RoadVitals

2002 Mercedes-Benz 240

Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data

Data refreshed

Owner complaintsComplaints are reports submitted to NHTSA by owners and drivers. NHTSA does not verify most reports before publishing them, and a complaint does not establish that a defect exists. Volume is influenced by how many of a vehicle were sold, how long it has been on the road, and how much attention an issue has received.
26
Latest Oct 29, 2009
Safety recallsA safety recall is issued when a manufacturer or NHTSA determines that a vehicle has a safety-related defect or does not comply with a federal motor vehicle safety standard. Recall repairs are free. Whether a specific vehicle is covered depends on its VIN — a recall listed for a model year does not necessarily apply to every vehicle of that year.
0
InvestigationsNHTSA opens an investigation to examine whether a safety defect may exist. An open investigation is not a determination that a defect exists, and many investigations close without a recall. Investigations can, however, lead to one.
0
Crash or fire reportedComplaints whose submitter recorded that a crash or a fire occurred. These are the reporter's own answers on the NHTSA form, not verified findings.
6
7 injuries, 0 deaths reported

Overview

Our database contains 26 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2002 Mercedes-Benz 240, most frequently naming the electrical, driver assistance and brakes categories. 2 manufacturer communications are on file.

Complaints are reports submitted by owners and drivers to NHTSA. They are not verified and do not establish that a defect exists.

What owners report

Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded

  • Driver assistance512.5%
  • Brakes410.0%
  • Fuel system410.0%
  • Airbags37.5%
  • Body & structure37.5%
  • Engine37.5%
  • Transmission37.5%

Percentages are of component mentions. A single complaint can name more than one component, so these do not sum to the total complaint count.

Safety recalls

No recalls in our database for this model year

That does not guarantee a specific vehicle is unaffected — recalls are issued against VINs, and new campaigns are announced regularly. Check a VIN on NHTSA.gov.

Recent owner complaints

Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words

Fuel system
Filed Oct 29, 2009

INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6) MY MERCEDES C240 (VIN: [XXX]) BURNED UP ITS FUEL PUMP WIRING, AND THE DEALER THAT REPAIRED IT, SAYS THEY HAVE SEEN THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE . I REPLACED A FAULTY FUEL PUMP AS DIAGNOSED BY MY MECHANIC. CAR STILL DID NOT WORK SO I HAD THE CAR SENT TO DEALER (EURO MOTORCARS OF GERMANTOWN MD 301 601 5560). DEALER SAID THE WIRES TO FUEL PUMP MELTED AND CHARGED $460 TO REPAIR THEM (NOT A SIMPLE EFFORT I WAS TOLD). THE DEALER SAYS THIS NOT UNCOMMON, BUT IT IS MORE COMMON TO SEE THIS HAPPEN AT CONNECTORS AT FUEL PUMP (WHICH IS SUBMERGED WITH GASOLINE INSIDE FUEL TANK!) IN MY CASE WIRING BURNED AFTER COMPUTERIZED FUSE BOX. I CONSIDER THIS A SAFETY HAZARD AND A LATENT DEFECT. A WELL DESIGNED ELECTRICAL SYSTEM HAS FUSES THAT ARE SACRIFICED BEFORE DAMAGE IS DONE THAT COULD START A FIRE, OR BURN WIRES (THAT IS WHY THEY ARE THERE). THERE IS A 30 AMP FUSE FOR THIS SYSTEM, AND APPARENTLY THEY DO NOT BLOW. I KNOW MY COUNTY BUILDING INSPECTOR WOULD FAIL ANY NEW HOUSE WIRING THAT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PROTECTED FROM SITUATIONS THAT EXCEED THE RATING OF THE WIRES, IT SEEMS CRAZY THE SAME IS NOT HAPPENING HERE, AND ON A CIRCUIT THE RUNS INSIDE THE GAS TANK NO LESS! PLEASE INVESTIGATE, AND IF YOU TALK TO MERCEDES, I THINK FOR ME PAYING FOR A NEW FUEL PUMP IS SUFFICIENT, BUT I SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY TO REPAIR A LATENT DEFECT AND OBVIOUS SAFETY ISSUE! THANKYOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF MY COMPLAINT *TR

NHTSA ID
10290261
Incident
Oct 27, 2009
Mileage
190,000 mi
Electrical
Filed May 13, 2008

I PURCHASED MY CAR ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO . I HAVE BEEN HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM . I HAD SERVICE DONE ON THE CAR AND I HAVE HAD MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE SENSORS. THE LIGHTS KEEP SHORTING OUT . I REPLACE THE BULBS AND IT SHORTS OUT AGAIN . ALSO BRAKE SENSORS KEEP WEARING OUT CAUSING THE BRAKE SENSOR TO KEEP COMING ON . NOW I AM HAVING PROBLEMS WITH THE OIL LEVEL SENSOR IT IS SAYING REDUCE OIL LEVEL I HAD THIS DONE AND NO CHANGE . THINKING IT MAY NEED THE OIL CHANGED I TOOK IT IN. SAME NO CHANGE OIL WAS CHANGED AND REDUCE THE OIL LEVEL AS THE CAR STATED AND THERE WAS NO CHANGE STILL . THIS CAR HAS HAD PROBLEM AFTER PROBLEM. THAT IS COSTING 500.00 EACH TIME TO HAVE SERVICE AND AMONG OTHER THINGS DONE. *TR

NHTSA ID
10227597
Incident
May 13, 2008
Mileage
84,448 mi
Driver assistanceElectrical
Filed Jun 26, 2007
Crash reported

CAR SAFETY ISSUE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATES CUSTOMER STATES THAT HIS CAR WAS INVOLVED IN TWO ACCIDENTS DUE TO THIS PROBLEM**NAR**CC THE CONSUMER STATED THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS REGARDING THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED THAT HE HOPED THE CAR WAS TAKEN OUT OF SERVICE OR SOLD TO ANYONE THAT WAS NOT INFORMED OF PREVIOUS PROBLEMS WITH SUDDEN ACCELERATION. THE CONSUMER PROVIDED A LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY OF THE MANUFACTURER STATING THAT THE CLIENT POSITION ON THE MATTER STANDS AND WILL NOT BE RESPONDING TO ANY FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE. *TR

NHTSA ID
10195719
Incident
Apr 8, 2007
Mileage
34,075 mi
Driver assistanceElectrical
Filed May 29, 2007
Crash reported

TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ 240. WHILE DEPRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL AT 2 MPH, THE CONTACT'S WIFE DROVE OVER THE CURB THROUGH A NINE FOOT HIGH FENCE, SPED DOWN A THREE FOOT EMBANKMENT, DROVE ACROSS AN ABANDONED RAIL ROAD TRACK, AND INTO A CHAIN LINKED FENCE. SHE THEN CRASHED INTO A POST WHICH STOPPED THE VEHICLE. THE PARAMEDIC AND POLICE WERE CALLED. THE WEATHER WAS CLEAR AND SUNNY. A SEPARATE INCIDENT OCCURRED ON APRIL 8, 2007. THE CONTACT'S WIFE WAS PULLING INTO A PARKING SPACE AT 2 MPH WHEN THE VEHICLE SUDDENLY ACCELERATED. SHE DEPRESSED THE BRAKE PEDAL, BUT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT STOP. SHE CRASHED INTO THE PRECEDING VEHICLE. THE WEATHER WAS CLEAR. THE VIN, PURCHASE DATE, ENGINE SIZE, AND # OF CYLINDERS WERE UNKNOWN. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 34,275. THE CONSUMER ALSO STATED THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN IN FOR REPAIRS REGARDING THE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. UPDATED 06/26/07. *JB THE CONSUMER STATED MERCEDES BENZ WAS WILLING TO BUY THE VEHICLE BACK, BUT HE WANTS TO KNOW SHOULD HE KEEP THE VEHICLE IN HIS POSSESSION. THE CONSUMER WANTS A STATUS ON HIS COMPLAINT. UPDATED 06/27/07. *JB THE CONSUMER IS STILL AWAITING A RESPONSE FROM MB. UPDATED 07/10/7.*JB THE DEALER PURCHASED THE VEHICLE BACK FROM THE CONSUMER AT A WHOLESALE OFFER. UPDATED 07/16/07. *JB

NHTSA ID
10191974
Incident
Apr 8, 2007
Mileage
34,075 mi
Engine
Filed Jan 7, 2007

ENGINE QUIT WHILE DRIVING ALONG ON INDEPENDENCE PKWY AND REFUSED TO START FOR SEVERAL MINUTES. FINALLY THE ENGINE RESTARTED AND THEN QUIT AGAIN WHILE TRYING TO DRIVE THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP. HAD THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALERSHIP. I WAS INFORMED LATER THAT THE 'CRANK SENSOR' HAD STOPPED FUNCTIONING AND NEEDED TO BE REPLACED AT AN APPROXIMATE COST OF $440. I RESEARCHED THIS ISSUE ON THE INTERNET AND DETERMINED THAT THIS ISSUE IS NOT UNCOMMON AND OTHER DRIVERS HAD EXPERIENCED THE SAME PROBLEM. HAD THIS HAPPENED ON A HIGHWAY AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS THIS COULD HAVE RESULTED IN A SERIOUS CRASH. GIVEN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THIS PROBLEM, MERCEDES NEEDS TO BE AWARE AND PROACTIVELY CORRECT THIS PROBLEM. *JB

NHTSA ID
10178022
Incident
Jan 4, 2007
Mileage
52,500 mi
Transmission
Filed Dec 9, 2006
2 injuries reported

1. FAILURE OCCURRED WITHOUT WARNING. 2. TRANSMISSIONS WOULD NOT SHIFT OUT OF FIRST GEAR. MY FAMILY (4 MONTH BABY AND WIFE) WERE LEFT STRANDED ON THE ROADWAY. 3. MERCEDES-BENZ CANNOT CORRECTLY FIX THE PROBLEM. UNKNOWN CAUSE. VEHICLE HAS BEEN IN SHOP FOR 2 WEEKS WITHOUT A SOLUTION IN SIGHT. *NM

NHTSA ID
10175658
Incident
Nov 21, 2006
Mileage
60,100 mi
Brakes
Filed Oct 24, 2005

DT: THE CONTACT STATED THE BRAKE LIGHTS WERE NOT WORKING. THIS STARTED ON JANUARY 15, 2005. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN TO THE DEALERSHIP TWICE FOR BRAKE PROBLEM. THEY CLEANED THE CONTACTS ON THE BRAKE LIGHTS AND CHECKED ALL OF THE CONNECTORS. ALSO, THEY REPLACED THE COMPUTER. THE PROBLEM PERSISTED INTERMITTENTLY. MERCEDES TOLD THE CONTACT TO GO TO THE DEALERSHIP, AND THE DEALERSHIP STATED THAT AT THIS POINT MERCEDES HAS TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE VEHICLE. *AK

NHTSA ID
10140619
Incident
Jan 15, 2005
Mileage
8,000 mi
Visibility
Filed Sep 6, 2005

2002 MERCEDES WINDSHIELD WIPERS FAILED.***NO ANSWER REQUIRED***. *MR THE LINKAGE ARM THAT CONNECTS TO THE TWO WIPER BLADES BROKE WHILE DRIVING DURING THE RAINSTORM. *NM

NHTSA ID
10137757
Incident
Jul 1, 2005

Manufacturer communications

A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.

PMAYB 8210610

EXTERIOR LIGHTING:FOG LIGHTS; EXTERIOR LIGHTING:HEADLIGHTS

MODEL 240; HEAD LAMPS/ FOG LAMPS FOGGED. *PE

9160111

AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:SENSOR/CONTROL MODULE-INACTIVE

SRS LAMP ILLUMINATED AND DTC 9021 AND/OR 9027 STORED. *TT

Manufacturers file copies of the bulletins they send to dealers with NHTSA. These often describe diagnostic or repair procedures for a known condition. They are not recalls: repairs described in a bulletin are usually only free if the vehicle is still under warranty or the manufacturer has extended coverage.

Compare model years

Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model

Mercedes-Benz 240 by model year
YearComplaintsRecallsInvestigationsIssue Index
2003270039.5
2002Viewing260043.9
2001220037.9
1999100
1995200
1994000
1988001
1987001
1986001
1985001
1984001
1983200
1980100
1979100

Higher-selling and older vehicles accumulate more reports. Counts are not failure rates and are not directly comparable between vehicles that sold in very different numbers. Older model years have had longer for reports to accumulate.