Owners have filed 10 complaints
about the 2005 Mercedes Benz E Class with NHTSA between 2005 and 2013.
The largest single group is the fuel & propulsion.
Across this model's run it ranks 11 of 12 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 — 15
Against the median year of the Mercedes Benz E Class. 50 means typical for this
model; 100 means roughly double.
Severity — 0
0% of these complaints
involved a crash, fire, injury or death, against a national rate of
9.7%.
Early failure — 49
29% of failures with a mileage on record happened under
36,000 miles, against a national rate of
29%.
How 2005 compares with every other Mercedes Benz E Class
Complaints filed with NHTSA, by model year. Bar colour is the FaultScore grade:
A
B
C
D
F
ungraded
What breaks on a 2005 Mercedes Benz E Class
Every complaint is filed against a part. Follow any row for the complaints about that part alone.
Fuel & Propulsion
550.0%
Median failure at 81,159 miles
Other & Unspecified
110.0%
Lights
110.0%
Suspension
110.0%
Median failure at 56,500 miles
Electrical System
110.0%
Median failure at 5,000 miles
Engine & Cooling
110.0%
Median failure at 5,000 miles
When it fails
Odometer readings owners gave when they filed. About half of all
complaints include one.
1,000 – 9,999 miles
228.6%
25,000 – 49,999 miles
114.3%
50,000 – 74,999 miles
228.6%
75,000 – 99,999 miles
114.3%
100,000 – 149,999 miles
114.3%
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.
Aug 2005peak 2Oct 2013
NHTSA investigations into the 2005 Mercedes Benz E Class
An investigation is the step before a recall: the agency has seen enough
complaints to look into a pattern itself. An open one means it thinks
something may be wrong and nothing has been fixed yet.
PE10017Opened 14 May 2010Closed 24 Nov 2010AIR BAGS:FRONTAL
Driver Air Bag Circuit High Resistance
Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) has reported a high number of warranty claims for air bag warning lamp illumination due to a diagnostic fault code 9103 or 9123 indicating a high resistance in the driver's frontal air bag firing circuit.MBUSA's testing and evaluation have shown that this condition is the result of a faulty connector (specifically, improper wire crimp) but that it will not prevent proper deployment of the driver's frontal air bag.The faulty connector can cause the air bag circuit resistance levels to exceed the threshold that illuminates the air bag warning lamp, but they do not excee...
Recalls on the 2005 Mercedes Benz E 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 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 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.
Recall 20050949,256 units in Canada
Brakes
On certain vehicles, the Sensotronic Brake Control (SBC) unit may contain a pump piston which is out of permissible tolerances. Also, vibrations within the electrical connector may cause a loss of electrical continuity. Both conditions may result in the system reverting to hydraulic function mode. A loss of brake power assist would result in increased pedal effort and extended stopping distance. Correction: Dealers will inspect and, if required, replace the SBC pump unit.
Recall 20042106,579 units in Canada
Brakes
The electronic monitoring system of the Sensotronic Brake Control (SBC) is designed to monitor the pressure gradient within the high pressure line of the brake system. If an unacceptable pressure gradient is detected, the system will switch, as it is designed to do, into the hydraulic function mode. DaimlerChrysler AG has determined that in certain instances, if vehicles are not routinely serviced and have extremely high mileage combined with a high number of brake actuations or a high brake actuation frequency, the pump motor of the SBC may run out of permissible tolerances, thereby triggering the hydraulic function mode. Correction: Dealers will re-program the SBC hydraulic unit. A software update will provide a clear maintenance notice on the vehicle display and assure continuous pump speed operation within tolerances.
In the owners' own words, exactly as filed with NHTSA.
at 105,276 milesELK Grove, CA
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
THE CAR HAS A STRONG ODOR OF GASOLINE BOTH INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THEIR VEHICLE, PARTICULARLY AFTER REFUELING. IT APPEARS THAT THE GASKET ON THE FUEL TANK LEAKS.
NHTSA complaint #10547467 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Houston, TX
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
DURING THE PAST 2-3 YEARS, MY WIFE AND I BEGAN TO NOTICE A GASOLINE VAPORS IN OUR CLOSED GARAGE IMMEDIATELY AFTER OUR 2005 E320 HAD BEEN REFUELED. WE ALSO NOTICED THAT AFTER A FEW DAYS DRIVING, THE GASOLINE VAPORS, DIMINISHED. MORE RECENTLY, IT ALSO SEEMED THAT THE GASOLINE ODOR HAS BEEN STRONGER AFTER REFUELING. IN ADDITION, MY WIFE, WHILE DRIVING THIS CAR, HAS RECENTLY BEGUN TO SMELL GASOLINE VAPORS FROM INSIDE THE CAR, AND WHILE DRIVING. DURING A RECENT VISIT TO MY DEALER FOR SERVICING, I ASKED THEM TO LOOK INTO THE ISSUE. THEY REMOVED THE REAR SEAT, FILLED THE FUEL TANK, AND THEN DISCOVERED GASOLINE LEAKING AND PUDDLING AROUND THE FUEL SENDING UNIT. TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM, THE DEALER TOLD ME TO EITHER 1) REPLACE THE ORIGINAL FUEL TANK WITH A SLIGHTLY REDESIGNED TANK, OR 2) WHEN REFUELING, FILL THE GAS TANK TO A LEVEL LESS THAN COMPLETELY FULL. THEY ADMITTED THAT THE EXISTING DESIGN PROBABLY CONTRIBUTED TO THE LEAKING. THE DEALER STATED ALSO THAT A REPLACEMENT FUEL TANK WOULD COST US AROUND $2,600 AND THE COST WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER ANY VEHICLE WARRANTY, INCLUDING THE EMISSIONS WARRANTY. THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED NEW IN DEC 2004 AND NOW HAS 75000 MI. IN ANOTHER 2 WEEKS, IT WILL BE 8 YEARS OLD. MY GREATEST CONCERN IS THAT THE GAS TANK DESIGN AND SUBSEQUENT GASOLINE LEAKAGE COULD CONTRIBUTE TO A VEHICLE FIRE AND SERIOUS BODILY INJURY IF THE VEHICLE WERE INVOLVED IN A COLLISION. THIS IS NOT TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF HAVING TO BREATH GASOLINE VAPORS THAT ARE INSIDE THE VEHICLE AND WHILE DRIVING IT. WE BELIEVE THERE IS A SERIOUS DESIGN DEFECT, AND THAT IT SHOULD BE REMEDIED BY MERCEDES-BENZ AND AT THEIR COST AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. FURTHER, FOR US TO NOT ?FILL-UP? THE FUEL TANK AT ANY TIME, DOES NOT CORRECT THE FLAWED DESIGN, THUS IS NOT REALLY AN OWNERSHIP OPTION.
NHTSA complaint #10489061 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 90,000 milesWiggins, MS
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
WE FIRST NOTICED A STRONG FUEL SMELL WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS FILLED UP, BUT SHORTLY AFTER WE WILL THE VEHICLE FUEL STARTED TO DRIP ONTO THE PAVEMENT NEAR THE DRIVERS SIDE REAR WHEEL AREA.
NHTSA complaint #10484554 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 72,319 milesBristol, VA
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
FUEL TANK WAS LEAKING UNDER THE BACK SEAT WHEN FILL UP TANK.
NHTSA complaint #10478287 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 40,876 milesBuffalo, NY
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM
I FILLED MY GAS TANK AND THE NEXT DAY I SMELLED GAS BOTH NEAR MY DRIVERS SIDE WHEEL WELL AND INSIDE THE CAR IN THE REAR SEAT AREA. I FILLED THE CAR AS I ALWAYS DID UNTIL CLICK AND I AM SURE NONE SPILLED, AS I AM VERY FUSSY ABOUT MY CAR. I CANNOT PUT THE CAR IN THE GARAGE AS IT FILLS THE GARAGE WITH FUMES. THIS HAS HAPPENED TWICE NOW UPON FUELING UP. IT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE. I HAVE SEEN WHERE OTHERS I KNOW HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF PROBLEM WITH THE SAME MODEL MERCEDES.
NHTSA complaint #10475532 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Indiantown, FL
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
POOR VISIBILITY AT NIGHT SECONDARY TO LIGHT LENS FOGGING DETERIORATION OF PLASTIC LENS MATERIAL NECESSITATING USING HIGH BEAMS ALL THE TIME.
NHTSA complaint #10437420 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 56,500 milesBeckley, WV
SUSPENSION:FRONT
ON OR ABOUT JUNE 22, 2009, I WAS DRIVING HOME ON INTERSTATE 64 WHEN THE LEFT FRONT SPRING BROKE FOR NO APPARENT REASON. I DID NOT HIT A POT HOLE AND THE CAR WAS NOT INVOLVED IN AN ACCIDENT. THIS CAUSED THE LEFT FRONT SHOCK TO IMMEDIATELY BREAK. THE FRONT END OF THE CAR FELL ONTO THE TIRE WHILE DRIVING 70 MPH. I HAD TO HAVE THE VEHICLE TOWED. THE MERCEDES DEALER COULD OFFER NO EXPLANATION FOR THIS PROBLEM. I CORRESPONDED BY E-MAIL WITH 2 MERCEDES REPRESENTATIVES WHO TOLD ME THEY COULD DO NOTHING FOR ME BECAUSE THE CAR WAS OUT OF WARRANTY. THE WARRANTY WAS OUT AT 50,000.00 MILES AND THE CAR HAD APPROX. 56,000.00 MILES AT THE TIME. I EXPLAINED THAT I KNEW THE CAR WAS OUT OF WARRANTY WHEN I CALLED, HOWEVER, I CONSIDER THIS TO BE A PREMATURE FAILURE THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN ACCIDENT RESULTING IN SERIOUS INJURY OR DEATH. THE MERCEDES REPS TOLD ME I PURCHASED THE CAR AS A USED VEHICLE AND THEY COULD DO NOTHING AND HOPED THAT MY CONFIDENCE IN MERCEDES WOULD BE RESTORED AS I CONTINUED DRIVE THE VEHICLE. THE MERCEDES DEALERSHIP TOLD ME THE CAR WOULD NOT BE SAFE UNLESS I REPLACED THE SPRING AND SHOCK ON BOTH SIDES. THE REPAIR BILL WAS JUST UNDER $1,800.00.
NHTSA complaint #10281886 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 5,000 milesDelray Beach, FL
ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH THE ENGINE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. UPON INSPECTION, THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE AIR BAG AND ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. UPDATED 03/28/06.
NHTSA complaint #10151126 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
at 5,000 milesDelray Beach, FL
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 20 MPH THE ENGINE STALLED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALERSHIP FOR INSPECTION. UPON INSPECTION, THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM AND NO REPAIRS WERE MADE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS ALERTED. THE CONSUMER STATED THE AIR BAG AND ENGINE LIGHT ILLUMINATED. UPDATED 03/28/06.
NHTSA complaint #10151126 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.
Vestavia, AL
UNKNOWN OR OTHER
I HAVE A MERCEDES-BENZ E-CLASS CDI THAT HAS A DEFECT IN THE BRAKING SYSTEM. THIS IS NOT A SAFETY ISSUE, BUT RATHER THE BRAKES MAKE A HIGH PITCHED SQUEAKING NOISE WHEN APPLIED. I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM IN GERMANY AND THAT THE NOISE CANNOT BE FIXED. THIS PROBLEM BEGAN WITHIN 1 MONTH OF THE PURCHASE OF THIS VEHICLE. PURCHASE DATE 4-29-05
NHTSA complaint #10134207 — an unverified report by a vehicle owner.