← New search

1999 Mercedes Benz E320

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Similar to other model years

Owner complaints for the 1999 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

51 reports with mileage · 32 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 18 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Air Bags. Review the 17 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Power Train. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

12 crash reports6 fire reports6 injury reports

Service Brakes, Hydraulic complaints

4 reports
Clear category filter
107,000 miles · Nov 23, 2010
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicVehicle Speed ControlFire

TRANSMISSION WOULD NOT SHIFT OUT OF FIRST GEAR, THE ABS LIGHTS ON AND THE ASR, FUSE NO 2 ON THE K40 MODULE WAS BLOWN AND THERE WERE ALSO CODES INDICATING THAT NO POWER WAS GOING TO THE ASR HYDRAULIC UNIT. THERE WAS NO SIGNAL FROM THE LEFT REAR WHEEL SPEED SENSOR AND THERE WAS A MALFUNCTION IN THE TRANSMISSION GEAR SPEED SENSOR…

Read full complaint

TRANSMISSION WOULD NOT SHIFT OUT OF FIRST GEAR, THE ABS LIGHTS ON AND THE ASR, FUSE NO 2 ON THE K40 MODULE WAS BLOWN AND THERE WERE ALSO CODES INDICATING THAT NO POWER WAS GOING TO THE ASR HYDRAULIC UNIT. THERE WAS NO SIGNAL FROM THE LEFT REAR WHEEL SPEED SENSOR AND THERE WAS A MALFUNCTION IN THE TRANSMISSION GEAR SPEED SENSOR. THE TECHNICIAN DISCOVERED A WIRING HARNESS LOCATED UNDERNEATH THE POWER BRAKE BOOSTER HAD SHORTED WITH THE BODY OF THE VEHICLE AND CREATED A SMALL FIRE THAT BURNED AND DESTROYED THE INSULATING MATERIAL THROUGH APPROX. 7 INCHES OF THE HARNESS. THE SMALL FIRE ALSO BURNED THE INSULATING MATERIAL ON 2 OTHER WIRING HARNESS IN THE VICINITY. THE TECHNICIAN HAS DETERMINED THE CAUSE OF THE FIRE TO BE RELATED TO THE LOCATION OF THE WIRING HARNESS. THE HARNESS WAS PINNED DOWN TO THE BODY OF THE VEHICLE BY THE AIR CONDITIONING HOSE ADJACENT TO WHERE 2 PARTS OF THE BODY WHERE JOINED TOGETHER. THE POINT WHERE THE TWO PARTS OF THE BODY WERE JOINED TOGETHER CREATED A SHARP EDGE. OVER TIME THE VIBRATION OF THE ENGINE AND OTHER COMPONENTS OF THE VEHICLE CAUSES THE SHARP EDGE TO CUT INTO THE WIRING HARNESS EVENTUALLY WEARING IT TO BARE WIRE. WHEN THE BARE WIRE SHORTED WITH THE BODY, THE FIRE WAS CREATED THUS BURNING A SECTION TO THE WIRING HARNESS AND THUS CAUSING THE MALFUNCTIONS INDICATED ABOVE. OVERALL, THE TECHNICIAN AND MANY OTHER REPORTS CLAIM THAT THIS WAS MERCEDES BENZ'S DESIGN FLAW AND FAILURE THAT THE WIRING HARNESS WAS PLACED INCONVENIENTLY UNDERNEATH THE REFRIGERANT LINE. WE CAN PROVIDE THE PICTURES OF THE DAMAGE IF NECESSARY.

NHTSA ODI #10367668

57,000 miles · Dec 11, 2003
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

ABS/BAS/ESP LIGHT CAME ON REPEATEDLY. MY MECHANIC DETERMINED IT WAS A "RATE OF TURN" GYROSCOPIC SENSOR THAT CAN ADJUST THE THROTTLE OR MAKE OTHER ELECTRONIC ADJUSTMENTS DEPENDING ON THE SENSOR'S DATA. THE MECHANIC CONTACTED MERCEDES, WHO TOLD HIM THAT THIS $950 PART HAS BEEN "SELLING LIKE HOT CAKES" AND THAT PROBLEMS WITH THE …

Read full complaint

ABS/BAS/ESP LIGHT CAME ON REPEATEDLY. MY MECHANIC DETERMINED IT WAS A "RATE OF TURN" GYROSCOPIC SENSOR THAT CAN ADJUST THE THROTTLE OR MAKE OTHER ELECTRONIC ADJUSTMENTS DEPENDING ON THE SENSOR'S DATA. THE MECHANIC CONTACTED MERCEDES, WHO TOLD HIM THAT THIS $950 PART HAS BEEN "SELLING LIKE HOT CAKES" AND THAT PROBLEMS WITH THE SENSOR IN THIS VEHICLE ARE "VERY COMMON." THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE AND A VERY EXPENSIVE PART THAT I'M SURE MERCEDES DOES NOT WANT TO HAVE TO ISSUE A RECALL ON. MINE IS NOT AN ISOLATED INCIDENT AND SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO.*AK

NHTSA ODI #10049595

49,000 miles · Apr 15, 2003
Service Brakes, HydraulicCrash

WHEN THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO APPLY THE BRAKES THEY LOCKED UP AND CAUSED THE VEHICLE TO EXPERIENCE EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE. THE DEALER WAS NOTIFIED. *NLM THE TRACTION CONTROLSYSTEM APPLIES TO THE LEFT FRONT BRAKE WHEN MAKING RIGHT TURNS.*TS

NHTSA ODI #10015878

Mileage unknown · Dec 12, 2001
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

ESP/BAS MALFUNCTION INDICATOR COMES UP SEVERAL TIMES IN THE PAST TWO MONTHS. *AK

NHTSA ODI #755542

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

2

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.