NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.
What owners actually said
27 reports110,500 miles · Feb 12, 2010
Vehicle Speed Control
WHILE DRIVING AT 70 MPH WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON ESP/BAS LIGHT CAME ON. CRUISE CONTROL FAILED TO DISENGAGE WHEN BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED TO SLOW VEHICLE, CAUSING ENGINE TO RACE FORCING VEHICLE TO SPEED UP ALMOST CRASHING INTO VEHICLE AHEAD. CRUISE CONTROL COULD ONLY BE DISENGAGED BY PUTTING TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL AND DEPRESSING BRAKE…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING AT 70 MPH WITH CRUISE CONTROL ON ESP/BAS LIGHT CAME ON. CRUISE CONTROL FAILED TO DISENGAGE WHEN BRAKE PEDAL PUSHED TO SLOW VEHICLE, CAUSING ENGINE TO RACE FORCING VEHICLE TO SPEED UP ALMOST CRASHING INTO VEHICLE AHEAD. CRUISE CONTROL COULD ONLY BE DISENGAGED BY PUTTING TRANSMISSION INTO NEUTRAL AND DEPRESSING BRAKE. THIS IS FIRST TIME FAILURE OCCURRED. DEALER REPLACES STOP LAMP SWITCH (PART IS AVAILABLE), RECOMMENDED REPLACING BRAKE PRESSURE SENSOR AND BAS RELEASE SWITCH AT A COST TO ME OVER $1,000. I BELIEVE THIS IS A SERIOUS SAFETY MATTER. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10308930
117,000 miles · Oct 21, 2009
Engine And Engine Cooling
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START AND AN HOUR LATER, HE WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. A LOCAL MECHANIC STATED THAT THE CRANK SHAFT SENSOR CAUSED THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK AND THAT THERE ARE NO RELATED RECALLS. THE CURRENT AND F…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WOULD NOT START AND AN HOUR LATER, HE WAS ABLE TO RESTART THE VEHICLE. A LOCAL MECHANIC STATED THAT THE CRANK SHAFT SENSOR CAUSED THE FAILURE. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY RISK AND THAT THERE ARE NO RELATED RECALLS. THE CURRENT AND FAILURE MILEAGES WERE 117,000.
NHTSA ODI #10289288
9,000 miles · Aug 7, 2009
Exterior Lighting
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH FAILED. THE FAILURE OCCURS CONSTANTLY AND PREVENTS HIM FROM SHIFTING OUT OF PARK. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN TIMES. THE DEALER CONTINUED TO REPLACE THE STOP LIGHT SWITCH INSTEAD OF RE-ENGINEERING THE PART AND ISS…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE BRAKE LIGHT SWITCH FAILED. THE FAILURE OCCURS CONSTANTLY AND PREVENTS HIM FROM SHIFTING OUT OF PARK. THE FAILURE HAS OCCURRED APPROXIMATELY ELEVEN TIMES. THE DEALER CONTINUED TO REPLACE THE STOP LIGHT SWITCH INSTEAD OF RE-ENGINEERING THE PART AND ISSUING A RECALL. THE CONTACT STATED THAT IT WAS A HUGE SAFETY HAZARD DRIVING WITHOUT BRAKE LIGHTS. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 9,000 AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 112,000. UPDATED 09/23/09. *LJ THE CONSUMER STATED IF THE PART FAILS AND THE STOP LIGHT DOES NOT WORK HE CAN'T TURN OFF THE SPEED CONTROL IF IT IS BEING USED AND THERE ARE NO BRAKE LIGHTS AND THE VEHICLE WON'T COME OUT OF PARK. IF IT FAILS WITH THE BRAKE LIGHTS ON, THE LIGHTS NEVER GO OUT. UPDATED 09/23/09*JB
NHTSA ODI #10279696
135,257 miles · Mar 7, 2009
Steering
MY CAR LOST ALL OF THE POWER STEERING FLUID AND I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT. I LOST ALMOST ALL STEERING CONTROL. IT IS RELATED TO MERCEDES BENZ RECALL #2003-040005. I RECEIVED A LETTER ABOUT THIS RECALL AND IT SAID MY CAR HAD ALREADY BEEN FIXED. THEY SAID THAT IS WHAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW. THAT IS NOT TRUE AND NOW I ALMOST LOST …
Read full complaint
MY CAR LOST ALL OF THE POWER STEERING FLUID AND I ALMOST HAD AN ACCIDENT. I LOST ALMOST ALL STEERING CONTROL. IT IS RELATED TO MERCEDES BENZ RECALL #2003-040005. I RECEIVED A LETTER ABOUT THIS RECALL AND IT SAID MY CAR HAD ALREADY BEEN FIXED. THEY SAID THAT IS WHAT THEIR RECORDS SHOW. THAT IS NOT TRUE AND NOW I ALMOST LOST MY LIFE BECAUSE OF THIS DEFECT AND I AM QUITE UPSET. MY CAR IS COMPLETELY IMMOBILE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10261055
40,752 miles · Feb 24, 2009
Steering
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SEAL IN THE POWER STEERING PUMP FAILED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LOSE FUEL. THE REPAIR SHOP REPLACED THE POWER STEERING PUMP AT THE COST OF $525.22. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED ACCORDING TO A RECALL FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THIS FAILURE. TEN DAYS LATER, THE C…
Read full complaint
TL*THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SEAL IN THE POWER STEERING PUMP FAILED AND THE VEHICLE BEGAN TO LOSE FUEL. THE REPAIR SHOP REPLACED THE POWER STEERING PUMP AT THE COST OF $525.22. THE VEHICLE WAS REPAIRED ACCORDING TO A RECALL FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THIS FAILURE. TEN DAYS LATER, THE CONTACT RECEIVED A RECALL NOTICE FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN ID NUMBER 03V121000 (STEERING:HYDRAULIC POWER ASSIST:HOSE, PIPING, AND CONNECTIONS). HE CALLED THE DEALER AND STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE POWER STEERING PUMP, IN WHICH HE PAID TO HAVE REPAIRED PRIOR TO RECEIVING THE RECALL NOTICE. THE DEALER AND MANUFACTURER STATED THAT NO REIMBURSEMENT WOULD BE PROVIDED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 40,752.
NHTSA ODI #10259799
102,041 miles · Feb 19, 2009
Steering
IN MARCH OF 2003 MERCEDES INITIATED A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE FOR A PROBLEM WITH THE POWER STEERING HOSE, THE CAR WAS TAKEN IN FOR SERVICING AND THE PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. ON APRIL 2ND OF 2008 I TOOK THE CAR TO MERCEDES BECAUSE IT WAS MAKING A REALLY LOUD SOUND I WAS TOLD THAT THE POWER STEERING HOSE WAS LEAKING A $665 FIX. I H…
Read full complaint
IN MARCH OF 2003 MERCEDES INITIATED A RECALL FOR MY VEHICLE FOR A PROBLEM WITH THE POWER STEERING HOSE, THE CAR WAS TAKEN IN FOR SERVICING AND THE PROBLEM SUPPOSEDLY FIXED. ON APRIL 2ND OF 2008 I TOOK THE CAR TO MERCEDES BECAUSE IT WAS MAKING A REALLY LOUD SOUND I WAS TOLD THAT THE POWER STEERING HOSE WAS LEAKING A $665 FIX. I HAD THE WORK DONE. ON APRIL 15TH OF 2008 THE CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON TOOK THE CAR BACK TO MERCEDES AND WAS TOLD THE POWER STEERING PUMP NEEDED TO BE REPLACED A $1211 FIX. I WAS FURIOUS AT THIS POINT. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2008 THE NHTSA ISSUED A RECALL ON THE MODEL FOR A PROBLEM WITH THE CLAMP FOR THE POWER STEERING HOSE. I CONTACTED MERCEDES WHEN I BECAME AWARE OF THIS RECALL EARLIER THIS WEEK. I WAS TOLD THAT THE HOSE THAT WAS REPLACED ON MY CAR'S POWER STEERING SYSTEM IS NOT THE ONE BEING RECALLED. I DO NOT QUALIFY FOR THE RECALL BECAUSE MY CAR'S VIN NUMBER WAS NOT A PART OF THE SPECIFIC CARS THAT WERE RECALLED EVEN THOUGH IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE 2003 RECALL. I ARGUED THAT MY POWER STEERING PUMP WENT BAD BECAUSE OF MERCEDES NEGLIGENCE WITH THE HOSE ISSUE AND I HAVE GOTTEN NOWHERE WITH THEM. THE DEALER WILL NOT HELP ME AND MB USA WILL NOT HELP ME BECAUSE MY VIN IS NOT ON THAT RECALL EVEN THOUGH I AM STILL HAVING THE ISSUE AND YES MY CAR IS STILL LEAKING FLUID ALL OVER MY GARAGE. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10259385
109,000 miles · Jan 26, 2009
EquipmentVisibility
I HAVE 2002 MERCEDES ML-500 AND MY CLIMATE CONTROL DOES NOT WORKS AND BLOWING COOLED AIR ALL THE TIME EVEN WHEN I SELECTED TO FULL HOT. I DID BUY MERCEDES SHOP MANUAL AND AS I WAS READING THE SERVICE BULLETINS ISSUED BY MERCEDES MANUFACTURER I FOUND THAT THE FACTORY IS AWARE OF THIS ISSUE THE A/C SYSTEM SOMETIMES DOES NOT PRODU…
Read full complaint
I HAVE 2002 MERCEDES ML-500 AND MY CLIMATE CONTROL DOES NOT WORKS AND BLOWING COOLED AIR ALL THE TIME EVEN WHEN I SELECTED TO FULL HOT. I DID BUY MERCEDES SHOP MANUAL AND AS I WAS READING THE SERVICE BULLETINS ISSUED BY MERCEDES MANUFACTURER I FOUND THAT THE FACTORY IS AWARE OF THIS ISSUE THE A/C SYSTEM SOMETIMES DOES NOT PRODUCE HEAT OR COOLED AIR. MERCEDES CONFORMED THAT CERTAIN CONTROL UNITS PART NUMBERS HAVE LOW VOLTAGE PROBLEMS WHICH CAUSES THIS AND THE WANT THE CAR OWNER TO REPLACE THE A/C CONTROL UNIT WITH THE UPDATED PART NUMBER 163 829 57 89 AT THE CAR OWNER EXPENSE BECAUSE AS THEY SAY IT IS NOT SAFETY ISSUE? WELL CAN THAT BE WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE HEAT IN THE VERY COLD / SNOW WEATHER AS WE HAVE HERE IN BOSTON? AS FAR AS I AM CONCERN THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE WHEN IT COMES TO HEATING THE WINDSHIELD IN THE BAD WINTER STATES. PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF MY COMPLAIN MAKES CORRECT. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10256428
108,631 miles · Jan 11, 2009
Fuel System, GasolineService Brakes, Hydraulic
FOUND IDENTICAL PROBLEM PER NHTSA ACTION # EA08009 DEFECT INVESTIGATION. CONSTANT LOSS OF BRAKE PRESSURE. WARNING LIGHTS INDICATED LOW BRAKE FLUID. FOUND FLUID UNDER CAR AND IN FRONT LEFT WHEEL-WELL. UPON INSPECTION, FOUND BRAKE HARD LINE FROM MASTER CYLINDER WAS CHAFFED FROM ADJACENT FUEL LINE, CAUSING SMALL PIN-HOLE LEAK IN BR…
Read full complaint
FOUND IDENTICAL PROBLEM PER NHTSA ACTION # EA08009 DEFECT INVESTIGATION. CONSTANT LOSS OF BRAKE PRESSURE. WARNING LIGHTS INDICATED LOW BRAKE FLUID. FOUND FLUID UNDER CAR AND IN FRONT LEFT WHEEL-WELL. UPON INSPECTION, FOUND BRAKE HARD LINE FROM MASTER CYLINDER WAS CHAFFED FROM ADJACENT FUEL LINE, CAUSING SMALL PIN-HOLE LEAK IN BRAKE LINE. WHEN BRAKES WERE APPLIED, BRAKE FLUID WOULD SPRAY OUT, RESULTING IN INSUFFICIENT BRAKING PRESSURE TO HOLD VEHICLE AT STOPS. CONTACTED MERCEDES DEALERSHIP SERVICE DEPARTMENT, THEY WERE UN-AWARE OF ANY PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS. ESTIMATED COST OF REPAIR WAS >$1000. ($112 FOR PART, $975 FOR 6HRS LABOR) PART NUMBER: A1634201526 PURCHASED LENGTH OF HARDLINE MYSELF AT PARTS STORE. CONSTRUCTED AND INSTALLED MY OWN REPLACEMENT PART FOR $155 INCLUDING PURCHASE OF TOOLS TO COMPLETE JOB. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10254638
Mileage unknown · Nov 26, 2008
Steering
THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED IN SACRAMENTO CA IN AUG OF 06, AT THIS TIME WE ALSO PURCHASED AN EXTENDED 2 YEAR WARRANTY WHICH WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE EXPIRING IN AUG OF 08. THE CAR WORKED FINE WITH NO ISSUES UNTIL SEPT OF 07. I STARTED THE CAR AT 4 AM TO HEAD TO WORK AND IT MAKE A REALLY LOUD NOISE, IT GOT WORSE WHEN I TURNED THE STEERING …
Read full complaint
THIS CAR WAS PURCHASED IN SACRAMENTO CA IN AUG OF 06, AT THIS TIME WE ALSO PURCHASED AN EXTENDED 2 YEAR WARRANTY WHICH WE UNDERSTOOD TO BE EXPIRING IN AUG OF 08. THE CAR WORKED FINE WITH NO ISSUES UNTIL SEPT OF 07. I STARTED THE CAR AT 4 AM TO HEAD TO WORK AND IT MAKE A REALLY LOUD NOISE, IT GOT WORSE WHEN I TURNED THE STEERING WHEEL. I CONTACTED THE MB DEALER AND WAS TOLD TO BRING THE CAR INTO THE DEALERSHIP. I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT NOT WANTING TO DRIVE THE CAR MAKING THAT SOUND, HE ASSURED ME THAT IT WAS FINE. I BROUGHT THE CAR INTO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD IT JUST NEEDED POWER STEERING FLUID SO THEY WILL TOP IT OFF FOR ME AT NO CHARGE AND IT WILL BE FINE. TOOK MY CAR AND LEFT. TWO MONTHS LATER ON NOV1ST, SAME ISSUE, TOOK THE CAR IN AGAIN, WAS TOLD WE WILL JUST TOP IT OFF FOR YOU AT NO CHARGE, TOOK MY CAR AND LEFT AGAIN. ON NOV 15TH I HAD MY CAR TRANSFERRED TO ATLANTA BY MOVING TRUCK SINCE I WAS MOVING BUT DID NOT WANT TO PUT THE MILEAGE ON IT. TOOK IT TO MB FOR ITS REGULAR SERVICING 1 WEEK LATER NO PROBLEMS WERE FOUND AT THAT TIME."" ON APR 5TH 08 THE NOISE CAME BACK, I TOOK THE CAR TO THE DEALERSHIP AND WAS TOLD WE WOULD JUST TOP IT OFF FOR YOU BUT WE NOTICED THAT THERE ARE SOME LEAKS SO YOU MAY WANT TO BRING IT IN TO GET THAT CHECKED OUT. I DID THIS 2 DAYS LATER AND WAS TOLD IT WAS THE POWER STEERING HOSE AN $800 FIX THAT WAS NOT COVERED BY MY WARRANTY. I HAD THE WORK DONE. ON APR 20TH MY CHECK ENGINE LIGHT CAME ON, I WENT BACK TO THE DEALERSHIP HAD TO PAY AGAIN FOR THE DIAGNOSTIC TO BE DONE, EVEN THOUGH ONE WAS SUPPOSEDLY DONE 2 WEEKS PRIOR. NOW IT WAS THE POWER STEERING PUMP AT A $1400 FIX. I WAS PISSED. HOW DID THEY MISS THIS 2 WEEKS PRIOR? HOW DID I EVEN KNOW IT WAS THE HOSE AT FIRST AND NOT THE PUMP? HOW WAS THIS FOUND CONVENIENTLY AFTER MY WARRANTY IS NO GOOD WHEN THE NOISE WAS THERE BEFORE? A COMPLIMENTARY DIAGNOSTIC WAS DONE BY THE SERVICE MGR ON AUG 29TH AND NOW I AM BEING ASKED TO PAY $2100 FOR FIX THE PROBLEMS FOUND. THE WARRANTY SHOULD BE HONORED. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10249894
77,000 miles · May 4, 2007
Electrical SystemService Brakes, HydraulicVisibility
WHILE DRIVING, ML500 BEGAN TO BRAKE RANDOMLY . ALSO ABS TURNED ON WHILE STOPPING AND ACCELERATING. ALSO BRAKES WERE CONSTANTLY SCREECHING. WARNING LIGHTS FOR ABS, BAS, AND WASHER FLUID. FLUID LEVEL WAS FINE. I TOLD DEALER ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS BEFORE WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTICS TEST AND FOUND NOTHING WAS WRONG. T…
Read full complaint
WHILE DRIVING, ML500 BEGAN TO BRAKE RANDOMLY . ALSO ABS TURNED ON WHILE STOPPING AND ACCELERATING. ALSO BRAKES WERE CONSTANTLY SCREECHING. WARNING LIGHTS FOR ABS, BAS, AND WASHER FLUID. FLUID LEVEL WAS FINE. I TOLD DEALER ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS BEFORE WARRANTY HAD EXPIRED. THEY RAN A DIAGNOSTICS TEST AND FOUND NOTHING WAS WRONG. THEY ADVISED ME TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN SHOULD THE SAME EVENTS OCCUR. (THE RANDOM BREAKING BEGAN TO OCCUR AFTER WARRANTY EXPIRED). THE PROBLEM CONTINUED TO PERSIST AND WITH THE FAILURE OF ABS SYSTEM, I BROUGHT THE ML500 BACK TO THE SERVICE CENTER. AFTER TWO DAYS, I RETRIEVED THE VEHICLE AND THE COST TO REPAIR WAS $1100.00. "CONVENIENTLY" THEY FOUND THE SAME PROBLEMS I SPOKE OF BEFORE AFTER THE WARRANTY WAS UP. WE HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO PAY TO RESTORE FUNCTION TO THE VEHICLE. AFTER TAKING IT HOME WE NOTICED THAT THE THERE WAS NO SOUND IN THE VEHICLE. THE SOUND AND NAVIGATION VOICE WORKED PERFECTLY BEFORE GETTING SERVICE. AND AFTERWARDS IT DID NOT. WE CALLED THE SERVICE CENTER, AND THEY SAID TO BRING IT BACK AT OUR EARLIEST CONVENIENCE, AND THEY WILL FIX THE PROBLEM. I ASSUME THAT THIS WAS A MISTAKE ON THEIR PART. WHEN I RETURNED TO RESTORE THE SOUND THEY APPROACHED ME AND TOLD ME THAT A "VOICE MODULATION UNIT" BENEATH THE DRIVER'S SEAT HAD GONE OUT, AND THAT IT WOULD COST $750.00 PARTS AND LABOR TO REPAIR. THEY TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO ME THAT THIS WAS JUST A COINCIDENCE, AND THAT THE UNIT WAS IN NO WAY RELATED OR CIRCUIT LINKED TO THE SENSORS THEY REPLACED. I BELIEVE THAT THEY MUST HAVE MISTAKENLY SHORTED IT. WE HAVE SPENT ALMOST $10,000.00 IN THE PAST YEAR FOR REPAIRS TO THIS VEHICLE AND ONE OTHER MERCEDES. THEY DID NOT GOOD WILL CREDIT THE WORK SO I DID NOT ACCEPT THE REPAIR SERVICE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A $750.00 COINCIDENCE. THE SOUND WORKED FOR ALMOST 80,000 MILES BEFORE SERVICE AND NOW RIGHT AFTER IT FAILED... I DON'T THINK SO. THE MERCEDES SERVICE CENTER REFUSED TO DO ANY WORK FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. *TR
NHTSA ODI #10189784
NHTSA investigations
3PE10050 · Brake Lamp Switch Failure.
Opened Dec 21, 2010 · Closed May 4, 2011
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch; Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Vehicle Speed Control; Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
ODI opened the investigation based on reports that the subject vehicle brake lamp switch (switch) failure caused 1) inoperative brake lamps (stay on or fail to illuminate), and/or 2) shift interlock failure (shifter locked in park), and/or 3) the cruise control to fail to cancel with brake application.Consumers also reported the illumination of a warning lamp on the instrument panel.The switch contains three sets of electrical contacts and a (normally extended) spring loaded plunger that actuates the contacts as it moves.As installed in the vehicle, the plunger contacts the brake pedal arm and is pushed into the switch; as the driver applies the pedal the plunger extends.One set of contacts (BLS) operates the stop lamps, a second set (EWM) controls the shift interlock system, and a third set (BS) is used by an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system to monitor switch operation.The cruise control monitors the BLS signal to determine when the brake is applied, the primary way the system is disabled when set.The relative timing of contact actuation in response to plunger movement allows the OBD system to detect a switch fault.When a fault is detected a malfunction indication lamp (MIL) is illuminated (driver alert), a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is stored (for the service technician), and cruise control operation is inhibited (as a failsafe).In its response to ODI's January 2011 information request letter, MB explained its assessment of switch failures which was based primarily on evaluation of field return failures.MB identified both 1) electrical contact and 2) mechanical switch failure mechanisms.According to MB's analysis, electrical contact failure is the predominate failure type and the failure consequence depends on which contact fails.For instance MB claims that BLS contact failures are momentary in nature and do not affect brake light operation but are nonetheless detected by the OBD system, resulting in a DTC and subsequent replacement.Electrical contact failures of the BS and EWM contacts result in a DTC also, and EWM contact failures result in the shifter being stuck in the park (which can be overridden by the consumer).Accordingly MB maintains that electrical contact failures of the switch have no safety consequence since the brake lamps remain operational and the cruise control is always disabled.MB determined that mechanical failures of the switch, which are rare in their assessment, can result from internal wear and/or increased switch operating temperatures.High temperatures occur due to overheating of the BLS contacts and can cause the internal plastic components to melt.In one scenario overheated BLS contacts may melt to the extended plunger and are damaged when the brake pedal is released resulting in the brake lights staying on.In another scenario the increased temperatures and/or internal wear can cause the plunger to stick in the fully depressed position.In this case the cruise may not cancel when the brake is applied and the driver may have to use high brake pedal forces or other means (shifting to neutral or using the cruise master switch) to disengage the cruise.Additionally the vacuum assist can be depleted if the driver pumps the brakes resulting in reduced braking effectiveness and even higher pedal forces.In its March 31, 2011 defect notification, MB stated that to remediate the potential need for excessive brake force it would conduct a safety recall (11V-208) to replace the switch with a more robustly designed component.The recall includes 136,751 model year 2000 - 2002 M-Class and model year 2000 - 2004 M-Class AMG vehicles.Owner notification letters will be mailed
Additional source detail variants (4)
Exterior Lighting:brake Lights:switch
ODI opened the investigation based on reports that the subject vehicle brake lamp switch (switch) failure caused 1) inoperative brake lamps (stay on or fail to illuminate), and/or 2) shift interlock failure (shifter locked in park), and/or 3) the cruise control to fail to cancel with brake application.Consumers also reported the illumination of a warning lamp on the instrument panel.The switch contains three sets of electrical contacts and a (normally extended) spring loaded plunger that actuates the contacts as it moves.As installed in the vehicle, the plunger contacts the brake pedal arm and is pushed into the switch; as the driver applies the pedal the plunger extends.One set of contacts (BLS) operates the stop lamps, a second set (EWM) controls the shift interlock system, and a third set (BS) is used by an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system to monitor switch operation.The cruise control monitors the BLS signal to determine when the brake is applied, the primary way the system is disabled when set.The relative timing of contact actuation in response to plunger movement allows the OBD system to detect a switch fault.When a fault is detected a malfunction indication lamp (MIL) is illuminated (driver alert), a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is stored (for the service technician), and cruise control operation is inhibited (as a failsafe).In its response to ODI's January 2011 information request letter, MB explained its assessment of switch failures which was based primarily on evaluation of field return failures.MB identified both 1) electrical contact and 2) mechanical switch failure mechanisms.According to MB's analysis, electrical contact failure is the predominate failure type and the failure consequence depends on which contact fails.For instance MB claims that BLS contact failures are momentary in nature and do not affect brake light operation but are nonetheless detected by the OBD system, resulting in a DTC and subsequent replacement.Electrical contact failures of the BS and EWM contacts result in a DTC also, and EWM contact failures result in the shifter being stuck in the park (which can be overridden by the consumer).Accordingly MB maintains that electrical contact failures of the switch have no safety consequence since the brake lamps remain operational and the cruise control is always disabled.MB determined that mechanical failures of the switch, which are rare in their assessment, can result from internal wear and/or increased switch operating temperatures.High temperatures occur due to overheating of the BLS contacts and can cause the internal plastic components to melt.In one scenario overheated BLS contacts may melt to the extended plunger and are damaged when the brake pedal is released resulting in the brake lights staying on.In another scenario the increased temperatures and/or internal wear can cause the plunger to stick in the fully depressed position.In this case the cruise may not cancel when the brake is applied and the driver may have to use high brake pedal forces or other means (shifting to neutral or using the cruise master switch) to disengage the cruise.Additionally the vacuum assist can be depleted if the driver pumps the brakes resulting in reduced braking effectiveness and even higher pedal forces.In its March 31, 2011 defect notification, MB stated that to remediate the potential need for excessive brake force it would conduct a safety recall (11V-208) to replace the switch with a more robustly designed component.The recall includes 136,751 model year 2000 - 2002 M-Class and model year 2000 - 2004 M-Class AMG vehicles.Owner notification letters will be mailed
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
ODI opened the investigation based on reports that the subject vehicle brake lamp switch (switch) failure caused 1) inoperative brake lamps (stay on or fail to illuminate), and/or 2) shift interlock failure (shifter locked in park), and/or 3) the cruise control to fail to cancel with brake application.Consumers also reported the illumination of a warning lamp on the instrument panel.The switch contains three sets of electrical contacts and a (normally extended) spring loaded plunger that actuates the contacts as it moves.As installed in the vehicle, the plunger contacts the brake pedal arm and is pushed into the switch; as the driver applies the pedal the plunger extends.One set of contacts (BLS) operates the stop lamps, a second set (EWM) controls the shift interlock system, and a third set (BS) is used by an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system to monitor switch operation.The cruise control monitors the BLS signal to determine when the brake is applied, the primary way the system is disabled when set.The relative timing of contact actuation in response to plunger movement allows the OBD system to detect a switch fault.When a fault is detected a malfunction indication lamp (MIL) is illuminated (driver alert), a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is stored (for the service technician), and cruise control operation is inhibited (as a failsafe).In its response to ODI's January 2011 information request letter, MB explained its assessment of switch failures which was based primarily on evaluation of field return failures.MB identified both 1) electrical contact and 2) mechanical switch failure mechanisms.According to MB's analysis, electrical contact failure is the predominate failure type and the failure consequence depends on which contact fails.For instance MB claims that BLS contact failures are momentary in nature and do not affect brake light operation but are nonetheless detected by the OBD system, resulting in a DTC and subsequent replacement.Electrical contact failures of the BS and EWM contacts result in a DTC also, and EWM contact failures result in the shifter being stuck in the park (which can be overridden by the consumer).Accordingly MB maintains that electrical contact failures of the switch have no safety consequence since the brake lamps remain operational and the cruise control is always disabled.MB determined that mechanical failures of the switch, which are rare in their assessment, can result from internal wear and/or increased switch operating temperatures.High temperatures occur due to overheating of the BLS contacts and can cause the internal plastic components to melt.In one scenario overheated BLS contacts may melt to the extended plunger and are damaged when the brake pedal is released resulting in the brake lights staying on.In another scenario the increased temperatures and/or internal wear can cause the plunger to stick in the fully depressed position.In this case the cruise may not cancel when the brake is applied and the driver may have to use high brake pedal forces or other means (shifting to neutral or using the cruise master switch) to disengage the cruise.Additionally the vacuum assist can be depleted if the driver pumps the brakes resulting in reduced braking effectiveness and even higher pedal forces.In its March 31, 2011 defect notification, MB stated that to remediate the potential need for excessive brake force it would conduct a safety recall (11V-208) to replace the switch with a more robustly designed component.The recall includes 136,751 model year 2000 - 2002 M-Class and model year 2000 - 2004 M-Class AMG vehicles.Owner notification letters will be mailed
Vehicle Speed Control:cruise Control
ODI opened the investigation based on reports that the subject vehicle brake lamp switch (switch) failure caused 1) inoperative brake lamps (stay on or fail to illuminate), and/or 2) shift interlock failure (shifter locked in park), and/or 3) the cruise control to fail to cancel with brake application.Consumers also reported the illumination of a warning lamp on the instrument panel.The switch contains three sets of electrical contacts and a (normally extended) spring loaded plunger that actuates the contacts as it moves.As installed in the vehicle, the plunger contacts the brake pedal arm and is pushed into the switch; as the driver applies the pedal the plunger extends.One set of contacts (BLS) operates the stop lamps, a second set (EWM) controls the shift interlock system, and a third set (BS) is used by an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system to monitor switch operation.The cruise control monitors the BLS signal to determine when the brake is applied, the primary way the system is disabled when set.The relative timing of contact actuation in response to plunger movement allows the OBD system to detect a switch fault.When a fault is detected a malfunction indication lamp (MIL) is illuminated (driver alert), a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is stored (for the service technician), and cruise control operation is inhibited (as a failsafe).In its response to ODI's January 2011 information request letter, MB explained its assessment of switch failures which was based primarily on evaluation of field return failures.MB identified both 1) electrical contact and 2) mechanical switch failure mechanisms.According to MB's analysis, electrical contact failure is the predominate failure type and the failure consequence depends on which contact fails.For instance MB claims that BLS contact failures are momentary in nature and do not affect brake light operation but are nonetheless detected by the OBD system, resulting in a DTC and subsequent replacement.Electrical contact failures of the BS and EWM contacts result in a DTC also, and EWM contact failures result in the shifter being stuck in the park (which can be overridden by the consumer).Accordingly MB maintains that electrical contact failures of the switch have no safety consequence since the brake lamps remain operational and the cruise control is always disabled.MB determined that mechanical failures of the switch, which are rare in their assessment, can result from internal wear and/or increased switch operating temperatures.High temperatures occur due to overheating of the BLS contacts and can cause the internal plastic components to melt.In one scenario overheated BLS contacts may melt to the extended plunger and are damaged when the brake pedal is released resulting in the brake lights staying on.In another scenario the increased temperatures and/or internal wear can cause the plunger to stick in the fully depressed position.In this case the cruise may not cancel when the brake is applied and the driver may have to use high brake pedal forces or other means (shifting to neutral or using the cruise master switch) to disengage the cruise.Additionally the vacuum assist can be depleted if the driver pumps the brakes resulting in reduced braking effectiveness and even higher pedal forces.In its March 31, 2011 defect notification, MB stated that to remediate the potential need for excessive brake force it would conduct a safety recall (11V-208) to replace the switch with a more robustly designed component.The recall includes 136,751 model year 2000 - 2002 M-Class and model year 2000 - 2004 M-Class AMG vehicles.Owner notification letters will be mailed
Vehicle Speed Control
ODI opened the investigation based on reports that the subject vehicle brake lamp switch (switch) failure caused 1) inoperative brake lamps (stay on or fail to illuminate), and/or 2) shift interlock failure (shifter locked in park), and/or 3) the cruise control to fail to cancel with brake application.Consumers also reported the illumination of a warning lamp on the instrument panel.The switch contains three sets of electrical contacts and a (normally extended) spring loaded plunger that actuates the contacts as it moves.As installed in the vehicle, the plunger contacts the brake pedal arm and is pushed into the switch; as the driver applies the pedal the plunger extends.One set of contacts (BLS) operates the stop lamps, a second set (EWM) controls the shift interlock system, and a third set (BS) is used by an on-board diagnostic (OBD) system to monitor switch operation.The cruise control monitors the BLS signal to determine when the brake is applied, the primary way the system is disabled when set.The relative timing of contact actuation in response to plunger movement allows the OBD system to detect a switch fault.When a fault is detected a malfunction indication lamp (MIL) is illuminated (driver alert), a diagnostic trouble code (DTC) is stored (for the service technician), and cruise control operation is inhibited (as a failsafe).In its response to ODI's January 2011 information request letter, MB explained its assessment of switch failures which was based primarily on evaluation of field return failures.MB identified both 1) electrical contact and 2) mechanical switch failure mechanisms.According to MB's analysis, electrical contact failure is the predominate failure type and the failure consequence depends on which contact fails.For instance MB claims that BLS contact failures are momentary in nature and do not affect brake light operation but are nonetheless detected by the OBD system, resulting in a DTC and subsequent replacement.Electrical contact failures of the BS and EWM contacts result in a DTC also, and EWM contact failures result in the shifter being stuck in the park (which can be overridden by the consumer).Accordingly MB maintains that electrical contact failures of the switch have no safety consequence since the brake lamps remain operational and the cruise control is always disabled.MB determined that mechanical failures of the switch, which are rare in their assessment, can result from internal wear and/or increased switch operating temperatures.High temperatures occur due to overheating of the BLS contacts and can cause the internal plastic components to melt.In one scenario overheated BLS contacts may melt to the extended plunger and are damaged when the brake pedal is released resulting in the brake lights staying on.In another scenario the increased temperatures and/or internal wear can cause the plunger to stick in the fully depressed position.In this case the cruise may not cancel when the brake is applied and the driver may have to use high brake pedal forces or other means (shifting to neutral or using the cruise master switch) to disengage the cruise.Additionally the vacuum assist can be depleted if the driver pumps the brakes resulting in reduced braking effectiveness and even higher pedal forces.In its March 31, 2011 defect notification, MB stated that to remediate the potential need for excessive brake force it would conduct a safety recall (11V-208) to replace the switch with a more robustly designed component.The recall includes 136,751 model year 2000 - 2002 M-Class and model year 2000 - 2004 M-Class AMG vehicles.Owner notification letters will be mailed
EA08009 · Brake Line Chafe
Opened Apr 28, 2008 · Closed Dec 16, 2009
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND MERCEDES AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA SUBMITTED BY MERCEDES INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS OCCURRED AT A LOW RATE (36.5 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.29 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE), WITH NO DISCERNABLE DEFECT TREND INDICATING THAT THE RATE OF CHAFING RELATED BRAKE LINE FAILURES IS INCREASING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2009.WHEN THE ANALYSIS IS LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OF BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THAT RESULTED IN ALLEGATIONS OF REDUCED BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS, THE RATE DROPS EVEN FURTHER (22.3 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.04 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE). MERCEDES PROVIDED DATA SHOWING THAT IN THE RARE INSTANCES WHEN CHAFING DID PROGRESS TO BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THE DRIVER WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ALERTED TO A PROBLEM BY ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT YELLOW ESP/BAS WARNING LAMP AND CHANGES IN BRAKE PEDAL FEEL.CONTINUED OPERATION WITH A LEAKING BRAKE LINE WOULD RESULT IN ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT RED BRAKE WARNING LAMP AND AN AUDIBLE CHIME DUE TO LOW MASTER CYLINDER RESERVOIR LEVEL. CONTINUED OPERATION WITH THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED WOULD ULTIMATELY DRAIN THE RESERVOIR FOR THE AFFECTED CIRCUIT, RESULTING IN LOSS OF THE CIRCUIT AND AN APPROXIMATELY 80% INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCES. SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY ODI AND VRTC INDICATE THAT ROUTING ANOMALIES MAY BE MORE COMMON THAN THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA SUGGEST FOR THE SUBJECT LINE BUNDLE, WITH LINE CONTACT OR OTHER ROUTING ANOMALY NOTED IN 13 OF 51 VEHICLES SURVEYED BY ODI AND VRTC (25.5%).WHILE EVIDENCE OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL LINE AND SUBJECT BRAKE IN A PARTICULAR VEHICLE IS NOT NECESSARILY PREDICTIVE OF EVENTUAL LINE FAILURE/LEAKAGE, SIGNIFICANT CHAFING WEAR WAS NOTED IN TWO SURVEY VEHICLES (3.9%).TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH LINE ROUTING AND ENSURE THAT LINES WITH EVIDENT CHAFING DO NOT PROGRESS TO A LEAK CONDITION, MERCEDES WILL CONDUCT AN OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAM INSTRUCTING OWNERS TO BRING THE VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR A FREE INSPECTION AND REPAIR.LINES THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPACER (RUBBER GROMMET OR OMEGA-CLIP) BETWEEN THE SUBJECT FUEL AND BRAKE LINES WILL HAVE AN OMEGA-CLIP SPACER INSTALLED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE LINES.BRAKE LINES WITH CHAFE MARKS WILL BE REPLACED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REFER TO THE EA08-009 CLOSING REPORT.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Fuel System, Gasoline:delivery:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND MERCEDES AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA SUBMITTED BY MERCEDES INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS OCCURRED AT A LOW RATE (36.5 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.29 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE), WITH NO DISCERNABLE DEFECT TREND INDICATING THAT THE RATE OF CHAFING RELATED BRAKE LINE FAILURES IS INCREASING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2009.WHEN THE ANALYSIS IS LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OF BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THAT RESULTED IN ALLEGATIONS OF REDUCED BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS, THE RATE DROPS EVEN FURTHER (22.3 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.04 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE). MERCEDES PROVIDED DATA SHOWING THAT IN THE RARE INSTANCES WHEN CHAFING DID PROGRESS TO BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THE DRIVER WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ALERTED TO A PROBLEM BY ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT YELLOW ESP/BAS WARNING LAMP AND CHANGES IN BRAKE PEDAL FEEL.CONTINUED OPERATION WITH A LEAKING BRAKE LINE WOULD RESULT IN ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT RED BRAKE WARNING LAMP AND AN AUDIBLE CHIME DUE TO LOW MASTER CYLINDER RESERVOIR LEVEL. CONTINUED OPERATION WITH THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED WOULD ULTIMATELY DRAIN THE RESERVOIR FOR THE AFFECTED CIRCUIT, RESULTING IN LOSS OF THE CIRCUIT AND AN APPROXIMATELY 80% INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCES. SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY ODI AND VRTC INDICATE THAT ROUTING ANOMALIES MAY BE MORE COMMON THAN THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA SUGGEST FOR THE SUBJECT LINE BUNDLE, WITH LINE CONTACT OR OTHER ROUTING ANOMALY NOTED IN 13 OF 51 VEHICLES SURVEYED BY ODI AND VRTC (25.5%).WHILE EVIDENCE OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL LINE AND SUBJECT BRAKE IN A PARTICULAR VEHICLE IS NOT NECESSARILY PREDICTIVE OF EVENTUAL LINE FAILURE/LEAKAGE, SIGNIFICANT CHAFING WEAR WAS NOTED IN TWO SURVEY VEHICLES (3.9%).TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH LINE ROUTING AND ENSURE THAT LINES WITH EVIDENT CHAFING DO NOT PROGRESS TO A LEAK CONDITION, MERCEDES WILL CONDUCT AN OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAM INSTRUCTING OWNERS TO BRING THE VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR A FREE INSPECTION AND REPAIR.LINES THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPACER (RUBBER GROMMET OR OMEGA-CLIP) BETWEEN THE SUBJECT FUEL AND BRAKE LINES WILL HAVE AN OMEGA-CLIP SPACER INSTALLED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE LINES.BRAKE LINES WITH CHAFE MARKS WILL BE REPLACED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REFER TO THE EA08-009 CLOSING REPORT.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS TO ODI AND MERCEDES AND WARRANTY CLAIM DATA SUBMITTED BY MERCEDES INDICATES THAT THE ALLEGED DEFECT HAS OCCURRED AT A LOW RATE (36.5 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.29 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE), WITH NO DISCERNABLE DEFECT TREND INDICATING THAT THE RATE OF CHAFING RELATED BRAKE LINE FAILURES IS INCREASING.THERE HAVE BEEN NO NEW COMPLAINTS SINCE JANUARY 2009.WHEN THE ANALYSIS IS LIMITED TO INCIDENTS OF BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THAT RESULTED IN ALLEGATIONS OF REDUCED BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS, THE RATE DROPS EVEN FURTHER (22.3 COMPLAINTS PER 100,000 VEHICLES AND 0.04 PERCENT WARRANTY CLAIM RATE). MERCEDES PROVIDED DATA SHOWING THAT IN THE RARE INSTANCES WHEN CHAFING DID PROGRESS TO BRAKE LINE LEAKAGE THE DRIVER WOULD BE IMMEDIATELY ALERTED TO A PROBLEM BY ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT YELLOW ESP/BAS WARNING LAMP AND CHANGES IN BRAKE PEDAL FEEL.CONTINUED OPERATION WITH A LEAKING BRAKE LINE WOULD RESULT IN ILLUMINATION OF THE BRIGHT RED BRAKE WARNING LAMP AND AN AUDIBLE CHIME DUE TO LOW MASTER CYLINDER RESERVOIR LEVEL. CONTINUED OPERATION WITH THE BRAKE WARNING LAMP ILLUMINATED WOULD ULTIMATELY DRAIN THE RESERVOIR FOR THE AFFECTED CIRCUIT, RESULTING IN LOSS OF THE CIRCUIT AND AN APPROXIMATELY 80% INCREASE IN STOPPING DISTANCES. SURVEYS CONDUCTED BY ODI AND VRTC INDICATE THAT ROUTING ANOMALIES MAY BE MORE COMMON THAN THE COMPLAINT AND WARRANTY DATA SUGGEST FOR THE SUBJECT LINE BUNDLE, WITH LINE CONTACT OR OTHER ROUTING ANOMALY NOTED IN 13 OF 51 VEHICLES SURVEYED BY ODI AND VRTC (25.5%).WHILE EVIDENCE OF CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL LINE AND SUBJECT BRAKE IN A PARTICULAR VEHICLE IS NOT NECESSARILY PREDICTIVE OF EVENTUAL LINE FAILURE/LEAKAGE, SIGNIFICANT CHAFING WEAR WAS NOTED IN TWO SURVEY VEHICLES (3.9%).TO ADDRESS CONCERNS WITH LINE ROUTING AND ENSURE THAT LINES WITH EVIDENT CHAFING DO NOT PROGRESS TO A LEAK CONDITION, MERCEDES WILL CONDUCT AN OWNER NOTIFICATION PROGRAM INSTRUCTING OWNERS TO BRING THE VEHICLES TO A DEALER FOR A FREE INSPECTION AND REPAIR.LINES THAT DO NOT HAVE A SPACER (RUBBER GROMMET OR OMEGA-CLIP) BETWEEN THE SUBJECT FUEL AND BRAKE LINES WILL HAVE AN OMEGA-CLIP SPACER INSTALLED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE CLEARANCE BETWEEN THE LINES.BRAKE LINES WITH CHAFE MARKS WILL BE REPLACED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN CLOSED. THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT DOES NOT EXIST. THE AGENCY WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR COMPLAINTS AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE SUBJECT VEHICLES AND TAKE FURTHER ACTION IN THE FUTURE IF WARRANTED. FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING THIS ENGINEERING ANALYSIS REFER TO THE EA08-009 CLOSING REPORT.
PE08002 · Brake Line Rupture
Opened Jan 10, 2008 · Closed Apr 28, 2008
Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Service Brakes, Hydraulic; Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
MERCEDES-BENZ'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER FOR PE08-002 INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT FUEL/BRAKE LINE BUNDLE (PART NO. A1634201526) WAS USED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM MODEL YEAR 1998 THROUGH 2002 ON ALL M-CLASS LIGHT TRUCK VEHICLES.MERCEDES FURTHER INDICATED THAT IN 2002 A PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED IN PRODUCTION THAT COULD CAUSE UNWANTED CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.IN MAY 2002, A PRODUCTION ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED AS A RESULT OF POST-PRODUCTION INSPECTIONS OF VEHICLES EXHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.THE ACTION AUTHORIZED THE USE OF ADDITIONAL PLASTIC SPACER CLIPS TO ELIMINATE SUCH CONTACT.MERCEDES HAS INDICATED THAT CONTACT BETWEEN THE LINES IS MORE LIKELY IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES DUE TO LESS FREE SPACE IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. ODIHAS RECEIVED ONE COMPLAINT FROM THE OWNER OF A MY2001 ML430 THAT WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH BECAUSE OF SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS. INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE AFTER THE CRASH SHOWED THAT THE LOSS OF BRAKING WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF CHAFFING OF THE FUEL LINE ON THE BRAKE LINE THAT CAUSED THE SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE LINE PRESSURE WHEN COMING TO A NORMAL TRAFFIC STOP.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA08-009) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RUPTURE OF THE FUEL LINE/BRAKE LINE BECAUSE OF CHAFFING IN ALL MERCEDES M-CLASS VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Service Brakes, Hydraulic:foundation Components:hoses, Lines/piping, And Fittings
MERCEDES-BENZ'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER FOR PE08-002 INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT FUEL/BRAKE LINE BUNDLE (PART NO. A1634201526) WAS USED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM MODEL YEAR 1998 THROUGH 2002 ON ALL M-CLASS LIGHT TRUCK VEHICLES.MERCEDES FURTHER INDICATED THAT IN 2002 A PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED IN PRODUCTION THAT COULD CAUSE UNWANTED CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.IN MAY 2002, A PRODUCTION ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED AS A RESULT OF POST-PRODUCTION INSPECTIONS OF VEHICLES EXHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.THE ACTION AUTHORIZED THE USE OF ADDITIONAL PLASTIC SPACER CLIPS TO ELIMINATE SUCH CONTACT.MERCEDES HAS INDICATED THAT CONTACT BETWEEN THE LINES IS MORE LIKELY IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES DUE TO LESS FREE SPACE IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. ODIHAS RECEIVED ONE COMPLAINT FROM THE OWNER OF A MY2001 ML430 THAT WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH BECAUSE OF SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS. INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE AFTER THE CRASH SHOWED THAT THE LOSS OF BRAKING WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF CHAFFING OF THE FUEL LINE ON THE BRAKE LINE THAT CAUSED THE SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE LINE PRESSURE WHEN COMING TO A NORMAL TRAFFIC STOP.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA08-009) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RUPTURE OF THE FUEL LINE/BRAKE LINE BECAUSE OF CHAFFING IN ALL MERCEDES M-CLASS VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES.
Service Brakes, Hydraulic
MERCEDES-BENZ'S RESPONSE TO ODI'S INFORMATION REQUEST LETTER FOR PE08-002 INDICATED THAT THE SUBJECT FUEL/BRAKE LINE BUNDLE (PART NO. A1634201526) WAS USED WITHOUT SIGNIFICANT CHANGE FROM MODEL YEAR 1998 THROUGH 2002 ON ALL M-CLASS LIGHT TRUCK VEHICLES.MERCEDES FURTHER INDICATED THAT IN 2002 A PROBLEM WAS IDENTIFIED IN PRODUCTION THAT COULD CAUSE UNWANTED CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.IN MAY 2002, A PRODUCTION ACTION WAS AUTHORIZED AS A RESULT OF POST-PRODUCTION INSPECTIONS OF VEHICLES EXHIBITING CONTACT BETWEEN THE FUEL AND BRAKE LINES.THE ACTION AUTHORIZED THE USE OF ADDITIONAL PLASTIC SPACER CLIPS TO ELIMINATE SUCH CONTACT.MERCEDES HAS INDICATED THAT CONTACT BETWEEN THE LINES IS MORE LIKELY IN VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES DUE TO LESS FREE SPACE IN THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. ODIHAS RECEIVED ONE COMPLAINT FROM THE OWNER OF A MY2001 ML430 THAT WAS INVOLVED IN A CRASH BECAUSE OF SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE EFFECTIVENESS. INSPECTION OF THE VEHICLE AFTER THE CRASH SHOWED THAT THE LOSS OF BRAKING WAS THE DIRECT RESULT OF CHAFFING OF THE FUEL LINE ON THE BRAKE LINE THAT CAUSED THE SUDDEN LOSE OF BRAKE LINE PRESSURE WHEN COMING TO A NORMAL TRAFFIC STOP.THIS INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN UPGRADED TO AN ENGINEERING ANALYSIS (EA08-009) TO FURTHER ASSESS THE SCOPE, FREQUENCY AND POTENTIAL SAFETY CONSEQUENCES ASSOCIATED WITH THE RUPTURE OF THE FUEL LINE/BRAKE LINE BECAUSE OF CHAFFING IN ALL MERCEDES M-CLASS VEHICLES EQUIPPED WITH V-8 ENGINES.
Illustration