1998 Mercedes Benz E320

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1998 Mercedes Benz E320 do not stand out strongly from the model-year median of 42.5.

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 →

37Owner complaints

Model-year median: 42.5

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

1998 Mercedes Benz E320

NHTSA snapshot: September 18, 2026. 37 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)

Engine And Engine Cooling: 8 reports
Suspension: 7 reports
Structure: 5 reports
Equipment: 4 reports
Unknown Or Other: 4 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

Compare all E320 years →

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

What owners reported most

Engine And Engine Cooling

All reported categories

1 Fuel/propulsion System

1 Service Brakes

1 Service Brakes, Hydraulic

1 Steering

1 Vehicle Speed Control

1 Wheels

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

When problems were reported

Mileage at the reported incident

0–25K

25–50K

50–75K

75–100K

100–150K

150K+

20 reports with mileage · 17 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.

Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Suspension. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
Structure. 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.

3 crash reports0 fire reports4 injury reports

Wheels complaints

1 reports

Clear category filter

169,900 miles · Aug 7, 2017

Wheels

Read full complaint

I HAVE PRIMEWELL VALERA TOURING 2 TIRES AND THE FRONT DRIVER'S SIDE DEVELOPED A SIDEWALL BULGE WHEN I WAS REVERSING INTO MY DRIVEWAY. THE SAME FAMILY OF TIRES HAVE A RECALL, AND WHILE MY SET ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECALL, I HAVE THE SAME OR SIMILAR PROBLEMS. IT APPEARS THAT THE BULGE WAS DUE TO MANUFACTURER'S DEFECT (PER MY MECHANIC) AND I WAS TOLD THAT THE TIRE IS UNSAFE TO RIDE ON, SO I AM USING THE FULL SPARE AT THE MOMENT. I CONTACTED THE MANUFACTURER , GITI TIRES, AND THEY DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. THE TIRE IS PRIMEWELL VALERA TOURING 2, 215/55/16, DOT NUMBER IS Y9JM CLHX 1515.

NHTSA ODI #11013452

Recall campaigns

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

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.

PE03058 · Engine Crankshaft Pulley Failure

Opened Dec 17, 2003 · Closed Apr 22, 2004

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling:engine:gasoline:belts And Associated Pulleys

THE OFFICE OF DEFECTS INVESTIGATION (ODI) OPENED THIS PRELIMINARY EVALUATION TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGATIONS OF ENGINE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY HARMONIC BALANCER FAILURE THAT COULD RESULT IN LOSS OF POWER-STEERING ASSIST.ODI HAS RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 546 NON-DUPLICATIVE REPORTS THAT ALLEGE ENGINE CRANKSHAFT PULLEY HARMONIC BALANCER FAILURE ON ALL MERCEDES-BENZ VEHICLES USING THE SUBJECT COMPONENT.THE SUBJECT COMPONENT FAILURES ARE PROGRESSIVE IN NATURE AND ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE COMPLAINTS AND WARRANT CLAIMS INVOLVED A FAILURE THAT HAD PROGRESSED FAR ENOUGH TO EFFECT POWER STEERING PERFORMANCE (6 OF 55 ODI COMPLAINTS REFERENCE INCREASED STEERING EFFORT).THERE HAVE BEEN NO CRASHES OR INJURIES RELATED TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT.A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED AT THIS TIME AND 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 BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST.THE AGENCY WILL TAKE FURTHER ACTION IF WARRANTED BY THE CIRCUMSTANCES.SEE SUMMARY REPORT ATTACHED FOR FURTHER DETAIL.

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