Owners have filed 12 complaints
about the 2006 Mercedes Benz C Class with NHTSA between 2006 and 2010.
The largest single group is the tires.
Across this model's run it ranks 7 of 9 worst.
The letter says how bad. This says what kind — whether this year drew
an unusual number of complaints, unusually dangerous
ones, or failures that arrived unusually early.
The dashed ring is 50 — the national norm. Further out is worse.
Complaint volume — 24
Against the median year of the Mercedes Benz C Class. 50 means typical for this
model; 100 means roughly double.
Severity — 43
8.3% of these complaints
involved a crash, fire, injury or death, against a national rate of
9.7%.
Early failure — 100
89% of failures with a mileage on record happened under
36,000 miles, against a national rate of
29%.
How 2006 compares with every other Mercedes Benz C Class
Complaints filed with NHTSA, by model year. Bar colour is the FaultScore grade:
A
B
C
D
F
ungraded
What breaks on a 2006 Mercedes Benz C Class
Every complaint is filed against a part. Follow any row for the complaints about that part alone.
Tires
216.7%
Median failure at 11,025 miles
Seats
18.3%
Median failure at 3,800 miles
Wheels
18.3%
Fuel & Propulsion
18.3%
Median failure at 5,100 miles
Lights
18.3%
Body & Structure
18.3%
Median failure at 1,500 miles
Brakes
18.3%
Median failure at 9,000 miles
Airbags
18.3%
Median failure at 36,000 miles
Electrical System
18.3%
Median failure at 1,500 miles
Transmission & Drivetrain
18.3%
Median failure at 3,500 miles
Engine & Cooling
18.3%
Median failure at 9,000 miles
When it fails
Odometer readings owners gave when they filed. About half of all
complaints include one.
1,000 – 9,999 miles
777.8%
10,000 – 24,999 miles
111.1%
25,000 – 49,999 miles
111.1%
When owners complained
A spike years after the car went on sale usually means a part wearing
out on schedule across the whole fleet — the kind of pattern no single
owner can see from inside their own car.
Jan 2006peak 4Apr 2010
Recalls on the 2006 Mercedes Benz C Class
A complaint is one owner's allegation. A recall is the point at which
the manufacturer or a regulator agreed the defect is real and dangerous
enough to fix for free — however old the car is.
Canada — Transport Canada
Canada runs its own recall programme, and its campaigns do not
always mirror the American ones.
Recall 202274010,460 units in Canada
Structure
Issue: On certain vehicles, the sunroof glass may not be properly attached to the sliding roof frame. Over time, the glass can become loose and could separate from the vehicle. Note: Vehicles that were inspected under Transport Canada recalls 2019-668 and 2021-478 also require this inspection. Safety Risk: A sunroof that detaches from the vehicle could create a road hazard for others and increase the risk of a crash. Corrective Actions: Mercedes-Benz will notify owners by mail and instruct you to take your vehicle to a dealer to inspect the bonding of the sunroof glass. Dealers will replace the sliding roof, if necessary.
Recall 20221275 units in Canada
Electrical
Issue: During servicing at a dealership, a small number of vehicles may have received an incorrect software update to one or more control units. As a result, the electronic stability control system, exterior lighting, and engine power could be affected. Safety Risk: Safety systems that don't work correctly could increase the risk of a crash. Corrective Actions: Mercedes-Benz will notify owners by mail and instruct you to take your vehicle to a dealership to update the software in the control module(s).
Recall 2021478432 units in Canada
Structure
Issue: This recall is for certain vehicles inspected under Mercedes-Benz recall 7891003 (Transport Canada recall 2019-668) that require a second inspection. On certain vehicles, the sunroof glass may not be properly attached to the sliding roof frame. Over time, the glass can become loose and could separate from the vehicle. Note: This recall affects 2006 and 2007 models originally equipped with a sunroof. Additionally, some 2001-2011 models may have had an affected sunroof installed during a repair. Safety Risk: A sunroof that detaches from the vehicle could create a road hazard for others and increase the risk of a crash. Corrective Actions: Mercedes-Benz will notify owners by mail and instruct you to take your vehicle to a dealer to inspect the bonding of the sunroof glass. Dealers will replace the sliding roof, if necessary.
Recall 201966830,219 units in Canada
Structure
Issue: On certain vehicles, the sunroof glass may not be properly attached to the sliding roof frame. Over time, the glass can become loose and could separate from the vehicle. Note: This recall affects 2006 and 2007 models originally equipped with a sunroof. Additionally, some 2001-2011 models may have had an affected sunroof installed during a repair. Safety Risk: A sunroof that detaches from the vehicle could create a road hazard for others and increase the risk of a crash. Corrective Actions: Mercedes-Benz will notify owners by mail and instruct you to take your vehicle to a dealer to inspect the bonding of the sunroof glass. Dealers will replace the sliding roof, if necessary.
Recall 201615873,000 units in Canada
Airbag
On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the front driver air bag module.
Recall 200824233 units in Canada
Other
Certain vehicles may have been programmed with incorrect software calibration data during the manufacturing process. This could affect various functions such as: The electric fuel pump may not receive a signal which, in case of a crash, may prevent the fuel pump from disconnecting as designed; The maximum speed limiter may not be activated; The fuel gauge readings may be incorrect; A stuck fuel-level sensor may not be displayed in the instrument cluster; The speedometer may be out of tolerance which, as a result, may indicate inaccurate vehicle speed; The On-Board Diagnostic (OBD) system may reduce the emission level applicable to the vehicle, causing the Check Engine Light to illuminate incorrectly. Correction: Dealers will reprogram the electronic control module.
Reports where the owner recorded a crash, a fire, an injury or a death.
at 3,800 milesLivingston, NJ1 injured
SEATS:FRONT ASSEMBLY:HEAD RESTRAINT
THE MERCEDES CLK350 VIN [XXX]- THE PASSENGER SEAT AND DRIVER SEAT WHEN RELEASED TO ALLOW A REAR PASSENGER OUT OF THE CAR CAUSES THE HEAD REST TO AUTOMATICALLY DESCEND AND CAN TRAP THE REAR OCCUPANTS HAND IN PLACE AS IT DID WITH A 10 YEAR CHILD IN MY CAR. THE CONTROL TO RAISE THE HEADREST IS DISABLED WHEN THE SEAT IS IN THIS POSITION THEREBY NOT ALLOWING ANY METHOD TO RELEASE THE TRAPPED HAND. I SPOKE WITH MERCEDES THIS MORNING AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS HOW IT IS DESIGNED AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT BUT WOULD TELL THEIR ENGINEERS. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE EVERYONE NEEDS TO USE THE FRONT SEAT TO ASSIST THEMSELVES WHEN EXITING THE VEHICLE. *NM UPDATED 07/16/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA complaint #10155478 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
The most recent complaints
In the owners' own words, exactly as filed with NHTSA.
at 36,000 milesEL Cajon, CA
AIR BAGS:FRONTAL
BATTERY WENT DEAD ON OUR 2006 C320 MERCEDES THE AIR BAG WARNING LIGHT CAME ON AFTER THE CAR WAS RESTARTED AND THE DEALER CLLAIMS THE BAG CAN DEPLOY WITHOUT WARNIG IF NOT REPAIRED THE CAR ONLY HAS 36000 MILES THEY REFUSED TO FIX PROBLEM WIYH OUY BEING PAID BECAUSE THE VEHICLE IS 30 DAYS OUT OF WARRANTY.
NHTSA complaint #10323345 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 11,025 milesTemecula, CA
TIRES:SIDEWALL
HIGHWAY CRUISING AT STEADY STATE SPEED, APROX 65 MPH. RIGHT FRONT TIRE FAILURE. CONTROL WAS MAINTAINED. PULLED OFF TO SHOULDER AND REPLACED TIRE WITH SPARE. TIRE IS BEING REPLACED. DAMAGED TIRE IS AVAILABLE.
NHTSA complaint #10206164 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 1,500 milesMazon, IL
STRUCTURE
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE WEARING SUNGLASSES THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WAS NOT READABLE. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS HOW THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED. UPDATED 09/15/06.
NHTSA complaint #10166440 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 1,500 milesMazon, IL
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM: INSTRUMENT CLUSTER/PANEL
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE WEARING SUNGLASSES THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WAS NOT READABLE. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS HOW THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED. UPDATED 09/15/06.
NHTSA complaint #10166440 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 9,000 milesFreehold, NJ
SERVICE BRAKES, HYDRAULIC:PEDALS AND LINKAGES
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THERE WAS A KNOCKING SOUND COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE BRAKE PEDAL SHAKES WHILE DEPRESSED. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.
NHTSA complaint #10164130 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 9,000 milesFreehold, NJ
ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THERE WAS A KNOCKING SOUND COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE BRAKE PEDAL SHAKES WHILE DEPRESSED. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.
NHTSA complaint #10164130 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 3,800 milesLivingston, NJ1 injured
SEATS:FRONT ASSEMBLY:HEAD RESTRAINT
THE MERCEDES CLK350 VIN [XXX]- THE PASSENGER SEAT AND DRIVER SEAT WHEN RELEASED TO ALLOW A REAR PASSENGER OUT OF THE CAR CAUSES THE HEAD REST TO AUTOMATICALLY DESCEND AND CAN TRAP THE REAR OCCUPANTS HAND IN PLACE AS IT DID WITH A 10 YEAR CHILD IN MY CAR. THE CONTROL TO RAISE THE HEADREST IS DISABLED WHEN THE SEAT IS IN THIS POSITION THEREBY NOT ALLOWING ANY METHOD TO RELEASE THE TRAPPED HAND. I SPOKE WITH MERCEDES THIS MORNING AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS HOW IT IS DESIGNED AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT BUT WOULD TELL THEIR ENGINEERS. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE EVERYONE NEEDS TO USE THE FRONT SEAT TO ASSIST THEMSELVES WHEN EXITING THE VEHICLE. *NM UPDATED 07/16/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA complaint #10155478 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Granada Hills, CA
WHEELS
I BOUGHT A NEW 2006 C230 ON 2/27/2006 . I WAS DRIVING THIS CAR ON THE FREEWAY AT NIGHT AND AFTER 10-15 MINUTES OF DRIVING THE TIRE ON DRIVER REAR SIDE WAS SHREDDED. I REPLACED THIS TIRE WITH THE SPARE TIRE. AFTER ALL REMAINING TIRES WERE CHECKED THAT WERE GOOD TO DRIVE...I DROVE ANOTHER 15-20 MINS AND DRIVER SIDE FRONT TIRE SHREDDED. AT THIS TIME I HAD TO CALL AAA AND HAD THE CAR TOWED TO MERCEDES DEALERSHIP IN BEVERLY HILLS. THIS DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS SOMETHING HAD IMPACTED THE WHEELS OF THE CAR AND THAT SHREDDED THE TIRES. I ALSO LOOKED AT THE WHEELS MYSELF AND I DID NOT SEE ANY DAMAGE TO THE WHEELS WHERE THEY WERE POINTING TO SAYING THERE IS SLIGHT RAISED OR INDENTATION . THEY TOLD ME MERCEDES WILL NOT COVER FOR THE WARRANTY OF THE TIRES AND WHEELS. I FEEL THAT I DID NOT DO ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY WHILE DRIVING THIS CAR TO CAUSE THIS DAMAGE AND I SHOULD NOT BE AT FAULT FOR THIS AND THAT THE MERCEDES COMPANY SHOULD COVER THIS COST AND REIMBURSE THE COST OF WHEELS AND TIRES. THE COST OF THE PARTS WAS $1050 AND I PAID $1431 IN TOTAL TO THE DEALERSHIP AT BEVERLY HILLS. ALSO THE MERCEDES LOGO ON MY NEW WHEELS THAT WAS PUT ON IS RUSTED AND DOES NOT NEW WHILE THE OLD WHEELS THAT WERE NOT REPLACED HAVE THE MERCEDES LOGO THAT LOOKS NEW. ALSO, IF THERE IS ANY EXTRA OR SPECIAL WARRANTY FOR TIRES AND WHEELS ...I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS WARRANTY WHILE PURCHASING THE CAR.
NHTSA complaint #10154849 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Granada Hills, CA
TIRES
I BOUGHT A NEW 2006 C230 ON 2/27/2006 . I WAS DRIVING THIS CAR ON THE FREEWAY AT NIGHT AND AFTER 10-15 MINUTES OF DRIVING THE TIRE ON DRIVER REAR SIDE WAS SHREDDED. I REPLACED THIS TIRE WITH THE SPARE TIRE. AFTER ALL REMAINING TIRES WERE CHECKED THAT WERE GOOD TO DRIVE...I DROVE ANOTHER 15-20 MINS AND DRIVER SIDE FRONT TIRE SHREDDED. AT THIS TIME I HAD TO CALL AAA AND HAD THE CAR TOWED TO MERCEDES DEALERSHIP IN BEVERLY HILLS. THIS DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS SOMETHING HAD IMPACTED THE WHEELS OF THE CAR AND THAT SHREDDED THE TIRES. I ALSO LOOKED AT THE WHEELS MYSELF AND I DID NOT SEE ANY DAMAGE TO THE WHEELS WHERE THEY WERE POINTING TO SAYING THERE IS SLIGHT RAISED OR INDENTATION . THEY TOLD ME MERCEDES WILL NOT COVER FOR THE WARRANTY OF THE TIRES AND WHEELS. I FEEL THAT I DID NOT DO ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY WHILE DRIVING THIS CAR TO CAUSE THIS DAMAGE AND I SHOULD NOT BE AT FAULT FOR THIS AND THAT THE MERCEDES COMPANY SHOULD COVER THIS COST AND REIMBURSE THE COST OF WHEELS AND TIRES. THE COST OF THE PARTS WAS $1050 AND I PAID $1431 IN TOTAL TO THE DEALERSHIP AT BEVERLY HILLS. ALSO THE MERCEDES LOGO ON MY NEW WHEELS THAT WAS PUT ON IS RUSTED AND DOES NOT NEW WHILE THE OLD WHEELS THAT WERE NOT REPLACED HAVE THE MERCEDES LOGO THAT LOOKS NEW. ALSO, IF THERE IS ANY EXTRA OR SPECIAL WARRANTY FOR TIRES AND WHEELS ...I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS WARRANTY WHILE PURCHASING THE CAR.
NHTSA complaint #10154849 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 5,100 milesAguada, PR
FUEL SYSTEM, GASOLINE:DELIVERY:FUEL PUMP
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE HAD SERIOUS TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. THE VEHICLE LURCHED CONTINUOUSLY WHILE DRIVING AT 10 MPH. THERE WAS ALSO A LOUD CLUNKING NOISE WHEN THE VEHICLE SHIFTED GEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHO DETERMINED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL PUMP. THE FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED, BUT THE PROBLEMS CONTINUED. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN BACK TO THE SERVICE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ISSUE.
NHTSA complaint #10154581 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Davis, CA
EXTERIOR LIGHTING:HEADLIGHTS
MANY NEWER CARS ARE EQUIPPED WITH BLINDING, BLUE-GREEN, HEADLIGHTS THAT ARE A SAFETY HAZARD AND SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. THERE ARE SEVERAL PROBLEMS. FIRST, WHEN SEEN FROM ANY ANGLE, THESE HEADLIGHTS ARE HIGHLY DISTRACTING, IN THAT THEY DRAW ONES EYES FROM THE ROAD AHEAD AND ON EITHER SIDE; THE REASON THAT THEY ARE DISTRACTING IS THAT THEY ARE OF A NOTABLY DIFFERENT COLOR AND ARE MUCH BRIGHTER THAN THE TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT LIGHTS. SECOND, WHEN VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE LIGHT "FLARES" ABOUT ONES EYES, FORMING SPIKES THAT RADIATE OUTWARDS FROM THE LIGHT ITSELF, THEREBY OBSCURING ONE'S VIEW OF THINGS ABOVE, BELOW AND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LIGHT ITSELF. THIRD, WHEN VIEWED FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, THE LIGHTS ARE OFTEN BLINDING, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE ROAD IS FLAT OR HILLY, THE RESULT BEING TO OBSCURE ALMOST EVERYTHING AHEAD, ABOUT THE SAME AS TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT LIGHTS ON "HIGH"BEAM. FOURTH, WHEN VIEWED FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ON ROADWAYS THAT ARE NOT PERFECTLY LEVEL, THESE HEADLIGHTS ALTERNATE RAPIDLY, BACK AND FORTH, LIKE A STROBE LIGHT, BETWEEN "STANDARD" AND "BLINDING," A RESULT OF THE FACT (WHICH I ASSUME) THAT THE LIGHTS ARE VERY TIGHTLY FOCUSED, AND THE PROBLEM BEING THAT THE "FOCUSED" LIGHT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IS REPEATEDLY FOCUSED ON THE EYES OF THE DRIVER HEADING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THE MOST HAZARDOUS ARE ITEMS THREE AND FOUR, BUT ITEM FOUR IS PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS BECAUSE IT COMBINES THE WORST OF ALL OF THE OTHERS - BOTH DISTRACTION AND BLINDINGNESS. CLEARLY, HEADLIGHTS NEED TO BE DESIGNED TO LIGHT THE WAY AHEAD; BUT THERE ARE COMPETING GOALS, WHICH INCLUDE NOT BLINDING OTHER DRIVERS. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS WORLD, WHAT IS GOOD FOR ONE PERSON MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OTHERS. THAT IS WHERE GOVERNMENT HAS A KEY RESPONSIBILITY; TO ASSESS THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS AND ARRIVE AT A COMPROMISE THAT OPTIMALLY SUITS EVERYONE'S NEEDS BEST.
NHTSA complaint #10153254 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 3,500 milesCosta Mesa, CA
POWER TRAIN:AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION
THE TRANSMISSION OF MY NEW CAR, 2006 MBZ C280, HAS FAILED THREE TIMES. THE CAR GOES INTO A FALSE NEUTRAL WHILE DRIVING AND THEN EVENTUALLY FALLS INTO GEAR. AFTER THIS EPISODE, THE CAR CONTINUES TO DRIVE IN A LOW GEAR. THE DEALERSHIP HAS TRIED: 1. REPLACING THE VALVE BODY ON THE CAR'S TRANSMISSION AND UPLOADING THE NEW SOFTWARE 2. REPLACING THE TRANSMISSION WITH A COMPLETELY NEW TRANSMISSION FROM THE DEALERSHIP 3. REPLACING THE VALVE BODY OF THE NEW TRANSMISSION.
NHTSA complaint #10147392 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.