I am a mechanic speaking on the behalf of a customer; this customer is experiencing problems with her rear subframe. The older generation of her car has a famous issue with rear subframe rusting out. Her car uses an updated part number that is almost identical in construction to the failure prone part that was famous for rusting…
Read full complaint
I am a mechanic speaking on the behalf of a customer; this customer is experiencing problems with her rear subframe. The older generation of her car has a famous issue with rear subframe rusting out. Her car uses an updated part number that is almost identical in construction to the failure prone part that was famous for rusting out, although they are NOT the same number. The failure prone number is 2123503805 or 2043500141, they are installed on the older chassis, w204, w212, etc. The part that is in THIS vehicle is 2123503605, the construction is almost identical to the part numbers listed for the w212 and w204 provided above. There is no drainage holes provided for water that has entered through rain or any other detritus that will permeate on the road's surfaces through natural progression of the vehicle's life, like on the older chassis. The material used is steel with paint on the outside instead of some sort of encapsulation that coats both inside and outside surfaces. And because these don't have any sort of ability to evacuate any substances, they are interacting with unprotected metal and will react into rust. This failure can lead to misalignment at the very minimum of problems, at the worst, it can cause control arms falling off, causing wheel hub assemblies to fall off, this shouldn't have to be explained but this can cause major injury or death, not only to the passengers to the vehicle, but to others who share the misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time. And, the understanding of these not being the SAME part shouldn't warrant the extension of the recall to these particular vehicles, but the failures are similar to what was seen before on other older vehicles and should warrant further investigation. With hope, this could just be an isolated incident, but since patterns are uncanny, this should be investigated with some interest to the public wellbeing. Cordially Naseam F. Samaan Licensed Virginia State Inspector. Sanko Auto Care
NHTSA ODI #11760266
Mileage unknown · Aug 19, 2026
Suspension
An inspection of my vehicle on August 6, 2026 disclosed that the rear subframe has corrosion, including perforation. It is my understanding that this problem has been identified in mine and many other Mercedes-Benz models, and that Mercedes-Benz has offered an extended warranty to replace the subframe in certain of these models,…
Read full complaint
An inspection of my vehicle on August 6, 2026 disclosed that the rear subframe has corrosion, including perforation. It is my understanding that this problem has been identified in mine and many other Mercedes-Benz models, and that Mercedes-Benz has offered an extended warranty to replace the subframe in certain of these models, but my model for the year it was manufactured was not included. I was not made aware of this potential problem by Mercedes-Benz, and they are not offering an extended warranty to resolve this serious safety issue.
NHTSA ODI #11757917
Mileage unknown · Aug 4, 2026
Suspension
During a mandatory Virginia State Safety Inspection, the vehicle failed due to severe structural corrosion and perforation of the rear subframe. Because these components notoriously corrode from the inside out, the fact that the rust is externally visible and structurally failing indicates an advanced, catastrophic material brea…
Read full complaint
During a mandatory Virginia State Safety Inspection, the vehicle failed due to severe structural corrosion and perforation of the rear subframe. Because these components notoriously corrode from the inside out, the fact that the rust is externally visible and structurally failing indicates an advanced, catastrophic material breakdown.The rear subframe serves as the foundational load-bearing anchor for the rear suspension and control arms. This level of structural rot poses an immediate, severe safety hazard. Had the failure occurred while driving at highway speeds rather than being caught during an inspection, the suspension mounts could have catastrophically detached, causing a sudden loss of vehicle control, unpredictable fishtailing, and an imminent crash risk. There are absolutely no dashboard warning lights, diagnostic trouble codes (DTCs), or driving indicators to alert the driver of this structural degradation. The defect remains entirely hidden until the metal physically fractures or the vehicle fails a professional inspection. Furthermore, because neighboring states (such as Maryland) do not mandate annual safety inspections, this severe structural failure will go entirely unnoticed by thousands of drivers until a catastrophic on-road failure occurs. Mercedes-Benz has already explicitly acknowledged this exact engineering and material defect in the preceding W204 generation (C-Class models up to 2015), subsequently issuing a 20-year, unlimited-mileage extended warranty for rear subframe corrosion. However, Mercedes-Benz has arbitrarily excluded my 2015 W205 C-Class model from this coverage, despite the vehicle employing a highly similar subframe design that suffers from the exact same moisture-trapping and premature rotting failure mechanism. This represents an unaddressed, systemic manufacturing defect that poses an immediate risk to public safety. I’ve included two photos showing holes in the subframe from rusting inside out.
NHTSA ODI #11754785
Mileage unknown · May 17, 2026
Suspension
The car would seem to shift when stopping , when tires were removed the rear subframe had rusted out completely, this is a major safety issue and could cause loss of control of the vehicle. The failure is the same as what the w204s experienced but they’re being fixed at the cost of Mercedes
NHTSA ODI #11738382
Mileage unknown · Apr 28, 2026
SteeringSuspensionVehicle Speed Control
rusted rear subframe. unsafe braking and suspension due to this. damage code 35441 47 shows 2008-2015 vins but my vin does not show active recall, yet has the issue
NHTSA ODI #11734426
Mileage unknown · Apr 8, 2026
Suspension
The R&R rear subframe is showing premature corrosion that can cause structural failure. This can lead to rear suspension detachment, erratic driving behavior, and severe safety risks. This problem has been confirmed by the Mercedes Benz dealer. This has been inspected by the Mercedes Benz dealership. There were no warning lamps,…
Read full complaint
The R&R rear subframe is showing premature corrosion that can cause structural failure. This can lead to rear suspension detachment, erratic driving behavior, and severe safety risks. This problem has been confirmed by the Mercedes Benz dealer. This has been inspected by the Mercedes Benz dealership. There were no warning lamps, messages or other symptoms of the problem prior me finding out it was failing. I had a multi inspection performed on my car due to another issues and the MB service dept found it during that time. Which means if I had never had the multi inspection done due to another issue I was having with the car, I would not have known.
NHTSA ODI #11729890
Mileage unknown · Mar 16, 2026
Suspension
REAR SUBFRAME RUSTED OUT AND BROKEN
NHTSA ODI #11724694
Mileage unknown · Jan 5, 2026
Suspension
Purchased this car in September 2024 for our [XXX] son. Upon inspection at our local Mercedes Dealership on December 1, 2025, we were informed that the rear subframe should be immediately replaced as there is a rusted hole in the subframe, "compromising the structural integrity of the rear of the vehicle." We were informed tha…
Read full complaint
Purchased this car in September 2024 for our [XXX] son. Upon inspection at our local Mercedes Dealership on December 1, 2025, we were informed that the rear subframe should be immediately replaced as there is a rusted hole in the subframe, "compromising the structural integrity of the rear of the vehicle." We were informed that the prior bulletin issued for 2010-2014 C-Class models did not include our 2015 C-Class. We were quoted over $5200 to repair the subframe. There were no warning messages, lights problems that were noted, prior to inspection. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
NHTSA ODI #11708959
Official recalls
0
No recalls in this snapshot.
Model-level recall history does not show whether a particular VIN is affected or has received a repair. Check a VIN with NHTSA ↗
NHTSA investigations
1
EA21002 · Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture
Opened Sep 17, 2021 · No close date supplied
Status: open (inferred from source dates) · Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module; Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Additional source detail variants (2)
Air Bags:frontal:driver Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
Air Bags:frontal:passenger Side:inflator Module
From 2000 through 2017, Takata produced millions of air bag inflators using two types of phase-stabilized ammonium nitrate ("PSAN") propellant -- propellant 2004 and propellant 2004L. After prolonged exposure to high temperature cycles and humidity, inflators using propellant 2004 can degrade, causing the propellant to burn too quickly when ignited. The rapid burning can cause the inflator to rupture during deployment, potentially causing serious or even fatal injury to vehicle occupants. See 2016 Blomquist Report at www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/documents/expert_report-hrblomquist.pdf.Consequently, all frontal inflators using propellant 2004 that do not contain a "desiccant" (a substance that traps and holds moisture) in US vehicles are under recall. These "non-desiccated" inflators either have been or are required to be replaced.In some cases, the remedy part for these recalled inflators was, or will be, an inflator using either propellant 2004 or 2004L that does contain a desiccant. None of these "desiccated" remedy parts (which were installed in older model year vehicles) are currently under recall for a degradation concern. Certain subsets of desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004 for use as original equipment, however, have been recalled for a degradation concern. All Takata inflators produced with propellant 2004L contain desiccant, and none of these desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L are under recall for a degradation concern. There have been no reported field ruptures in any non-recalled desiccated PSAN inflators.It is understood that desiccants fully saturate at some threshold, at which point any additional moisture will not be captured. This means the degradation process observed in non-desiccated inflators using propellant 2004 may also occur in non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004, assuming additional moisture enters the inflator and high temperature cycling occurs. Based on available information, desiccant saturation can occur within the first five years in the worst environments, and the time required for full saturation is affected by multiple factors. While no present safety risk has been identified, further work is needed to evaluate the future risk of non-recalled desiccated inflators using propellant 2004.Three entities -- Takata (now known as TK Global), the Independent Testing Coalition, and Exponent -- have been studying the long-term behavior of Takata desiccated PSAN inflators using propellant 2004L (as well as 2004) in the presence of moisture and temperature cycling. The research efforts, which include development of predictive modeling techniques and field sample analysis, are ongoing. To date, none of the researchers have identified field evidence showing that propellant 2004L is undergoing a degradation process that leads to aggressive deployment and potential rupture. However, the time in service of such inflators remains short compared to that of the inflators using propellant 2004. Further study is needed to assess the long-term safety of desiccated inflators using propellant 2004L.The Office of Defects Investigation is opening this investigation to examine whether a safety defect related to propellant degradation exists in non-recalled desiccated PSAN frontal inflators manufactured by Takata. This investigation will require extensive information on Takata production processes and surveys of inflators in the field. Lists of recall actions that may have used desiccated PSAN inflators as remedy parts, as well as the makes and models originally manufactured with them, is available with the downloadable version of this document (see nhtsa.gov/recalls?nhtsaId=EA21002 -- note this information is subject to change/revision as the investigation proceeds). This investigation does not supersede EA15-001, which remains open.
2015 MERCEDES-BENZ C200 Problems, Complaints & Recalls | Skip That Year
Illustration