← New search

1996 Mercedes Benz E320

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1996 Mercedes Benz E320 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 42.5.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all E320 years →

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

What owners reported most

All reported categories

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

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

29 reports with mileage · 16 unknown

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.

  • Suspension. Review the 19 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 12 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

6 crash reports3 fire reports2 injury reports

Suspension complaints

19 reports
Clear category filter
110,000 miles · Jun 22, 2006
Suspension

HIGHWAY DRIVING 45-50 MPH WHEN THERE IS A LOUD CLUNK FROM UNDERNEATH CAR FOLLOWED BY A SLIGHT LOSS OF HANDLING LOOKED IN REARVIEW MIRROR AND SAW A SPRING LYING IN THE STREET. UPON STOPPING TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE AND RETRIEVE THE SPRING I NOTICED THE DRIVERS SIDE FRONT WAS VERY LOW. I LOOKED UNDERNEATH THE CAR AND SAW WHAT APPEAR…

Read full complaint

HIGHWAY DRIVING 45-50 MPH WHEN THERE IS A LOUD CLUNK FROM UNDERNEATH CAR FOLLOWED BY A SLIGHT LOSS OF HANDLING LOOKED IN REARVIEW MIRROR AND SAW A SPRING LYING IN THE STREET. UPON STOPPING TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE AND RETRIEVE THE SPRING I NOTICED THE DRIVERS SIDE FRONT WAS VERY LOW. I LOOKED UNDERNEATH THE CAR AND SAW WHAT APPEARED TO BE A RUSTY MANGLED CAN. COME TO FIND OUT IT WAS THE SPRING TOP MOUNT AND IT HAD RUSTED COMPLETELY AWAY FROM THE FRAME. HAD TO HAVE VEHICLE TOWED OVER 60 MILES AWAY TO HAVE REPAIRED. HAD TO HAVE PARTS RE-WELDED AND FABRICATED AT THE SHOP TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10160418

Mileage unknown · May 12, 2005
Suspension

CORRODED DRIVER SIDE SPRING HOUSING ON 1996 E320 MERCEDES BENZ. CORRODED TO THE EXTENT THAT IT SPRING COULD HAVE DISLARGED. REPORTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN OTHER LOCALS THAT THIS HAS OCCURED. MANUFACTURER CONTACTED AND INVESTIGATING, BUT HASN'T RECALLED PART.

NHTSA ODI #10120738

63,999 miles · Mar 30, 2005
Suspension

FRONT COIL SPRING TOP SUPPORT CORRODED AND BROKE AWAY FROM THE BODY. WHEN DRIVING VEHICLE BECAME UNSTABLE. CURRENTLY VEHICLE CANNOT BE DRIVEN. *AK CONSUMER HEARD THAT THIS WAS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH THE 1996 E CLASS MERCEDES . *BF

NHTSA ODI #10113489

44,000 miles · Oct 29, 2004
Suspension

THE CONSUMER WAS PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND HIT THE BRAKES. THE CONSUMER GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND DISCOVERED THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE VEHICLE HAD DROPPED DOWN TO THE GROUND. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT 3 SPOT WELDS HAD FAILED. THE CONSUMER NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A REPAIR KIT FOR THIS PROBL…

Read full complaint

THE CONSUMER WAS PULLING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND HIT THE BRAKES. THE CONSUMER GOT OUT OF THE VEHICLE AND DISCOVERED THAT THE SUSPENSION OF THE VEHICLE HAD DROPPED DOWN TO THE GROUND. IT WAS ALSO DISCOVERED THAT 3 SPOT WELDS HAD FAILED. THE CONSUMER NOTIFIED THE MANUFACTURER AND WAS TOLD THAT THERE WAS A REPAIR KIT FOR THIS PROBLEM. PROVIDE FURTHER DETAILS. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10099066

70,000 miles · Mar 25, 2004
Suspension

WHILE BACKING OUT OF THE DRIVE WAY, THE CONSUMER HEARD A LOUD THUMP COMING FROM THE FRONT OF THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A MECHANIC WHO FOUND THE FRONT SUSPENSION HAD BROKEN AWAY FROM THE CHASSIS. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10064928

Mileage unknown · Jul 7, 2003
Suspension

CONSUMER STATES THEATFRONT SUSPENSION IS RUSTED, ALL SUSPENSION BRACKETS COLLAPSED. DEALER NOTIFIED. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10026689

61,000 miles · Jun 26, 2003
Suspension

WHILE DRIVING THE FRONT LEFT COIL SPRING FAILED. *JB THE COIL SPRING FAILURE CAUSED THE CONSUMER TO LOSE CONTROL OF THE VEHICLE.*TS *JB

NHTSA ODI #10020155

Mileage unknown · Mar 8, 2002
Suspension

THERE IS A BOLT THAT DISCONNECTS FROM THE FRAME OF VEHICLE, CAUSING SOME NOISE. BOLT DIS ONNECTS FROM WAY BAR MOUNT. *AK

NHTSA ODI #8005238

Mileage unknown · Oct 10, 2001
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine CoolingEquipment

THE FRONT LEFT UPPER SPRING SUPPORT BRACKET RUSTED AND BENT UNDER NORMAL DAILY DRIVING CONDITIONS, THIS ALLOWED THE SPRING TO BECOME PARTIALLY EXPOSED. *SLC

NHTSA ODI #563647

Official recalls

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 ↗

NHTSA investigations

1

PE07021 · Front Suspension Coil Spring Ejection

Opened Apr 19, 2007 · Closed Aug 9, 2007

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Suspension:front:springs:coil Springs

ODI HAS FOCUSED THIS INVESTIGATION ON ASSESSING THE RISKS POSED BY A SEPARATED SPRING AS (1) A ROAD HAZARD AND (2) THE POTENTIAL FOR VEHICLE CONTROL TO BE COMPROMISED AFTER THE FRONT COIL SPRING HAS BEEN EJECTED FROM ITS INTENDED POSITION IN THE VEHICLE.BOTH RISKS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CORROSION, FLEXING, AND FRACTURE OF THE UPPER FRONT SUSPENSION MOUNTING BRACKET.TIME-IN-SERVICE FAILURE RATES ARE NOTABLY HIGHER IN SALT BELT STATES SINCE CORROSION IS A PRIMARY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FAILURE MODE.SINCE A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED, ODI IS SKEPTICAL THAT OWNERS CAN ALWAYS DETECT THE SUBTLE SIDE TO SIDE DIFFERENCE IN RIDE HEIGHT AND/OR INSPECT OR NOTICE THAT THE UPPER SUSPENSION BRACKET HAS BEEN COMPROMISED BY CORROSION.(1) ROAD HAZARD - ALTHOUGH THE (APPROX. 7 LB.) FRONT SUSPENSION SPRING THAT MAY BE EJECTED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS COULD POSE A SERIOUS ROAD HAZARD TO PEDESTRIANS AND OTHER VEHICLES, THE OCCURRENCE RATE HAS BEEN LOW (.03% BASED ON 51 REPORTED INCIDENTS OCCURRING AND AN INITIAL POPULATION OF 172,781 VEHICLES AFTER 9 - 12 YEARS OF USE / EXPOSURE) AND THERE ARE NO KNOWN INJURIES, FATALITIES, OR PROPERTY DAMAGE REPORTS DUE TO AN EJECTED SPRING.ALSO, MANY OF THE 51 INCIDENTS OCCURRED AT LOW SPEED OR WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS STOPPED OR PARKED.(2) VEHICLE CONTROL - VEHICLE HANDLING AND CONTROL COULD BE AFFECTED BY THE FRACTURE OF THE UPPER SUSPENSION MOUNT AND/OR THE ASSOCIATED SPRING EJECTION.ODI FIRST IDENTIFIED ITS CONCERN ABOUT CORROSION IN THE UPPER SUSPENSION BRACKET OF SUBJECT VEHICLES IN 2002, AT WHICH TIME MERCEDES PROVIDED A VIDEO THAT SHOWED THAT A VEHICLE COULD BE STEERED, STOPPED, AND CONTROLLED THROUGH VARIOUS MANEUVERS AT HIGH SPEEDS WITH A FRONT COIL SPRING COMPLETELY MISSING FROM THE VEHICLE. DURING PE07-021, IN ADDITION TO REVIEWING THE 2002 VIDEO-TAPE, ODI ENGINEERS DROVE AN EXEMPLAR VEHICLE WITH THE SPRING REMOVED AND SIMULATED VARIOUS COMBINATIONS OF STEERING ANGLES TO ASSESS WHETHER THERE WERE ANY POSSIBLE CONDITIONS / DISPLACEMENTS IN WHICH THE SEPARATED SPRING MIGHT INTERFERE WITH THE WHEELS. IN A VEHICLE WITH THE FRONT SPRING REMOVED, THE TOP OF THE WHEEL CAN LIGHTLY CONTACT THE BOTTOM AREA OF THE WHEEL FENDER DURING HIGH ANGLE TURNS TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH SLOWER SPEED MANEUVERS SUCH AS CITY DRIVING. THE LIGHT TIRE CONTACT GENERATED AN OBVIOUS GRINDING NOISE AND WOULD LIKELY ABRADE OR BEND THE EDGE OF THE FENDER WITH CONTINUED USE.HOWEVER, THE EXTENT OF THE INTERFERENCE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO AFFECT VEHICLE STEERING AND DOES NOT OCCUR AT SMALLER TURNING ANGLES ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHWAY DRIVING.ODI HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT TREND AT THIS TIME.FURTHER USE OF AGENCY RESOURCES DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE WARRANTED.ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION IS CLOSED.THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING THAT A SAFETY RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF FUTURE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT.