNA answered the current status of the issue and the reasons for the settlement. This proves that a settlement agreement was reached in 1994, although it did not go into effect until May 1995, meaning that owners who were unwilling to continue purchasing an S or SL and were eager to exchange their coupons for cash had to do so 3 years later, which is 50% cash was only available in 1998, which is a really long time considering they probably bought the car in the first model year and were compensated in the last production year, and many people may have sold their cars long ago . I also own a 1992 500 SEL, that car arrived in January 1992 to the dealer who ordered it, didn’t find a buyer for 10 months, was exported from California to China in November 1992, I’m sure that car The first owner, the Chinese owner was not compensated in any way.

Q.What if there are other cars out there that still have these symptoms?
A.Well, for most ’92 and ’93 models we have already successfully addressed the concerns. However, if there are still ’92 or ’93 models that have not been updated, owners can bring the cars in and we can make neces- sary modifications consistent with what was done in the past relative to this flat-spotting issue. The way to get the most accurate answer is for us to call the Mercedes-Benz Customer Assistance Center. The number is 1-800-FOR-MERCEDES – I’d be happy to cah them with you.
Q. Why did Mercedes settle “out of court” if they felt they would win in court?
A. Mercedes-Benz does not feel a protracted suit is in the best interest of S-Class owners OR the company. For example, it is likely that normal customer satisfaction efforts for our affected S-Class owners would have been hampered for the duration of the legal proceed- ings, which could have taken several years. In other words, the litigious legal environment would have restricted many normally routine dealer actions which ensure customer satisfaction among S-Class owners.
Q. Why is Mercedes using coupons instead of a clearcut cash settlement?
A. The coupons toward purchase of a new S- or SL-Class vehicle allow the settlement of this issue to address long-term owner loyalty, and benefit all M.Y. ’92 and’93 S-Class owners as a result.
Q. Are the coupons worthless if the owner doesn’t want to buy a new Mercedes?
A. No. The settlement also provides the option of a 50 percent cash redemption three years after the initial effective date of the coupon program. The coupons are also transferable.

Modifications

As of this point, many key issues remain undiscussed, namely the accessories themselves that lead to complaints. The previous text is enough to illustrate that MBNA did not admit the defects of the suspension parts in court, but silently improved them in production and after-sales. The main reason they blame is the tires, which are not parts produced by Mercedes-Benz, so I would like to split the parts discussion into two parts, tires and suspension components.

All “problem” tires in the above description point to the Pirelli P600, the major tire available since MY1992. In the US market, all cars share same 8-loch rim, also the tire system is much simpler than rest of the world. At the very beginning, there were also other tire manufacturers, the complete tire list are:

• 225/60 R 16 97 V:
• PIRELLI P600, UNIROYAL rallye 440, GOODYEAR NCT 2.
• 235/60 ZR 16:
• PIRELLI P600, UNIROYAL rallye 440, DUNLOP SP SPORT D8 M2.

PIRELLI 600 quickly overwhelmed other tire models and became the main tire of 140. In 1985, the P600 came out, further expanding on all the features of the P6, with a particular focus on moving water and improving the prevention of aquaplaning. The 300 SE and 300 SD uses 225/60 R 16, speed rate V, allowing a top speed of 130 mph. 400 SE – 600 SEL use 235/60 ZR 16, speed rate Z, allows a maximum speed of 149 mph. Here is an older 1992 300 SE buid sheet, serial number A023668, one of the earliest US cars, and you can see that the tire manufacturer was Pirelli.

As the technical improvements in this program do not include the V12, this means that the V12 of MY1992 and MY1993 cannot get new replacement tires from dealers. The benefit of this is that many original Pirelli P600s survive as 600 SELs, and many low-mileage examples with original spare tires can be found on sites like Bring A Trailer. In comparison, it would be extremely difficult to find the 225/60 R 16 on the 300 SE, and you can assume that all tires of that model in the United States were collected and recycled in 1994-1995.

MBNA argued in court that the tires were not covered by the warranty. That’s right, there is a yellow Pirelli booklet in the owner’s manual package of MY1992 and MY1993, called Original Equipment Passanger Tire Limited Warranty. The warranty for these tires is covered by Pirelli. Regarding the time and manner of the warranty, it is within 1 year from the time of purchase or 25% of tread wear, If a defect occurs, Pirelli can replace the tires with new ones for free. The booklet’s revision date is 1/88, so this policy has been going on for over 3 years.

MBNA also claimed, “Development of a new tire-the H-rated-began shortly after the introduction of the Value Commitment Program” “it took just six months to bring this tire to market, and we have made it available to our S- Class customers”. The new tire here refers to the Michelin Energy MXV4. “Michelin Energy MXV4 tyres offer drivers of luxury touring cars a strong combination of comfort, handling and all-season control, all with the aggressive appearance of a European performance tyre. Michelin Energy MXV4 tyres also offer long tread life and an exceptionally quiet ride”.

MBNA did not give a specific time when the tire would be available, and since the tire is not a Mercedes part, changes to it are not included in the EPC or WIS. In the many owner’s manuals I have collected, Pirelli last appeared in A130424 and Michelin first appeared in A155931. They correspond to the period from March 1993 to August 1993, during which time Michelin replaced Pirelli. This fits MBNA’s description of development of the new H-rated tires beginning shortly after February 1993 and being put on the market six months later, if it refers to August 1993. Below is the build sheet for A155931, a 1994 400 SEL with Michelin tires.

Also included in the user manual package is Michelin’s warranty booklet, The name of the vehicle has evolved to “1994 S 420”. This car, which arrived at the dealer in August 1993, was only sold in March 1994, by which time MB had already released the 140 facelift in Geneva.

Michelin Passenger and Light Truck tires, used in normal service on the vehicle on which they were originally fitted and in accordance with the maintenance recommendations and safety warnings contained in the attached owners manual, are covered by this warranty against defects in workmanship and material for the life of the original usable tread, or 6 years from the date of purchase, whichever comes first. At that time, all warranties, express or implied, are terminated. The usable tread is the original tread down to the level of the tread wear indicators -2/32nds of an inch (1.6mm) of tread remaining. Date of purchase is documented by new vehicle registration or tire sales invoice. If no proof of purchase, coverage will be based on date of manufacture.

Compared to Pirelli’s 1 year or 1/4 tread wear, the warranty of Michelin is much more generous.

This tire has the honor of being in my collection, it is a 225/60 R 16, weight rate 98, speed rate H, manufactured in 1995. It should come from a 1995 or 1996 S 320, the S 420 uses 235/60 R16, weight rate 100. These tires are made in USA and offererd in USA only.

The above are tire changes for non-V12 models. Now that the V12 was left out of the program due to higher performance requirements, what happened to its tires? Pirelli hasn’t lost its chance, if you buy a 1994 S 600, you’ll still get a Pirelli P600. Following the introduction of the Pirelli P6000 in 1995, the new P6000 was used on some 1995 S 600s. This tire was claimed to provide:

• Excellent driving comfort.
• Improved wet traction.
• Low noise levels, thanks to its patented pitch sequence.
• Improved sports handling, due to its rigid lateral blocks.

Ultimately, Pirelli’s departure in the United States proved to be only a matter of time. In MY1996, all models were equipped with Michelin Energy MXV4, but even the V12 had a speed rating of H only. This situation lasted until the end of sales of the 140 in the US. This means that owners of MY1996-1999 cannot safely drive their vehicles to top speeds.In total, 140 tires in the US market have experienced:

Non-V12 models

• Stage I: MY1992 – partial MY1993
• Pirelli P600, UNIROYAL rallye 440, GOODYEAR NCT 2
• Stage II: partial MY1993 – MY1999
• Michelin Energy MXV4

V12 models

• Stage I: MY1992 – partial MY1995
• Pirelli P600, UNIROYAL rallye 440, DUNLOP SP SPORT D8 M2
• Stage II: partial MY1995
• Pirelli P6000
• Stage III: MY1996 – MY1999
• Michelin Energy MXV4

The above are the changes that have occurred in the tires. These changes are not covered by MBNA’s warranty. So what happened to the first part of the S-Class Value Commitment Program, the new suspension bushings and modified steering damper and ball joints?

The new bushing has a hydraulic structure, while the old one is solid. According to the EPC, the old part number is A1403306007 and the new part number is A1403306307. The design was improved again in A244502 and apparently it became a headache for MB. The A096694 mentioned in the article is a Chinese order and it was produced in August 1992. In other words, the improvements here have been released before Weiss and others sued MBNA. This may be a free warranty part caused by an earlier user complaint, and is not necessarily related to the case.

As for the other parts, although WIS is not covered, the EPC hints that a new rear control arm bushing has been installed since A044313. Note that since brochure’s wording is a bit vague, they mention “new suspension bushings and modified steering damper and ball joints”. Since new and modified are used to describe different parts separately, we don’t know if “new” also means “modified”, maybe that’s just using newly manufactured original design parts. Anyway, if ball joints refers to the ball joint used to connect the steering kunckle to the control arm, I have not found any record of that part being modified, nor the steering damper.

In history, Mercedes-Benz engineers did not take things lightly. A 1991 feature in the German automotive weekly MOT describes the development story of the prototype 140-215, which engineers worked on as one of the suspension test vehicles. Many rubber bearing tests were conducted.

September 1989. The painstaking fine-tuning of the chassis tuning begins. First up is the front bearing of the lower front axle wishbone. Driving comfort should be improved by reducing the transverse stiffness. For the 215 this means: up on the lifting platform, install bearings, off the platform, drive, back on the platform, next bearing. The test fitters groan. Less because of the constant changing of bearings and more because they are not allowed to remove the wheels. rBecause even the smallest change in the wheel influences would distort the test results. The chassis engineers will develop over 20 different bearing sets in the coming months in the endless search for perfection.
Almost at the same time, a mysterious noise in the front axle is causing a lot of guesswork. Upper shock absorber bearings, the engineers suspect. Using a steel disc, the effect of the rubber elements is quickly bridged – hit. Analogous to axle research, the selection of rubber blocks begins with three different Shore hardnesses and three different free travels, which is how the range of motion of the rubber in the bearing bush is called. The winner is called variant twelve and can go on the first big test drive. It is now October and the prototype class trip to Germany is imminent. Prominent drivers such as Head of Development Dr. Wolfgang Peter have signed up, and the 215 should show off its most comfortable chassis side.

Depositions

As of now, many details of the case remain unclear. Thus I reached out two people that give testimony in the case, Mr. Jeffrey Miller, Mercedes-Benz staff engineer, and Mr. Robert Jack, Pirelli Tires Manager of Technical Operations. Mr Miller was the senior staff engineer in Mercedes-Benz North Amercia from 1981 to 2006, he gives extensive responses to my questions. The following is our conversation.

During the period of the incident (1993-1995), what’s your profession at MBNA?

As a Senior Staff Engineer in the Technical Service Department, I worked in the area of after sales service. I was responsible for steering, brakes, suspension, wheels and tires and other unrelated components. There were other MBNA employees with the title of Field Service Manager (FSM) who were assigned to maybe 5 dealers in a small geographic area and they were always in the dealership service departments and could assist in diagnosing and correcting customer complaints that weren’t easily resolved following common repair procedures. In case the FSM needed assistance, they could call on their assigned Technical Specialist (TS) for assistance either over the phone or at the particular dealership. If the TS either wasn’t able to respond to the particular case or was not able to resolve the customer complaint, then I would be the next contact.

How does Mercedes-Benz maintain customer value in the North American market?

Since I was always in contact with my colleagues in Germany, sometimes I was already aware of the complaint and could either have a solution to try on the customer car or could report the issue back to my German colleagues so they could do their investigation. By examining warranty data in real time, it was possible to see the current number of warranty claims submitted by our franchised dealers as soon as the claims were electronically submitted. This was the optimal method for tracking failure or replacement rates for specific components which may vary from vehicles in Germany or other markets due to our unique vehicle use and driving conditions.

Did Mercedes already start improving the S-class suspension parts before this case came up (January 1993)?

The front and rear bushings in the front lower control arms changed from solid rubber to hydraulically dampened using a silicone fluid. Since I did not find any notes that I might have saved, I can’t be certain if the hydraulically dampened lower control arm bushings were in the development process before the first customer complaints were recognized. But they did enter production approximately midway in the 1993 model year together with ball joints with revised friction and a steering stabilizer with revised dampening characteristics.

According the brochure, the culprits of NVH problems were stated to be high-performance tires with speed ratings V and H. Are tires more important than suspension parts in solving this problem?

Tires and suspension components are both important as they both transmit and dampen vibrational inputs from the road which can be felt in the body, seats and steering wheel. Stiffer tires and suspension components transmit more vibration compared to softer ones. In general, the higher the tire speed rating, the stiffer the tire and it will consequently transmit more vibration. This is generally true at most frequencies.

Since late MY 1993, the tires of the S-Class in the North American market have been replaced by Michelin Energy MXV4 from Pirelli P600. Why did the manufacturer changed for this improvement?

During the first year of the 140 production, I think we had five different brands of tires (Continental, Dunlop, Goodyear, Michelin and Pirelli) (eiditor’s note: this list shall cover all models include S-Class) either V or Z speed rated that could be fitted to US cars. In my opinion, the Michelin tires seemed to be more uniform in their internal construction requiring less weight when dynamically balancing the wheel and tire combination. Tire balancers balance the tire and wheel combination at a single frequency but when driving, the tire and wheel combination spins at a wide range of frequencies. There could be some vehicle speeds where the tire does not dampen out the vibration as well as at other vehicle speeds. Additionally, the V and Z speed rated tires were more prone to parking flat spots compared to the H speed rated tires and these flat spots took longer to disappear, especially if the car was then driven for short distances at slow speeds in cold conditions. The warmer the tire when a car is parked, the larger the parking flat spots will be and the warmer the tire when driving, the faster the parking flat spots will disappear.

Was the MIchilen Energy particularily designed for the S-Class?

Yes, I recall other cars were fitted with the MXV4 tires before M-B started using them. I also recall that the M-B version of this tire was slightly different internally compared to other non M-B cars that used the same size and speed rating of this tire. For M-B, the tires were marked with “MO” on the side wall to indicate these tires were for Mercedes-Benz original equipment. The “MO” version was not available for purchase by the dealership or customers. They were only sold directly to the factory.

In the European market, Pirelli P600 has not been replaced, and there is no obvious NVH complaint record, why?

From what was explained to me, the European market customer never had this complaint because traffic conditions in Europe rarely allow a car to be driven at a relatively constant speed of approximately 100 kmh. Since the European driver was only driving through this speed either on the way to a faster or slower speed, this complaint was not an issue.

Do you recall any other notable complaints or technical improvements with the 140?

The earliest W140s had a noticeable wind noise from the exterior rear view mirrors. The only solution for these early cars were two new rear view mirrors which we sourced directly from the factory as the spare parts we had at the time would have the same complaint. I still remember that the first pair of replacement mirrors I received were for Dave Thomas, the founder and owner of the Wendy’s Hamburger chain and his car was painted 040 black.

Shortly after the introduction of the C140, we at MBNA and a few customers noticed that on hard acceleration from a slow speed, there was a one time very noticeable knock noise from the rear axle area. The front rubber mounts for the rear axle subframe were a solid rubber design and were responsible for this noise. The factory was aware of this complaint as soon as it was noted on our first two company cars. There already was a new design for this component in the works but it took a few months until I received a large box of these mounts. The new component was nicknamed a “nierenlager” or kidney bushing. When viewed from above, you had the central hole where the mounting bolt passed through and the outer diameter where it was pressed into the rear axle subframe. Between these two concentric diameters, the rubber portion which was originally solid had two kidney bean shaped openings and this softened the bushing and prevented the single, loud knock noise on hard acceleration from a low speed.

Editor’s note: according to Mr Miller’s answer, we can know that the ball joint and steering stabilizer were indeed modified, although there is no official record. He also provided a lot of other information to express how Mercedes-Benz’s mechanism to protect North American customers works.

END

This investigation clarifies the ins and outs of the matter and how to solve the problem. Additional findings include: The Mercedes-Benz S-Class is recognized as a great model in the history of automobiles, but even the best is not perfect. In this case, Mercedes-Benz made technical improvements to the greatest extent possible and provided financial compensation. Its self-correction ability is also beyond doubt.

As owners of the 140, we have to thank Weiss and Bez et al for the positive feedback, and even though the case didn’t actually involve the car outside of the North American market, or even the case was unknown outside of the North American market, all subsequent production cars got credit for it. With the update, 140 users around the world have benefited.

The reason we need this investigation is just out of curiosity. As fans of the 140, we certainly have no reason to want to see the manufacturer make a fool of itself, but it’s a shame it’s been forgotten.

Finally, special thanks to Mr Miller for his generous memories. It’s been 30 years since it happened, and it’s not easy to recall. I firmly believe that every bit about 140 is worth recording.

^{All history are based on limited information, please email me if you have doubts about the veracity of this article. If you want to quote the content of this article, please contact me in advance, please do not use my text for any commercial purposes.}