1998 Mercedes Benz C280 Recalls & Complaints

Incident: November 25, 2015 · Filed: December 3, 2015

WITHOUT ANY WARNING ATTEMPTING TO MAKE A TURN AROUND THE CORNER CAR JUST MADE A VERY LOUD SOUND COMING FROM UNDER DRIVER'S SIDE IN THE FRONT. CAR CAME DOWN ON DRIVER SIDE VERY CLOSE TO TIRE. WHEN I EXISTED THE VEHICLE IS WHEN I REALIZED THE FRONT DRIVER SIDE COIL SUSPENSION WAS ON THE GROUND COMPLETELY OFF. HAD IT TOWED AND LOOKED AT BY A MEINIKE THEY STATED THE THE FRAME WHERE THIS CAME OFF HAD SOME RUST. I HAVE MY VEHICLE SERVICED REGULARLY OIL CHANGE WITH TIRE ROTATION NO MECHANIC EVER NOTICED IT WHILE SERVICING. I HAVE A TODDLER DRIVING IN THE CAR WITH ME AND JUST CAME OFF THE HIGHWAY THIS COULD HAVE BEEN FAR WORSE OUT COME. IN THE MEANTIME MERCEDES DEALERS HAVE JUST BEEN GIVING ME THE RUN AROUND THIS IS OBVIOUS A MANUFACTURE'S DEFECT. AND VERY EXPENSIVE OUT OF POCKET TO REPAIR. MERCEDES SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS MALFUNCTIONING DEECT THAT COULD HAVE CAUSED AN HORRIFIC TRAGEDY TO ME AND MY FAMILY AND OTHER MOTORIST.

Incident: May 11, 2013 · Filed: January 7, 2014

WHILE TRAVELING ON THE INTERSTATE AT 70 MPH, THE SPRING PERCH SUPPORTING THE LEFT, FRONT COIL SPRING BROKE. INSTANTLY, THE LEFT FRONT SUSPENSION TOTALLY COLLAPSED LEAVING THE LEFT FRONT WHEEL WITHOUT ANY SUSPENSION OR WHEEL CLEARANCE INSIDE THE FENDER. THIS IN TURN CAUSED THE LEFT FRONT BUMPER TO NEARLY DRAG ON THE PAVEMENT. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS A DESIGN DEFECT IN MERCEDES AUTOMOBILES THAT USE THIS SAME OR SIMILAR SPRING PERCH. THIS TYPE OF PART IS ONE THAT SHOULD NEVER FAIL UNLESS DUE TO AN ACCIDENT. FORTUNATELY, THE DRIVER IN THIS CASE KEPT HER CALM AND SAFELY GUIDED THE VEHICLE OFF THE INTERSTATE. AS A RESULT OF THIS INCIDENT, I HAD MY 1997 MERCEDES E420 INSPECTED AND IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT ONE OF THE SPRING PERCHES ON THAT CAR WAS ABOUT TO COLLAPSE AS WELL. ALL MERCEDES USING A SIMILAR SPRING PERCH SHOULD BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE SOMEONE IS KILLED. THIS IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS SITUATION. *TR

Incident: July 30, 2007 · Filed: August 6, 2007

THE FOLLOWING IS A LETTER SENT TO MERCEDES WHIDH DESCRIBES THE ISSUE. DEAR MERCEDES: I RECENTLY HAD AN ALMOST TRAGIC INCIDENT IN MY MERCEDES. I WAS WITH MY DAUGHTER WHO WAS DRIVING MY CAR, UNDER HER LEARNERS PERMIT, ALONG THE HIGHWAY ON A CLEAR, SMOOTH, AND DRY PAVEMENT AT 55 MPH, THE SPEED LIMIT. THE RIGHT FRONT SPRING FELL OFF THE CAR. I AM SURE YOU CAN IMAGINE THE NOISE AS THE SPRING RUMBLED UNDER OUR CAR. IT SCARRED HER, THOUGH SHE WAS ABLE TO MAINTAIN CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE. OBVIOUSLY, WITHOUT THE SPRING IN PLACE, THE CONTROL OF THE CAR WAS SERIOUSLY JEOPARDIZED. ONCE SHE FOUND A SAFE PLACE TO PULL OVER, A MOTORCYCLIST PULLED UP ALONG SIDE TO LET ME KNOW WHAT HAD HAPPENED. TO THAT POINT, I HAD NO IDEA. FORTUNATELY, THE SPRING BARELY MISSED THE CYCLIST AS IT BOUNCED ERRATICALLY DOWN THE ROAD, OR HE COULD HAVE BEEN SERIOUSLY INJURED. IN SPEAKING WITH MY MERCEDES MECHANIC, AS WELL AS THE DEALERS COLLISION REPAIR SHOP, I HAVE LEARNED THAT THEY HAVE SEEN AT LEAST 15-20 SUCH SPRING FAILURES DUE TO THE FLAWED SPRING SOCKET DESIGN. I DO NOT BELIEVE MERCEDES WOULD WANT TO RISK THEIR REPUTATION BY CONTINUING TO HAVE THEIR VEHICLES ON THE ROAD WITH SUCH A DANGEROUS DESIGN FLAW. WHILE I HAVE APPRECIATED THE EFFORTS, AND FRIENDLY SERVICE, PROVIDED BY JUDY SUTTON OF R&H MOTORCARS, LTD. IN ARRANGING THE TOWING OF MY CAR AND FOR MERCEDES TO COVER HALF THE COST OF THE RIGHT FRONT SPRING REPLACEMENT, I FEEL MERCEDES SHOULD BE TAKING A MORE PROACTIVE STANCE ON THE MECHANICAL PROBLEM. THEREFORE, I AM ASKING MERCEDES TO COVER THE FULL COST OF THE REPAIR TO BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT SPRING SOCKETS, AND TO RECALL THE VEHICLES WITH THIS PROBLEM SO THEIR VEHICLES ARE NOT ON THE ROAD PRESENTING A HAZARD TO THEMSELVES AND TO OTHERS. REGARDS, SAMUEL J. WORNOM, III CC: NHTSA *TR

Incident: May 22, 2005 · Filed: October 14, 2005

ON MAY 22, 2005, THE RIGHT FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING POPPED OUT OF VEHICLE FROM DRIVING OVER ROUGH ROAD. INFORMATION ENTERED BY STATE FARM. ON JULY 20, 2005, THE LEFT FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING WAS DAMAGED FROM DRIVING OVER ROUGH ROADS.

Filed: March 21, 2002

WHILE DRIVING HEADLIGHTS ILLUMINATED AND FLASHED, AND EVENTUALLY BATTERY WENT DEAD. VERY NEXT DAY A RECALL NOTIFICATION WAS RECEIVED. BATTERY WAS REPLACED AT CONSUMER'S EXPENSE.*AK

Incident: April 16, 2001 · Filed: May 4, 2001

WHILE HUSBAND WAS MOVING OBJECTS IN TRUNK. TOUCHED BATTERY AND EXPLODE AT HIS FACE, INJURING PARTS ON FACE AND BODY.*AK THE CONSUMER SUFFERED EYE DAMAGE, NASAL FRACTURE AND FACIAL LACERATIONS AS THE RESULT OF BATTEY EXPLOSION. THE VEHICLE HAD BEEN REPAIRED AT THE CONSUMER'S EXPENSE. *YH

Incident: March 25, 2001 · Filed: March 27, 2001

WHILE DRIVING ABOUT 15 MPH, CONSUMER HEARD AN EXPLOSION, PULLED OVER AND BATTERY HAD SHATTERED. DEALER SAID IT WAS AN ELECTRICAL SHORT.*AK CONSUMER STATED HAD PROBLEMS STARTING VEHICLE AT TIMES.*JB

Incident: January 28, 2000 · Filed: February 1, 2000

WHILE DRIVING AN ELECTRICAL LIGHT WILL COME ON AT THE DASHBOARD, AND THE LIGHT HAS A DESIGN LIKE A BULB, STARTING TO CHECK ELECTRIC ON THE BRAKES. *AK

Filed: October 5, 1999

WHILE WAITING AT A RED LIGHT TO MAKE A LEFT TURN, VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED AFTER THE CONSUMER STARTED TO MAKE THE LEFT TURN AND SPINNED 360 DEGREE ANGLE INTO ANOTHER VEHICLE. DRIVER ATTEMPTED TO APPLY BRAKES BEFORE HITTING THE OTHER VEHICLE, BUT THEY DID NOT RESPOND. THE DEALER HAS BEEN CONTACTED. *AK

Incident: May 26, 2002 · Filed: June 22, 2002

FUEL HOSE (PART NO.A2084761526) ABRUPTLY BURST WHEN CAR WAS STARTED, RESULTING IN HUGE FUEL LEAK (LIKE A SPIGOT), WITH FUEL IMMEDIATELY POOLING UNDER THE CAR AND STREAKING AWAY. IF THERE HAD BEEN A LIT CIGARETTE BUTT ON THE PARKING LOT PAVEMENT WE WOULD HAVE EXPLODED, KILLING ALL 4 OCCUPANTS AS WE WERE GETTING INTO THE CAR. IT WOULD HAVE WIPED OUT THREE GENERATIONS: TWO PARENTS, ONE CHILD AND ONE SURVIVING GRANDPARENT. THIS PART HAS TO BE FAILSAFE DUE TO THE POTENTIAL FOR CATASTROPHIC LOSS OF LIFE. I HAVE A 13-YR-OLD CAR THAT HAS NEVER HAD BREAKAGE OF A FUEL HOSE LIKE THIS. I URGE A RECALL OF THIS PART SO AS TO PREVENT FUTURE LOSS OF LIFE. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR. THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE.