2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 4MATIC Problems

I am reporting a serious and potentially dangerous safety defect involving the panoramic sunroof on my 2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450. While my wife was driving the vehicle southbound on [XXX] at approximately 6:30 AM, the panoramic sunroof suddenly and catastrophically exploded/blow out without warning. The vehicle was traveling approximately 63 MPH in a 65 MPH zone. Weather conditions were clear to partly cloudy, with a temperature of approximately 62°F. At the time of the incident, the panoramic sunroof was fully closed and the interior sunshade was open . There was no known impact, collision, road debris, hail, vandalism, or other event that could have caused the glass to break. No impact sound or object striking the roof was observed before the glass failed. The glass appears to have failed suddenly and under pressure the spontaneous, pressurized blowout forced the initial blast upward and outward onto the freeway. The shattered glass remaining in the frame then fell downward into into the vehicle and onto my wife's head and creating an immediate safety hazard for the driver. A spontaneous panoramic glass roof failure at highway speed could cause driver distraction, impaired visibility, loss of vehicle control, and serious injury. The vehicle was taken to an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership for inspection. I have also reported the incident to Mercedes-Benz USA and have an open customer-care case regarding the matter. I am requesting that NHTSA investigate this incident and determine whether the panoramic sunroof/glass assembly on the 2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE 450 presents a safety defect or pattern of premature/spontaneous failure. I believe this incident should be documented and investigated before a similar failure results in serious injury or a highway crash. I can provide photographs, dealership documentation, Mercedes-Benz correspondence, and additional information regarding the incident upon request. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

Since shortly after the vehicle's purchase, I have experienced a persistent, recurring, and unresolved defect in the vehicle's brake hydraulic system. Specifically, after the vehicle has been stationary at a traffic light or stop for a period of time with the brake pedal depressed, the brake pedal progressively sinks and travels to the floor under steady foot pressure, causing the vehicle to roll forward against my intent. This condition occurs under normal static brake application — not during active braking maneuvers. Normal braking function appears unaffected during active driving, but the pedal sink and fade condition under sustained static pressure constitutes a loss of hydraulic brake holding force that creates an immediate and serious risk of collision.

The contact owns a 2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE450 4-Matic. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the heads-up display was continuously flashing and failed to operate as designed. The contact stated that the failure had occurred two days after purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with a dashboard mat coating failure. The dealer informed the contact that the failure was an engineering failure, and only the engineers could repair the vehicle. The dealer met with the engineers and was informed that the vehicle could be repaired in the first quarter of 2026. The contact stated that the failure persisted for a year. The contact had previously purchased a similar vehicle that the manufacturer had repurchased under the Lemon Law due to the same failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 75.

The contact owns a 2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE450 4-Matic. The contact stated that while driving at various speeds, the heads-up display was continuously flashing and failed to operate as designed. The contact stated that the failure had occurred two days after purchasing the vehicle. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where it was diagnosed with a dashboard mat coating failure. The dealer informed the contact that the failure was an engineering failure, and only the engineers could repair the vehicle. The dealer met with the engineers and was informed that the vehicle could be repaired in the first quarter of 2026. The contact stated that the failure persisted for a year. The contact had previously purchased a similar vehicle that the manufacturer had repurchased under the Lemon Law due to the same failure. The vehicle was not repaired. The failure mileage was approximately 75.

The turn signal flasher sound is so low that it is practically inaudible while driving and sometimes left on without notice. This confuses the cars from behind. Even worse, it confuses cars at the opposite direction in city driving. I have had a couple of incidents at busy intersection that the opposite direction car drivers thought I want to make a left turn but really not. The situation is getting more dangerous on highway driving. With the turn signal left on without hearing the audible sound, cars from behind would think that I want to change lane. Some good drivers would slow down but some aggressive drivers would speed up and pass at very high speed. One would ask the turn signal lights should be flashing. Yes, it is but its position are at the top corners on the dashboard and blocked by the steering wheel. Most of the time I would stay focused on the road rather than looking at the dashboard. I had complained this to the Mercedes dealer at Princeton NJ as well as Mercedes itself in NJ but they said that it is designed as is and the volume of the turn signal cannot be adjusted.

The contact owns a 2025 Mercedes-Benz GLE450 4Matic equipped with Michelin Tires, Tire Line: Primacy Tour AS, Tire Size: 275/50/R20, DOT Number: 1B9RF011X0925. While the contact's wife was driving 55 MPH, the vehicle drove over a speed bump and the rear tires jumped away from the vehicle 10–12 inches. The vehicle was taken to the dealer. The contact was informed that the issue was normal for the vehicle. The contact was informed that there was no fix for the vehicle. The contact stated that the vehicle was a safety hazard. The manufacturer was made aware of the failure, and a case was filed. The contact requested a vehicle buyback, which was denied. The failure mileage was approximately 15.