← New search

2002 Mercedes Benz ML500

Owner reports · Recalls · Investigations

Limited comparison data

There is not enough comparable history to draw a useful model-year comparison.

About this comparison →

How this year compares

Owner complaints by model year

Other model years Selected year
Compare all ML500 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

20 reports with mileage · 7 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.

  • Steering. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Service Brakes, Hydraulic. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Electrical System. Review the 3 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

1 crash reports0 fire reports1 injury reports

What owners actually said

27 reports
51 miles · Apr 24, 2007
Electrical SystemEngine And Engine Cooling

THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 HRS. I ATTEMPTED TO START THE ENGINE. IT STARTED THEN ABRUPTLY STOPPED. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. UPON THE 4TH ATTEMPT THE ENGINE WOULD NOT START AT ALL. I LOOKED AT THE DASH LIGHTS THE COMPUTER WAS SHOWING ERROR START. I PROCEEDED TO JIGGLE THE KEY AND EVEN USED THE …

Read full complaint

THE VEHICLE WAS PARKED AT A PARKING LOT FOR APPROXIMATELY 2 HRS. I ATTEMPTED TO START THE ENGINE. IT STARTED THEN ABRUPTLY STOPPED. THIS HAPPENED 3 TIMES. UPON THE 4TH ATTEMPT THE ENGINE WOULD NOT START AT ALL. I LOOKED AT THE DASH LIGHTS THE COMPUTER WAS SHOWING ERROR START. I PROCEEDED TO JIGGLE THE KEY AND EVEN USED THE SECOND MASTER KEY. THE CAR WOULD NOT START AT ALL. I TALKED WITH MB ROADSIDE SERVICE THEY SUGGESTED CLEANING THE KEY, JIGGLING THE RING AROUND THE IGNITION KEY AREA. NOTHING WORKED. AFTER 2 HOURS OF ATTEMPTS, I HAD THE ML TOWED BY FLAT BED TRUCK TO THE NEAREST MB DEALERSHIP. EVERY SINCE I HAVE OWNED THE VEHICLE ( 2002) I HAVE COMPLAINED ON AT LEAST 3 OCCASIONS EVERY YEAR, THAT THE CAR WOULD NOT START AT TIMES AND I WOULD JIGGLE THE KEY AND KEEP TURNING THE VEHICLE ON AND OFF SEVERAL TIMES. IN THE PAST IT FINALLY MANAGED TO START. WHEN I WOULD REPORT THIS TO THE DEALERSHIP THEY WOULD STATE THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO UNTIL IT ACTUALLY WAS DOING THE SAME THING WHEN I BROUGHT IT TO THEM. I KNOW THERE IS SOME PART THAT HAS BEEN DEFECTIVE FROM DAY 1 AFTER WE PURCHASED THE CAR. THE MERCEDES DEALERSHIP HAD THE CAR FOR 3 DAYS. THEY FOUND A FAULTY TRANSPONDER RING AND ALSO ADVISED ME THAT MY SECOND MASTER KEY WOULD NOT COORDINATE WITH THE COMPUTER AND THE NEW TRANSPONDER RING. IT READS ERROR START. JUST LIKE IT WAS DOING WHEN I HAD IT TOWED. I HAVE THE MERCEDES RETURNED TO ME 6 DAYS AND I GET IN THE CAR AND THE GEARS ARE LOCKED. I TURN THE ENGINE ON AND OFF FOR 5 MINUTES BEFORE I CAN GET THE GEAR TO SHIFT INTO REVERSE. I CALLED THE MERCEDES DEALERSHIP. THEY WANT ME TO BRING IT BACK TOMORROW FOR THEM TO CHECK SOME SWITCH COMPONENT WHICH MAY BE DEFECTIVE. THIS ML 500 ONLY HAS 51,806 MILES ON IT. HOWEVER, I DO NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE DEPENDING ON IT. I AM AFRAID I WILL BE OUT SOMEWHERE AT NIGHT OR IN AN ISOLATED AREA AND THIS ML 500 WILL NOT START OR THE GEAR BOX WILL BE LOCKED UP. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10188707

Mileage unknown · Feb 11, 2006
Vehicle Speed Control

I OWN A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. A WEEK AGO I EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERSTATE. AS I WAS ACCELERATING THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED (THE GAS PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR) AND I WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE CAR DESPITE FULLY DEPRESSING THE BREAK PEDAL. THE CAR REACHED 80+ MPH AND I WAS FORCED TO DRIVE OFF OF…

Read full complaint

I OWN A 2002 MERCEDES BENZ ML500. A WEEK AGO I EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION WHILE DRIVING ON AN INTERSTATE. AS I WAS ACCELERATING THE CAR SUDDENLY ACCELERATED (THE GAS PEDAL WENT TO THE FLOOR) AND I WAS UNABLE TO STOP THE CAR DESPITE FULLY DEPRESSING THE BREAK PEDAL. THE CAR REACHED 80+ MPH AND I WAS FORCED TO DRIVE OFF OF THE ROAD TO AVOID AN ACCIDENT (I WAS ABLE TO SLOW IT TO ABOUT 50 MPH BY FULLY DEPRESSING THE BREAK PEDAL). I WAS FINALLY ABLE TO STOP THE CAR BY SHIFTING INTO NEUTRAL (IT HAS AN AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION; WHEN I SHIFTED TO NEUTRAL THE ENGINE IMMEDIATELY DECELERATED). OVER THE NEXT 40 MILES I EXPERIENCED SUDDEN ACCELERATION 10+ TIMES. THIS OCCURRED BOTH WHILE I WAS ACCELERATING AND WHILE I WAS BRAKING. WHILE ATTEMPTING TO STOP AT A STOP SIGN IN MY SUBDIVISION THE CAR ACCELERATED AND DROVE THROUGH THE STOP SIGN. I PARKED THE CAR IN MY GARAGE AND CALLED MY MB DEALER. I ASKED TO HAVE THE CAR TOWED TO THE DEALER AND I WAS TOLD THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO THIS. I EXPLAINED THE ISSUE TO THEM AND THEY SEEMED UNCONCERNED. I HAVE NOT DRIVEN THE CAR AGAIN SINCE THIS OCCURRED (I WILL NOT EVER DRIVE IT AGAIN). *NM

NHTSA ODI #10150037

22,014 miles · Oct 22, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

WARRANTY ISSUES AND/OR MANUFACTURING DEFECTS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY WARRANTY. ON OCTOBER. 21, 2003 TOOK MY ML500 YEAR 2002 TO DEALER FOR SQUEALING AND SCRAPING BRAKES. SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM THE SQUEALING AND SCRAPING AND TOLD ME THAT BRAKE DISC AND PADS LOOKS FINE. HOWEVER THEY ADVISED ME TO BUY …

Read full complaint

WARRANTY ISSUES AND/OR MANUFACTURING DEFECTS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY WARRANTY. ON OCTOBER. 21, 2003 TOOK MY ML500 YEAR 2002 TO DEALER FOR SQUEALING AND SCRAPING BRAKES. SERVICE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM THE SQUEALING AND SCRAPING AND TOLD ME THAT BRAKE DISC AND PADS LOOKS FINE. HOWEVER THEY ADVISED ME TO BUY NEWER VERSION OF BRAKE PADS, WHICH WOULD NOT SQUEAL. I REFUSED TO BUY BRAKE PADS, AS THEY SHOULD BE COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. I WAS NOT SATISFIED, THEREFORE TOOK THE VEHICLE AGAIN NEXT DAY (OCTOBER 22,2003) AND TALKED TO THE SALES PERSON FROM WHOM I BOUGHT THE VEHICLE. HE AND SERVICE MANAGER PERFORMED TEST DRIVE. DEALERSHIP CHECKED THE BRAKES AGAIN AND TOLD THE SQUEALING AND SCRAPPING WAS DUE TO A ROCK STUCK BETWEEN BRAKE PADS AND DISC. SINCE YESTERDAY, I HAD DRIVEN MY VEHICLE ONLY 24 MILES BUT NOW THE PADS AND ROTORS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED. BECAUSE OF THEIR NEGLIGENCE AND UNABLE TO DIAGNOSE THE PROBLEM, DEALERSHIP CHARGED ME $348.04 FOR MY 18 MONTHS OLD VEHICLE, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COVERED UNDER WARRANTY. DEALERSHIP AND MERCEDES BENZ DID NOT HONOR THE WARRANTY. SAME DAY, ANOTHER CUSTOMER CAME TO THE DEALERSHIP WITH SIMILAR PROBLEM, HIS MERCEDES ALSO HAD A ROCK STUCK BETWEEN BRAKE PADS AND ROTORS. THIS APPEARS TO BE A COMMON DEFECT IN THE MERCEDES THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED FOR THE SAFETY OF ALL. *AK

NHTSA ODI #10096242

Mileage unknown · Jun 25, 2004
Vehicle Speed Control

TGHE ACCELERATOR PEDAL IS STICKY AND NOTCHY. THIS CONDITION MADE SMOOTH ACCELERATION EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. *AK *TS

NHTSA ODI #10074295

10,000 miles · Jan 23, 2004
Service Brakes, Hydraulic

WARRANTY ISSUES AND/OR MANUFACTURING DEFECTS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY WARRANTY. *PH AT THE FIRST 10,000 MILES, THE CONSUMER NOTICED BRAKE TRAVEL WAS TOO LONG AND WAS ADVISED BY AN SERVICE ADVISOR THAT THIS WAS NORMAL. HOWEVER AT LESS THAN 3,000 MILES, THE BRAKES WERE STILL NOT ADEQUATE AND THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE FRO…

Read full complaint

WARRANTY ISSUES AND/OR MANUFACTURING DEFECTS THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY WARRANTY. *PH AT THE FIRST 10,000 MILES, THE CONSUMER NOTICED BRAKE TRAVEL WAS TOO LONG AND WAS ADVISED BY AN SERVICE ADVISOR THAT THIS WAS NORMAL. HOWEVER AT LESS THAN 3,000 MILES, THE BRAKES WERE STILL NOT ADEQUATE AND THERE WAS A SQUEAKING NOISE FROM THE REAR BRAKES WHEN BRAKING. THIS TIME, THE CONSUMER WAS ADVISED THAT THE REAR BRAKE PADS WERE GONE AND THE ROTORS WERE SCORED DUE TO TOO MUCH CITY DRIVING AND THE SERVICE ADVISOR WOULD NOT HONOR REPAIRS UNDER WARRANTY. *TT *JB

NHTSA ODI #10057273

9,000 miles · Jul 28, 2003
Power Train

THE GEARS JAMMED WHEN THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO PUT THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE. THE VEHICLE WOULD REV TO ABOUT 2000 RPM'S OR MOR BUT THE VEHICLE STILL WOULDN'T MOVE. AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPT THE VEHICLE WOULD EVENTUALLY MOVE. THE DOORS WERE DIFFICULT TO CLOSE. THE VEHICLE CONSUMED ALOT OF FUEL. THE FUEL GAUGE DIDNT WORK PROPERLY. …

Read full complaint

THE GEARS JAMMED WHEN THE CONSUMER ATTEMPTED TO PUT THE VEHICLE IN REVERSE. THE VEHICLE WOULD REV TO ABOUT 2000 RPM'S OR MOR BUT THE VEHICLE STILL WOULDN'T MOVE. AFTER SEVERAL ATTEMPT THE VEHICLE WOULD EVENTUALLY MOVE. THE DOORS WERE DIFFICULT TO CLOSE. THE VEHICLE CONSUMED ALOT OF FUEL. THE FUEL GAUGE DIDNT WORK PROPERLY. STEERING WHEEL DIDN'T DISENGAGE FROM THE IGNITION AND EXCESSIVE REFLECTION FROM GLARE SHIELD ONTO THE WINDSHIELD. *PH *NLM

NHTSA ODI #10024830

Mileage unknown · Oct 24, 2002
Power Train

TRANSMISSION STUCK IN FIRST GEAR, THREE ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY BY OWNER, FINALLY ON FOURTH ATTEMPT.(PLACING IN PARK AND TURNING OFF AN ON IGNITION) TRANSMISSION FINALLY WOKED NORMALLY. CONTACTED MANUFACTURER THROUGH ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE TOLD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER, CONTACTED DEALER, WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAVE SEEN THIS PROBLEM ON…

Read full complaint

TRANSMISSION STUCK IN FIRST GEAR, THREE ATTEMPTS TO REMEDY BY OWNER, FINALLY ON FOURTH ATTEMPT.(PLACING IN PARK AND TURNING OFF AN ON IGNITION) TRANSMISSION FINALLY WOKED NORMALLY. CONTACTED MANUFACTURER THROUGH ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE TOLD TO RETURN VEHICLE TO DEALER, CONTACTED DEALER, WAS TOLD THAT THEY HAVE SEEN THIS PROBLEM ON THIS MODEL SEVERAL TIMES. THOUGHT I SHOULD ADVISE SOMEONE AT NHSTA. DT

NHTSA ODI #768838

Official recalls

1

01V290000 · Suspension:front:control Arm:upper Arm

Sep 10, 2001

VEHICLE DESCRIPTION: PASSENGER VEHICLES. THE LEFT FRONT UPPER CONTROL ARM MAY NOT MEET THE SPECIFIED STRENGTH REQUIREMENTS.

Consequence & remedy

Consequence: THE CONTROL ARM COULD FAIL, INCREASING THE RISK OF A CRASH.

Remedy: DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE LEFT FRONT UPPER CONTROL ARM. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN SEPTEMBER 29, 2001. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT MERCEDES-BENZ AT 1-800-367-6372.

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

3

PE10050 · 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.