ELECTRONIC STABILITY CONTROL (ESC):CONTROL MODULE:SOFTWARE; ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING:ENGINE:ENGINE CONTROL MODULE (ECU/ECM):SOFTWARE; EXTERIOR LIGHTING:LIGHTING CONTROL MODULE:SOFTWARE
2010 Mercedes-Benz E350
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 183 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2010 Mercedes-Benz E350, most frequently naming the airbags, fuel system and electrical categories. 4 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 2 NHTSA investigations name it; and 180 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.
Complaint activity over time
When owners filed reports about this model year
View as table
| Month | Complaints filed | Cumulative |
|---|---|---|
| Jan 2018 | 7 | 92 |
| Feb 2018 | 1 | 93 |
| Apr 2018 | 4 | 97 |
| May 2018 | 1 | 98 |
| Jun 2018 | 3 | 101 |
| Jul 2018 | 1 | 102 |
| Aug 2018 | 1 | 103 |
| Sep 2018 | 3 | 106 |
| Oct 2018 | 1 | 107 |
| Nov 2018 | 1 | 108 |
| Dec 2018 | 4 | 112 |
| Mar 2019 | 1 | 113 |
| Apr 2019 | 1 | 114 |
| May 2019 | 2 | 116 |
| Jun 2019 | 3 | 119 |
| Jul 2019 | 1 | 120 |
| Sep 2019 | 1 | 121 |
| Oct 2019 | 2 | 123 |
| Nov 2019 | 1 | 124 |
| Dec 2019 | 1 | 125 |
| May 2020 | 2 | 127 |
| Jun 2020 | 1 | 128 |
| Aug 2020 | 2 | 130 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 131 |
| Nov 2020 | 1 | 132 |
| Dec 2020 | 1 | 133 |
| Jan 2021 | 2 | 135 |
| Mar 2021 | 2 | 137 |
| Jun 2021 | 1 | 138 |
| Oct 2021 | 1 | 139 |
| Feb 2022 | 2 | 141 |
| May 2022 | 2 | 143 |
| Jun 2022 | 1 | 144 |
| Jul 2022 | 2 | 146 |
| Sep 2022 | 1 | 147 |
| Oct 2022 | 3 | 150 |
| Dec 2022 | 1 | 151 |
| Jan 2023 | 2 | 153 |
| Feb 2023 | 1 | 154 |
| Mar 2023 | 2 | 156 |
| May 2023 | 1 | 157 |
| Jun 2023 | 1 | 158 |
| Jul 2023 | 2 | 160 |
| Aug 2023 | 1 | 161 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 162 |
| Oct 2023 | 1 | 163 |
| Nov 2023 | 1 | 164 |
| Dec 2023 | 1 | 165 |
| Mar 2024 | 1 | 166 |
| Nov 2024 | 2 | 168 |
| Jan 2025 | 2 | 170 |
| Feb 2025 | 2 | 172 |
| Mar 2025 | 1 | 173 |
| Apr 2025 | 2 | 175 |
| Jul 2025 | 2 | 177 |
| Sep 2025 | 1 | 178 |
| Nov 2025 | 2 | 180 |
| Jan 2026 | 1 | 181 |
| Feb 2026 | 1 | 182 |
| Apr 2026 | 1 | 183 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Airbags6832.4%
- Fuel system209.5%
- Electrical188.6%
- Suspension178.1%
- Engine167.6%
- Brakes146.7%
- Powertrain (other)136.2%
- Body & structure115.2%
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
4 campaigns cover this model year
Recalls apply to specific vehicles, not to every vehicle of a model year. Check your VIN with NHTSA or your manufacturer's dealer to confirm whether a recall affects your vehicle.
Check a VIN on NHTSA.govAIR BAGS:FRONTAL:PASSENGER SIDE:INFLATOR MODULE
AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:PASSENGER SIDE:INFLATOR MODULE
Safety investigations
NHTSA inquiries naming this vehicle. An investigation is not a finding of a defect.
Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
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.
Rear brake line failure
On April 10, 2020, NHTSA's Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) received a defect petition from Mr. Surjit Singh alleging premature corrosion of the rear brake lines in his 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 sedan. The petitioner states that he was recently informed by a Mercedes dealer service department that his car had severely rusted brake lines that need[ed] to be replaced immediately at a cost of about $3300. He further stated that the dealer service advisor informed him that he had seen the issue on many cars like his. The petitioner requested ?that NHTSA launch an investigation into this serious issue of rusting brake lines on [his] 2013 Mercedes E350.? The brake line corrosion reported by the petitioner did not result in brake line leakage or any compromise in brake system performance before it was detected in a dealer vehicle inspection. The petitioner submitted a complaint to NHTSA documenting his experience (NHTSA ID 11319024).On April 24, 2020, ODI opened Defect Petition DP20-004 to evaluate the petitioner?s request. ODI conducted a search for all consumer complaints and Early Warning Reporting (EWR) data related to allegations of brake line corrosion or leakage in 2013 Mercedes-Benz E350 sedans and similarly equipped vehicles. The 2013 E350 is a fourth-generation Mercedes-Benz E-Class vehicle (W212 platform), which was first sold in the United States in 2009 as a 2010 model. Mercedes-Benz sold approximately 245 thousand model year 2010 through 2015 E-Class sedan and wagon vehicles in the United States with the same brake line design as the petitioner?s vehicle.ODI?s search for complaints and EWR data in 2013 Mercedes E350 vehicles found no additional records related to the alleged defect. Expanding the search to all W212 platform vehicles identified just one incident, a complaint alleging unspecified brake line corrosion and leakage in a 2011 Mercedes-Benz E550 (NHTSA ID 10902081). The complaint did not allege that the brake line leakage resulted in reduced brake performance, crash, or injury. The resulting failure rate of 0.4 failures per hundred thousand vehicles is extremely low for a population that includes vehicles that have been in service for over ten years. After reviewing the available data, ODI has not identified evidence of a defect trend in the subject E-Class vehicles that would support opening a defect investigation into premature brake line corrosion failure. NHTSA is authorized to issue an order requiring notification and remedy of a defect if the Agency?s investigation shows a defect in design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle that presents an unreasonable risk to safety. 49 U.S.C. ?? 30102(a)(9), 30118. Since the information before the Agency is not indicative of a vehicle-based defect, it is unlikely that any investigation opened because of granting this petition would result in an order concerning the notification and remedy of a safety-related defect. Therefore, upon full consideration of the information presented in the petition and the potential risks to safety, the petition is denied. The denial of this petition does not foreclose the Agency from taking further action if warranted or the potential for a future finding that a safety-related defect exists based upon additional information the agency may receive.A Federal Register notice further detailing NHTSA?s reasons for denial of the petition will be forthcoming.
Recent owner complaints
Reports submitted to NHTSA, shown in the owner's own words
I am writing to formally submit a complaint regarding my 2010 E350 (VIN # [XXX] ). I have taken great pride in owning and maintaining this vehicle, and I want to share my concerns based on my recent experience. I have consistently kept this car well-maintained, following all recommended service schedules and ensuring that any necessary repairs were handled promptly. Up until now, I have not experienced any significant issues with the vehicle. It has been reliable, well cared for, and in excellent condition. Recently, when the brake line indicator came on, I immediately took the vehicle to a mechanic to have it inspected. I was informed that the brake fluid reservoir was empty and that there was a leak present. Upon further inspection, the mechanic identified that the leak was coming from the rear of the vehicle. It was then determined that the issue involved the rear brake line located near the gas tank. This is extremely concerning, not only because it directly impacts the safety of the vehicle, but also because, based on the research I have conducted, this appears to be a common issue with this particular model. Given that this is a critical safety component, it is troubling that such a failure would occur despite the vehicle being properly maintained. Based on what I have researched, I feel that I have a valid complaint. This does not seem to be the result of neglect or lack of care, but rather a potential defect or known issue associated with this vehicle. As an owner who has taken every step to properly maintain and care for this car, it is both frustrating and disappointing to now be dealing with such a serious problem. I am requesting that this matter be reviewed thoroughly and that an appropriate resolution be provided. I believe it is reasonable to expect accountability for an issue that appears to be both common and safety-related. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. I look forward to your response and a fair resolution. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
- NHTSA ID
- 11730465
- Incident
- Mar 10, 2026
All of sudden blind spot inoperable , turning signal to Rt. , signal goes LT. OR TURNING SIGNAL TO LT. , SIGNAL GOES To RT.
- NHTSA ID
- 11718667
- Incident
- Nov 15, 2025
Car was found to have the rear subframe corrosion for issue. But also the brake lines were corroded very badly. They should be covered under the rear subframe extended warranty replacement. The rear brake lines are an frequent issue and almost always shows up when the subframe begins to rot. Also the pattern of the corrosion seems to be consistent across multiple incidents. Look at photos I uploaded and the Reddit post; identical. Look at this post from Reddit, almost identical corrosion on the rear brake lines as mine. Furthermore, it always is the rear brake lines, almost never the front. This is a manufacturer issue that needs to be looking into. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- NHTSA ID
- 11711970
- Incident
- Jan 19, 2026
It seems like brake lines corroded and need to be replaced. Same issue in this car with subframe and that was taken care of by the extended warranty but brake lines were not part of extended warranty? That should be investigated further. Rear subframe rust out and brake line corrosion are obviously related but Mercedes is only addressing subframe. Why? A lot of people have this issue and it's a huge safety concern.
- NHTSA ID
- 11701296
- Incident
- Nov 24, 2025
while driving once I start braking once the car is around 3mph it shifts from drive into Park and abruptly comes to a stop. Sometimes I am able to put it back into Drive sometimes I have to turn the car off and reinsert the key just to get it back into drive. Normally happens after an hour or so of driving the when I try to come to a complete stop the car will automatically shift into park. This is very dangerous as it can ruin the transmission also the person driving behind me can run into the back of my car. Is there any recall for this issue
- NHTSA ID
- 11700592
- Incident
- Nov 18, 2025
My brakes failed, the rear brake lines had corroded.
- NHTSA ID
- 11689329
- Incident
- Sep 24, 2025
fast acceleration then slow down goes into limp mode . happens when passing a car or taking off fast like entering into traffic . very dangerous. will be calling mercedes benz tomorrow. bought car used approximately 4 months ago. thanks
- NHTSA ID
- 11676061
- Incident
- Jul 24, 2025
My brakes went out while I was driving my family on a road trip. After getting towed I inspected the brake lines and they are absolutely destroyed. This is clearly a design flaw by Mercedes. This needs to be recalled. You have to drop the rear subframe to repair this. Absolutely ridiculous.
- NHTSA ID
- 11674517
- Incident
- Jul 17, 2025
Manufacturer communications
A bulletin sent by a manufacturer to its dealers. Not a recall, and repairs are not necessarily free.
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).
STRUCTURE:BODY
Complaint The underfloor paneling is loose or sags (picture 1). Cause Mounting clips broken or not correctly engaged. Remedy Replace all mounting clips with collar nuts with shims (picture 2): Adapter set (203 589 02 31 00) is required to perform the work. The underfloor paneling does not have to be removed. 1. Loosen all mounting clips. Use a 13 mm socket for this (picture 3). 2. Unscrew all mounting clips. • During spraying, the underfloor paneling must be pressed upwards against the vehicle underfloor. 4. Install a spacer washer on each threaded pin between underbody and underbody paneling. • Each time, carefully lift the underfloor paneling from the underfloor (picture 5). • During installation, ensure that the side with the engagement lobes points downwards. • After installation, the spacer washer must be in full contact with the underfloor (picture 6). Information: The spacer washers prevent the underbody paneling from coming into contact with the vehicle underbody, thus preventing possible corrosion effects 5. Install collar nuts. Information: The threaded pin does not extend beyond the collar nut due to its length (picture 7).
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM
Complaint After successful commissioning of the HERMES control unit (N112/9) with XENTRY Diagnosis DVD 03/2026, the message "SOS - service not activated" appears on the instrument cluster. In addition, the following two conditions are also met: • HERMES (N112/9) control unit: event code B15CE00 is ACTIVE and STORED (A+S) • Vehicle Documentation System: For the HERMES control unit, the EID1, EID2, ICCID, IMEI, IMSI, TELNR fields in the "Identification/Serial number" column have the value "-" Cause Still under analysis Remedy Recommission the HERMES control unit (N112/9) with XENTRY Diagnosis 03/2026 and add-on 33399 installed or carry out the procedure with a newer version of XENTRY Diagnosis: XENTRY→ "N112/9 - Control unit for telematics services (HERMES)" -> "Adaptations" -> "Control unit commissioning" -> "Commissioning of previously installed control unit"
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).
SUSPENSION
Complaint Potential corrosion on the rear axle carrier Cause Due to market-specific conditions such as moisture, ingress of dirt and/or environmental influences, corrosion can occur on the rear axle carrier Remedy In the event of a complaint, the optimized repair method must be used when replacing the rear axle carrier. The repair method for the respective model series can be found in the attachment. Repair packages are available in Xentry Repair Packages for the special processing of rear axle carriers Note: Please utilize flexible wand (319-SAT1058826) along with the Cavity Preservation Gun (W 000 588 03 72 00) for cavity wax application to improve coverage and reduces labor efforts. The flexible wand may be obtained through the Mercedes-Benz Standard Service Equipment Program website.
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.
Compare model years
Complaint and recall counts across every year of this model
| Year | Complaints | Recalls | Investigations | Issue Index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 1 | 1 | 0 | — |
| 2025 | 2 | 2 | 0 | — |
| 2024 | 5 | 4 | 0 | — |
| 2023 | 5 | 3 | 0 | — |
| 2022 | 8 | 3 | 0 | — |
| 2021 | 13 | 12 | 0 | 58.9 |
| 2020 | 8 | 6 | 0 | — |
| 2017 | 7 | 0 | 1 | — |
| 2016 | 51 | 5 | 1 | 62.9 |
| 2015 | 31 | 6 | 2 | 61.7 |
| 2014 | 277 | 8 | 2 | 65.1 |
| 2013 | 161 | 6 | 2 | 63.3 |
| 2012 | 215 | 7 | 2 | 58.8 |
| 2011 | 223 | 5 | 2 | 59.0 |
| 2010Viewing | 183 | 4 | 2 | 57.9 |
| 2009 | 64 | 4 | 0 | 55.6 |
| 2008 | 173 | 4 | 1 | 60.3 |
| 2007 | 349 | 5 | 1 | 55.5 |
| 2006 | 398 | 4 | 2 | 57.5 |
| 2005 | 15 | 0 | 1 | 42.2 |
| 2004 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 30.7 |
| 2003 | 7 | 0 | 0 | — |
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.