RoadVitals

2015 Mercedes-Benz C200

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.
31
+1 complaint in 30 days
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.
1
1 currently open
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.
1

Overview

Our database contains 31 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2015 Mercedes-Benz C200, most frequently naming the body & structure, suspension and fuel system categories. 1 NHTSA investigation names it; and 81 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

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.

Safety investigations

NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.

EA21002OpenEngineering Analysis

Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

Opened Sep 17, 2021

From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.

AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:DRIVER SIDE:INFLATOR MODULE

Recent owner complaints

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

Filed Oct 15, 2026

I am filing a formal safety complaint regarding my 2015 Mercedes-Benz C300 (W205), with approximately 65,000 miles. An authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership diagnosed severe corrosion and perforation of the rear subframe and declared the vehicle undrivable due to this condition. The estimated repair cost is $5,531.53. The rear subframe is a critical structural component supporting the rear suspension. Its deterioration may compromise vehicle stability and potentially result in loss of control. I am extremely concerned that such a serious structural failure has occurred at relatively low mileage. Mercedes-Benz has extended rear subframe corrosion warranty coverage to 20 years with unlimited mileage for certain earlier C-Class models, but the W205 is excluded despite experiencing a similar problem. Mercedes-Benz USA denied my request for goodwill assistance. I respectfully request that NHTSA investigate whether premature rear subframe corrosion and perforation represent a broader safety defect affecting the W205 platform and whether a safety recall is warranted. The dealership’s diagnosis, repair estimate, and manufacturer correspondence are available upon request.

NHTSA ID
11771376
Incident
Sep 16, 2026
Electrical
Filed Oct 13, 2026
Fire reported

To Mercedes-Benz USA Customer Care, I am requesting a formal review and written explanation concerning case #24524936 and the approximately $6,000+ starter-wiring repair on my vehicle. Mercedes-Benz’s August 2017 recall notice for campaign 2017080002, NHTSA recall 17V114, states that the starting-current limiter can overheat under specified conditions, potentially causing surrounding components to melt and creating a fire risk. The notice further states that the authorized dealer will install an additional fuse in the electrical line to the starter at no charge. Because my vehicle has experienced burnt starter wiring, I request that Mercedes-Benz provide: 1. Written confirmation of whether my vehicle’s VIN was included in this recall. 2. The date and documentation of any recall remedy performed on my vehicle. 3. The technical findings supporting the determination that my starter-wiring damage is unrelated to the recall. 4. Confirmation of whether the starting-current limiter, additional fuse, and surrounding wiring were inspected. 5. A review of reimbursement eligibility and goodwill assistance for the repair expense. Please escalate this matter for technical review and provide a written response explaining the basis for the denial. If the matter cannot be resolved, I will consider submitting a vehicle-safety complaint to NHTSA. Existing case number: 24524936 Mercedes-Benz recall: 2017080002 NHTSA recall: 17V114

NHTSA ID
11770775
Incident
Sep 30, 2026
Filed Sep 2, 2026

I am reporting a potential safety defect involving the locking/key-detection system in my 2015 Mercedes-Benz C300. On [XXX], at approximately [XXX] p.m. in Coral Ridge, Fort Lauderdale, I secured my young son in his car seat. My purse, containing the key fob, and my phone were on the front passenger seat. I closed the door and walked around to the driver's side. The vehicle had locked all doors by itself. I did not press the lock button or intentionally lock the vehicle. There were no warning lights, messages, alerts, or other symptoms beforehand. My [XXX] son was trapped inside the locked vehicle, and both my key and phone were also inside, leaving me unable to access him or call for help. I flagged down a passing car, and we ultimately had to break a window to reach him. The vehicle has not been inspected by Mercedes-Benz, a dealer, police, insurance, or an independent service center, and the issue has not been reproduced or confirmed. After replacing the window, I have not attempted to recreate the incident because of the safety risk. The vehicle remains available for inspection upon request. I am concerned that the vehicle can lock with the key fob inside the passenger side, creating a potentially serious risk if a child or vulnerable occupant is trapped inside, particularly in hot weather or where immediate assistance is unavailable. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ID
11761726
Incident
Apr 18, 2026
Suspension
Filed Aug 28, 2026

I am a mechanic speaking on the behalf of a customer; this customer is experiencing problems with her rear subframe. The older generation of her car has a famous issue with rear subframe rusting out. Her car uses an updated part number that is almost identical in construction to the failure prone part that was famous for rusting out, although they are NOT the same number. The failure prone number is 2123503805 or 2043500141, they are installed on the older chassis, w204, w212, etc. The part that is in THIS vehicle is 2123503605, the construction is almost identical to the part numbers listed for the w212 and w204 provided above. There is no drainage holes provided for water that has entered through rain or any other detritus that will permeate on the road's surfaces through natural progression of the vehicle's life, like on the older chassis. The material used is steel with paint on the outside instead of some sort of encapsulation that coats both inside and outside surfaces. And because these don't have any sort of ability to evacuate any substances, they are interacting with unprotected metal and will react into rust. This failure can lead to misalignment at the very minimum of problems, at the worst, it can cause control arms falling off, causing wheel hub assemblies to fall off, this shouldn't have to be explained but this can cause major injury or death, not only to the passengers to the vehicle, but to others who share the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And, the understanding of these not being the SAME part shouldn't warrant the extension of the recall to these particular vehicles, but the failures are similar to what was seen before on other older vehicles and should warrant further investigation. With hope, this could just be an isolated incident, but since patterns are uncanny, this should be investigated with some interest to the public wellbeing. Cordially Naseam F. Samaan Licensed Virginia State Inspector. Sanko Auto Care

NHTSA ID
11760266
Incident
Aug 19, 2026
Filed Aug 24, 2026

Vehicle rear subframe has rusted through, causing vehicle to swerve upon braking, making the car unsafe to drive for the occupant, other vehicles on the road, and pedestrians. Mercedes dealer has advised that subframe has rusted through, requires replacement. The car will be brought to the dealer for repair (at owner's expense) by Friday, 8/28/2026. We can request that the dealer provide us with the subframe - please advise. The vehicle provided no warning indications.

NHTSA ID
11759222
Incident
Jul 29, 2026
Suspension
Filed Aug 19, 2026

An inspection of my vehicle on August 6, 2026 disclosed that the rear subframe has corrosion, including perforation. It is my understanding that this problem has been identified in mine and many other Mercedes-Benz models, and that Mercedes-Benz has offered an extended warranty to replace the subframe in certain of these models, but my model for the year it was manufactured was not included. I was not made aware of this potential problem by Mercedes-Benz, and they are not offering an extended warranty to resolve this serious safety issue.

NHTSA ID
11757917
Incident
Aug 6, 2026
Suspension
Filed Aug 4, 2026

During a mandatory Virginia State Safety Inspection, the vehicle failed due to severe structural corrosion and perforation of the rear subframe. Because these components notoriously corrode from the inside out, the fact that the rust is externally visible and structurally failing indicates an advanced, catastrophic material breakdown.The rear subframe serves as the foundational load-bearing anchor for the rear suspension and control arms. This level of structural rot poses an immediate, severe safety hazard. Had the failure occurred while driving at highway speeds rather than being caught during an inspection, the suspension mounts could have catastrophically detached, causing a sudden loss of vehicle control, unpredictable fishtailing, and an imminent crash risk. There are absolutely no dashboard warning lights, diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), or driving indicators to alert the driver of this structural degradation. The defect remains entirely hidden until the metal physically fractures or the vehicle fails a professional inspection. Furthermore, because neighboring states (such as Maryland) do not mandate annual safety inspections, this severe structural failure will go entirely unnoticed by thousands of drivers until a catastrophic on-road failure occurs. Mercedes-Benz has already explicitly acknowledged this exact engineering and material defect in the preceding W204 generation (C-Class models up to 2015), subsequently issuing a 20-year, unlimited-mileage extended warranty for rear subframe corrosion. However, Mercedes-Benz has arbitrarily excluded my 2015 W205 C-Class model from this coverage, despite the vehicle employing a highly similar subframe design that suffers from the exact same moisture-trapping and premature rotting failure mechanism. This represents an unaddressed, systemic manufacturing defect that poses an immediate risk to public safety. I’ve included two photos showing holes in the subframe from rusting inside out.

NHTSA ID
11754785
Incident
Feb 27, 2026
Body & structure
Filed Jul 13, 2026

Car was pulling to one side. Replaced the front routers and breaks. Problem still persisted. After more investigating the subframe was found to be rusting out, Mercedes of New London CT said it was unsafe to drive. But allowed my daughter to drive it home. This car was purchased it brand new from Mercedes=Benz of Warwick. The car was garaged all it life. This should not happen. They have had recalls and problems with this model just not this one. My concern is the safety of those driving this model clearly the problem was not solved. Please make Mercedes notify people driving this model, that there is a known subframe corrosion issue.

NHTSA ID
11750145
Incident
May 25, 2026

Manufacturer communications

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

LI42.10-P-078779

SERVICE BRAKES

Complaint Repeat workshop visit for vehicle vibration while braking from 60MPH. NOTE: Although the symptom is similar to a tire or wheel vibration, it is usually readily noticeable that it is distinctly different if it happens at all times or only while braking. Cause Although the cause of the vibration is most likely due to excessive lateral runout on the rotor or hub/wheel bearing, the system as a whole needs to be checked for other possible contributors. 1. Prior collision damage. 2. Excessive vehicle sitting times without rotating components. 3. Wheel bearing/hub lateral runout. 4. Wheel mating interface has been overtightened (did not follow WIS torque procedures). 5. Mating interfaces have been excessively modified (painted, gouged, bent, etc...). Remedy Read through the entire attached worksheet prior to performing. After performing, please review the final page and perform work accordingly. NOTE: This document is not pre‑authorization or otherwise dealing with warranty. This is intended for diagnostic purposes only. If there are any questions on how to proceed OR The work sheet has been performed and the vehicle has returned with the same concern. Please perform the measurements as seen in the worksheet again and open a TIPS case to the Body, Chassis, and Entertainment team.

LI82.62-P-078631

STRUCTURE:BODY

Complaint Clanking noise from the area of the speakers in the doors. Cause Under analysis. Remedy To narrow down the cause, first of all remove the door trim. • If the noise continues to occur even with the door trim removed, then continue the diagnosis working towards the speaker and if necessary, create a TIPS case with an informative video as an attachment. Note: Please refer to this document in the warranty claim and, once diagnosis is completed, select the damage code depending on the component part that is causing the issue. • If the noise stops when the door trim is removed, please proceed in accordance with LI72.10‑P‑067691. Information: In this case, do not use a damage code for the speakers in the warranty claim!

LI82.62-P-078631

STRUCTURE:BODY

Complaint Clanking noise from the area of the speakers in the doors. Cause Under analysis. Remedy To narrow down the cause, first of all remove the door trim. • If the noise continues to occur even with the door trim removed, then continue the diagnosis working towards the speaker and if necessary, create a TIPS case with an informative video as an attachment. Information: Please refer to this document in the warranty claim and, after completing diagnosis, select the damage code corresponding to the component part that caused the problem. • If the noise stops when the door trim is removed, please proceed in accordance with LI72.10-P-067691. Information: In this case, do not use a damage code for the speakers in the warranty claim!

LI35.30-P-058566

POWER TRAIN

Single throttle lift-off clunking noise from the side shaft when moving off (audible at the outboard end). The noise is heard once in each instance when changing direction of travel. Note: Sound file in attachment Cause If the complaint is eliminated by experimentally loosening the outboard collar nut (by 1 turn), the problem is due to cracking of the microweld between the wheel bearing inner race and the joint housing of the side shaft. Note: The collar nut must always be replaced after being loosened. See also LI33.20-P-078406 Remedy Coat contact surface of side shaft with wheel bearing with Molykote paint. To do this, proceed as follows: 1. Remove side shafts 2. Clean contact surface A (see image file in attachment "Outer joint housing before") before coating with Molykote, using "spirit" (free of dust and grease) 3. Coat contact surface A (see image file in attachment "Outer joint housing after") with Molykote and leave to dry for "one hour" in removed condition 4. Reinstall side shafts Note: Before using the antifriction coating (Molykote), stir it or shake it thoroughly for (at least 1 minute).

LI82.30-P-059239

VISIBILITY/WIPER

Complaint There are several types of complaint about noises or poor windshield wiper wiping performance: A: Wiper blades squeaking, chattering, shuddering B: The windshield is not wiped completely (streaking) C: During the downward movement water is pulled back onto the windshield from the A-pillar (Figure 1) D: After windshield cleaning, water keeps spraying onto the windshield for several wipe cycles (Figure 2) A1: The windshield and wiper blades are contaminated with residues from car washing facilities, identifiable by the water beading. The resulting differences in the friction values between the wiper blades and the windshield can excite the wiper blades to vibrate. Note: It is mostly wax residue from the washer system, but also water-repellent nano-particle coating for paint and/or silicone-based washer fluid, that could cause this problem. A partially dry windshield also has different friction values, which can likewise result in squeaking of the wiper blades A2: The wiper blades are worn by mechanical damage (wiper lip damaged by ice or insect debris, or deformed by long periods of disuse). A3: Incorrect angle of incidence of the wiper arms to the windshield. Because of this, the rubber lip of the wiper blade may not flip over at the reversal point. Cause B: B1: Wax/ dirt residues on the windshield B2: Wiper blades deformed or worn B3: Downforce of wiper arm not OK (Figure 3) Cause C: Water is pulled back onto the windshield by the differential pressure created as the wiper arm moves downwards. Cause D: Washer water collects in the fastening of the wiper blade and is blown onto the windshield by the airstream over several wipe cycles. Note and supporting information: Wiper blades are wear parts which, even when "not used" for long periods (kept in park position), may become permanently deformed and damaged. Further stresses on the rubber wiper blade arise due to various environmental influences which progressively change the effectiveness of the rubber wiper blade and accelerate the aging process. Due to the natural aging process and wear, the wiper blades should be replaced twice a year, preferably in Spring and Fall (see operator's manual). Remedy Remedy A: A1: Cleaning entire windshield with A 000 986 40 71. A2: Checking water's flow behavior after windshield has been cleaned (see Video 1). If, after cleaning, there are still areas with water beading, then the cleaning process must be carried out again until a rejection reaction is no longer present. • Note: On the vehicle in the video (Video 1), water still beads on the bottom left of the windshield. The windshield is still not properly clean, even though it appears to be clean. The windshield is only properly clean when there are no more areas on the windshield where water beads. A3: Replace wiper blades with genuine wiper blades. Important: Only exchange wiper blades if windshield no longer has water-repellent areas Note: Replacement of wiper blades is not covered under warranty and can be replaced at the expense of the customer. Remedy B: B1: Clean windshield with intensive cleaner A 000 986 40 71. Important: Do not clean the wiper blades otherwise the graphite coating will be damaged. B2: Replace wiper blades with genuine wiper blades • Note: Replacement of wiper blades is not covered under warranty and can be replaced at the expense of the customer. B3: Check the wiper arm for excessive resistance in the bearing. Restore mobility or replace wiper arm if necessary. Remedy C: Problem inherent in design for which there is no technical remedy. Exception: X204 up to 02/2014. In these vehicles, it is possible to install the design configuration of vehicles as of 02/2014. This includes wiper arms (styled arms) with improved behavior in this respect. It is also necessary to replace the wiper blades because the styled arms feature a Top Lock connection (previously Side Lock).

LI82.10-P-078301

EXTERIOR LIGHTING

Complaint Headlamp, front fog lamp leaky or fogged. Cause Fogging of the headlamps is a natural phenomenon, which can occur under certain climatic conditions. It does not lead to any technical impairment of the headlamp. If a pressure compensation diaphragm is fitted in the housing cover, then the lamp unit is a "closed system". Remedy Headlamp: Remedy 1 Clearing fogged/condensed LED headlamps: 1. Drive vehicle into workshop (temperature higher than +18 °C/+64.4 °F) and connect the exhaust extraction. Note: Do not perform an engine wash before the defogging test. 2. Switch off the engine and connect battery support via a charger. 3. Open the hood. 4. Switch on the lights. 5. Leave the vehicle in this state for 60 minutes. 6. Check for formation of condensation, a significant reduction in the formation of condensation must be clearly recognizable (thawing progress). Clearing of fogged/condensed LED headlamps and LED rear lamps on electric vehicles: 1. Drive the vehicle into the workshop (temperature higher than +18 °C/+64.4°F). 2. Connect battery backup via a charger. 3. Open the front-end flap and ensure sufficient ventilation. 4. Switch on the lights. 5. Leave the vehicle in this state for 60 minutes. 6. Check for formation of condensation, a significant reduction in the formation of condensation must be clearly recognizable (thawing progress). Clearing fogged/condensed halogen/xenon headlamps: 1. Drive the vehicle into the workshop (temperature higher than +18 °C/+64.4°F). Note: Do not perform an engine wash before the defogging test. 2. Switch off the engine. 3. Open the hood. 4. Switch off the lights. 5. Leave the vehicle in this state for 60 minutes. 6. Check for formation of condensation, a significant reduction in the formation of condensation must be clearly recognizable (thawing progress). Note: If there is no visible reduction in condensation, check the headlamp for malfunctions. (see Remedy 2) It is not physically possible to defog the headlamps completely. Fogging does not impair the operation or the service life of the headlamp. Note: Only implement Remedy 1 for model series 463 (from model year 2018) and model series 465. Remedy 2 A defective headlamp can be identified as follows: 1. Check the headlamp for external damage and that the cover caps and the diaphragm are correctly seated. 2. Check the electrical connectors of the plugs and pins. 3. Check for leak tightness according to LI82.10-P-078307. The test can only be conducted on headlamps. 4. If the headlamp or the rear lamp has any external damage, replace the component part in accordance with the WIS instructions. Note: External damage to the headlamp/rear lamp or faulty seating of the cover caps does not present a warranty or goodwill case. Note: With headlamps, it is possible to install desiccant packs if the problem occurs repeatedly. • Open ventilation system LI82.10-P-078302 • Closed ventilation system LI82.10-P-078304

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.