← New search

1997 Mercedes Benz E320

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1997 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

43 reports with mileage · 20 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 32 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Seat Belts. Review the 10 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

4 crash reports3 fire reports7 injury reports

Suspension complaints

32 reports
Clear category filter
150,000 miles · Mar 26, 2006
Suspension

DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH AND THE FRAME JUST DROPPED. THE DRIVE FELT LIKE I HAD ALL FLAT TIRES. IF I WAS TRAVELING AT AN INCREASED SPEED, I WOULD HAVE CRASHED. LATER I WAS INFORMED THAT THE SPRING PERCH RUSTED FROM THE INSIDE-OUT. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH 1997 E320 MERCEDES AND NO ONE WILL ISSUE A RECALL UNTIL A F…

Read full complaint

DRIVING AT APPROXIMATELY 40 MPH AND THE FRAME JUST DROPPED. THE DRIVE FELT LIKE I HAD ALL FLAT TIRES. IF I WAS TRAVELING AT AN INCREASED SPEED, I WOULD HAVE CRASHED. LATER I WAS INFORMED THAT THE SPRING PERCH RUSTED FROM THE INSIDE-OUT. THIS IS A COMMON PROBLEM WITH 1997 E320 MERCEDES AND NO ONE WILL ISSUE A RECALL UNTIL A FAMILY DIES. THE DEALERSHIP TRANSFERRED MY CAR TO THE BODY REPAIR SHOP AND PAID HALF OF THE COST. SOMEONE NEEDS TO MAKE AN EXECUTIVE DECISION AND ISSUE A RECALL.*JB

NHTSA ODI #10153750

169,800 miles · Mar 15, 2006
Suspension

DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH THE FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING DETACHED. THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN TO THE DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY REPLACED THE LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING BRACKET, LEFT FRONT BODY APRON, LEFT FRONT COIL SPRING, AND RESTORED CORROSION PROTECTION.

NHTSA ODI #10152811

116,300 miles · Mar 12, 2006
Suspension

THE SPRING SUPPORT OR CUP IN THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL WELL BROKE AWAY CAUSING A TREMENDOUSLY BIG NOISE. THIS APPARENTLY WAS CAUSED BY MERCEDES NOT USING A HIGH QUALITY SEALANT ALLOWING WATER TO GET INTO THE WELDS. CORROSION AND FAILURE FOLLOWED. I HAVE READ THAT THIS COMMON IS COMMON AMONGST 300 CLASS CARS AND THAT THERE IS A CL…

Read full complaint

THE SPRING SUPPORT OR CUP IN THE FRONT RIGHT WHEEL WELL BROKE AWAY CAUSING A TREMENDOUSLY BIG NOISE. THIS APPARENTLY WAS CAUSED BY MERCEDES NOT USING A HIGH QUALITY SEALANT ALLOWING WATER TO GET INTO THE WELDS. CORROSION AND FAILURE FOLLOWED. I HAVE READ THAT THIS COMMON IS COMMON AMONGST 300 CLASS CARS AND THAT THERE IS A CLASS ACTION SUIT BEING PURSUED IN CANADA. *JB

NHTSA ODI #10152503

Mileage unknown · Jul 20, 2004
StructureSuspensionInjury

WHILE I WAS DRIVING ONE OF THE CHASSIS IS BROKEN AND THE SPRING DISLOCATED AND LOST. THEN THE SHOCKS DAMAGED AND THE FENDER BEGAN TO HIT ON THE FLOOR. *LA

NHTSA ODI #10082252

80,000 miles · Jun 2, 2004
Suspension

WHILE VEHICLE WAS PARKED CONSUMER HEARD THE FRONT SPRINGS SNAP. CONSUMER HAD THE VEHICLE TOWED. DEALERSHIP REPAIRED THE PROBLEM ONCE, BUT PROBLEM RECURRED. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10075556

96,500 miles · Aug 22, 2003
Suspension

THE LEFT AND RIGHT SUSPENSION SPRINGS WERE RUSTED.*MR *TS *JB

NHTSA ODI #10037747

98,000 miles · Jul 29, 2003
Suspension

WHILE DRIVING UPPER SPRING MOUNT DETACHED AND THE SPRING ASSEMBLY FELL ONTO THE PAVEMENT. THIS RESULTED IN FRONT END FAILURE, WHICH ALMOST CAUSED LOSS OF CONTROL. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10031324

Mileage unknown · Jan 8, 2003
Suspension

THE FRONT RIGHT COIL SPRING MOUNT RUSTED OUT, CAUSING THE COIL SPRING TO COME OFF AND THE FRNT END TO DROP TO THE GROUND. *TT *NLM

NHTSA ODI #10001579

Mileage unknown · Dec 26, 2002
Suspension

CONSUMER STATED THE RIGHT FRONT COIL SPRING MOUNT COLLAPSED DUE TO RUSTING OUT, CAUSING THE VEHICLE TO DROP TO THE GROUND.*JB

NHTSA ODI #568458

Mileage unknown · Jul 9, 2001
Suspension

THE SPRING SUPPORT TOWER IN THE FRONT RIGHT BROKE AWAY FROM THE BODY OF THE VEHICLE CAUSING A LOUD NOISE FROM THE RIGHT FRONT TIRE AREA, THE DEALER ONLY AGREED TO PAY 50% OF THE BILL BECAUSE THE WARRANTY EXPIRED THREE WEEKS BEFORE THE INCIDENT. NLM

NHTSA ODI #561949

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.