SkipThatYearREAL DATA. SMARTER CAR DECISIONS.
← New search

2001 Mercedes Benz C Class

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

Counts are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. A lower count does not establish that a car is problem-free.

About this comparison →
14Owner complaints

Model-year median: 8.5

0Recall campaigns

View recall details →

2Investigations

View investigation details →

Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗ Model-level counts do not show whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.

Inspection summary

2001 Mercedes Benz C Class

NHTSA snapshot: September 18, 2026. 14 owner complaints · 0 recall campaigns · 2 investigations.

Counts are not failure probabilities and are not adjusted for sales, age, mileage exposure or reporting. One report may name several categories. Comparison method and limitations.

Top reported categories (up to 5)

  • Electrical System: 4 reports
  • Engine And Engine Cooling: 3 reports
  • Equipment: 2 reports
  • Exterior Lighting: 2 reports
  • Power Train: 2 reports

Full reported-category list and vehicle report

Recall links

    No recall campaigns in this snapshot.

    Check a VIN with NHTSA. Model-level history does not establish whether a particular VIN is affected or repaired.

    Print the top reported categories, recall links, snapshot date and comparison limits.

    How this year compares

    Owner complaints by model year

    Other model years Selected year
    6
    1998    7
    1999    8
    2000    14
    2001    31
    2002    9
    2003    15
    2004
    Compare all C Class years →

    Counts vary with age, sales, mileage exposure and reporting. They are not failure rates.

    What owners reported most

    Electrical System
    4    Engine And Engine Cooling
    3    Equipment
    2    Exterior Lighting
    2    Power Train
    2
    All reported categories
    Visibility
    2    Air Bags
    1    Service Brakes, Hydraulic
    1    Suspension
    1    Unknown Or Other
    1    Vehicle Speed Control
    1    Wheels
    1

    Tap a category to read its complaints. One report may name several components.

    When problems were reported

    Mileage at the reported incident

    Limited mileage data: 10 of 14 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

    NHTSA’s mileage field refers to the reported incident, not necessarily the filing date. This shows report counts, not the likelihood of a failure.

    What to inspect

    Issues worth paying extra attention to based on owner reports.

    • Electrical System. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
    • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
    • Equipment. Review the 2 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

    NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

    0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports

    Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints

    1 reports
    Clear category filter
    17,700 miles · Jan 15, 2004
    Exterior LightingService Brakes, Hydraulic

    AFTER LEAVING MY 2001 CLK320 MERCEDES AT THE DEALERSHIP I WAS NOTIFIED THAT MY BRAKE SYSTEM WAS DEFECTIVE REQUIRING PADS/ROTORS AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT EVERY 1000 MILES OR SO, A LIGHT BULB OR SOMETHING ELECTRICAL WILL FAIL AND I USUALLY FIND THE NEAREST DEALERSHIP AND GET THE PROBLEM FIXED. THE BRAKE SYS…

    Read full complaint

    AFTER LEAVING MY 2001 CLK320 MERCEDES AT THE DEALERSHIP I WAS NOTIFIED THAT MY BRAKE SYSTEM WAS DEFECTIVE REQUIRING PADS/ROTORS AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT EVERY 1000 MILES OR SO, A LIGHT BULB OR SOMETHING ELECTRICAL WILL FAIL AND I USUALLY FIND THE NEAREST DEALERSHIP AND GET THE PROBLEM FIXED. THE BRAKE SYSTEM (WHICH IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY) WAS THE LAST STRAW! WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 50,000 DOLLAR AUTOMOBILE WITH ONLY A LITTLE OVER 17,000 MILES ON IT.

    NHTSA ODI #10071027

    Recall campaigns

    0

    No recalls in this snapshot.

    Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗

    Defect investigations

    2

    DP05007 · Transmission Malfunction

    Opened Nov 7, 2005 · Closed Mar 27, 2006

    Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

    THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

    Additional source detail variants (2)

    Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

    THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

    Power Train:automatic Transmission

    THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

    SQ01010 · Sudden Engine Shut Down

    Opened Sep 25, 2001 · Closed Feb 4, 2002

    Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling

    No summary supplied.

    An investigation is not a finding of a defect, and closure does not prove a vehicle is problem-free.