COMMUNICATION
2015 Mercedes-Benz E350
Recalls, owner-reported complaints, investigations and safety data
Data refreshed
Overview
Our database contains 31 NHTSA owner-reported complaints for the 2015 Mercedes-Benz E350, most frequently naming the steering, electrical and brakes categories. 6 safety recalls have been issued covering this model year; 2 NHTSA investigations name it; and 123 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 |
|---|---|---|
| Jul 2015 | 1 | 1 |
| Sep 2015 | 1 | 2 |
| Dec 2015 | 1 | 3 |
| Feb 2016 | 1 | 4 |
| Jun 2016 | 1 | 5 |
| Jan 2018 | 1 | 6 |
| Mar 2018 | 1 | 7 |
| Jun 2018 | 1 | 8 |
| Aug 2019 | 1 | 9 |
| Sep 2019 | 1 | 10 |
| Jan 2020 | 2 | 12 |
| Jul 2020 | 2 | 14 |
| Sep 2020 | 1 | 15 |
| Jan 2022 | 1 | 16 |
| Oct 2022 | 1 | 17 |
| Dec 2022 | 1 | 18 |
| Jan 2023 | 1 | 19 |
| Mar 2023 | 1 | 20 |
| Apr 2023 | 1 | 21 |
| May 2023 | 1 | 22 |
| Sep 2023 | 1 | 23 |
| Oct 2023 | 1 | 24 |
| Dec 2023 | 1 | 25 |
| Jul 2024 | 1 | 26 |
| Jun 2025 | 2 | 28 |
| Dec 2025 | 1 | 29 |
| Feb 2026 | 1 | 30 |
| Apr 2026 | 1 | 31 |
What owners report
Complaints grouped by the component NHTSA recorded
- Steering513.5%
- Electrical513.5%
- Brakes410.8%
- Body & structure410.8%
- Other / unspecified38.1%
- Driver assistance38.1%
- Visibility25.4%
- Engine25.4%
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
6 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
AIR BAGS:FRONTAL:SENSOR/CONTROL MODULE-INACTIVE; ELECTRICAL SYSTEM:SOFTWARE
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
NHTSA Complaint Vehicle: 2015 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Gas Fuel Pump Filter Housing Defective Know Manufacture defect -Fuel pooling under rear seat causing fumes in cabin. Health and fire risk. Request investigation and recall/Safety consideration. -Service Center inspection Video Confirmation -Requested Goodwill and Repair by Manufacturer Senior Advisor who corresponded with the Service Manager -No warning lamps, smell of gas for few weeks and unaware it was from the gas under the back seat. -Towed to Local Mercedes Dealer on March 25. Drivable-Fumes very Strong.
- NHTSA ID
- 11729767
- Incident
- Mar 25, 2026
2015 E3350 SMELLS GAS INSIDE CABIN, A MECHANIC DETECTED A FUEL LEAK IN THE ELECTRIC PUMP THAT IS LOCATED BEHIND THE DRIVERS SEAT. 70000 MILES NO WARNING LIGHTS
- NHTSA ID
- 11715876
- Incident
- Jan 8, 2026
The contact owns a 2015 Mercedes-Benz E350. The contact stated that while his daughter was driving at various speeds, the steering wheel became difficult to steer in either direction. No warning light was illuminated. The local dealer was contacted; however, the vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact related the failure NHTSA Campaign: 16V899000(Steering); however, the VIN was not included. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure and referred the contact to the NHTSA Hotline for assistance. The failure mileage was approximately 77,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11707570
- Incident
- Dec 26, 2025
- Mileage
- 77,000 mi
On [XXX] I went out and started my car and it said. Power steering was my function so I turned it off and tried it again. And it said the same thing. Power steering malfunction read the owner's menu which I did is said if you can steal it. Drive it to the nearest dealership. You can't park it Well, it was already parked in my driveway. So on June 13th. I had a toll to Feldmann Import in Bloomington MN I hate to think of what would happen if I was driving. Could it cause an accident? They confirmed that it was a problem with the stirring call at first I thought it was a leak. Turns it off that This is electrical steroid. The electronics on this during column went out. The report said it was no can message was received from the unit in 68. VS steering control unit. There was no warning that the power Stern was going to go out. I did have a engine light on, but that was due because of my. Rare radar's being out. That's the best way I can explain it. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
- NHTSA ID
- 11669739
- Incident
- Jun 10, 2025
Rear brake lines rusted out on top of rear subframe which is rusting out and caused immediate brake failure . Our lives and the lives of other were at risk because we were driving on highway and suddenly brakes went to floor and had complete loss of brakes There were no prior warnings no way to prevent this ...i see there is a recall on the subframe but not on the brake lines even though ive now read of this happening to many people
- NHTSA ID
- 11665460
- Incident
- Jun 6, 2025
I had a brake line blowout in my 2015 Benz E350 rear brake line blowout. The rear lines were complete rusted out.
- NHTSA ID
- 11601998
- Incident
- Jul 12, 2024
The contact owns a 2015 Mercedes-Benz E350. The contact stated while driving at various speeds, the vehicle made abnormally loud cracking sounds. The contact stated that the failure mostly occurred while turning, driving over a bump in the roadway, and while driving on a steep roadway. An independent mechanic inspected the vehicle and determined that the abnormal sound was coming from the sunroof. The vehicle was not repaired. The contact related the failure to an unknown recall. The dealer and the manufacturer were not notified of the failure. The failure mileage was approximately 112,000.
- NHTSA ID
- 11557862
- Incident
- Jun 1, 2023
- Mileage
- 112,000 mi
crankcase ventilation valve continues to fail. I have had it replaced twice in 3 months.
- NHTSA ID
- 11549127
- Incident
- Sep 1, 2023
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).
EXTERIOR LIGHTING
Dear Mercedes-Benz USA Dealers, The part numbers listed in the chart below should no longer be installed, and any existing stock must be returned to your facing PDC. The deadline for all dealer returns is no later than Thursday, July 2, 2026. After July 2nd, returns of these parts will no longer be accepted. These parts should be returned via ZSR Special Return, using item category SCM Authorized Part Return. Please include a copy of this NCU as your authorization to return these parts. This procedure will not affect your return allowance. All returned parts will be replaced in accordance with the chart provided below.
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 |
| 2015Viewing | 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 |
| 2010 | 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.