← New search

2000 Mercedes Benz E Class

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 E Class 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

21 reports with mileage · 13 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.

  • Electrical System. Review the 11 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Engine And Engine Cooling. Review the 7 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Structure. Review the 5 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

1 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports

Structure complaints

5 reports
Clear category filter
138,000 miles · Aug 27, 2012
Structure

MY 2000 E320 HAS EXCESSIVE RUST ISSUES THROUGH OUT THE ENTIRE BODY. I WAS TOLD BY MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A NEW WATER BASED PAINT USED BETWEEN 1997-2002 BUT BECAUSE I AM OUT OF WARRANTY AND THE CAR IS OVER 10 YEARS OLD THEY CAN NOT HELP ME OR OFFER ME ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE WIT…

Read full complaint

MY 2000 E320 HAS EXCESSIVE RUST ISSUES THROUGH OUT THE ENTIRE BODY. I WAS TOLD BY MERCEDES BENZ OF NORTH AMERICA THIS IS A COMMON ISSUE BECAUSE OF THE USE OF A NEW WATER BASED PAINT USED BETWEEN 1997-2002 BUT BECAUSE I AM OUT OF WARRANTY AND THE CAR IS OVER 10 YEARS OLD THEY CAN NOT HELP ME OR OFFER ME ANY FURTHER ASSISTANCE WITH THE ISSUE. I HAVE LOCATED ONLINE FORUMS WITH CONSUMERS WHO OWN THE SAME CAR AS MYSELF AND HAVE THE SAME EXACT ISSUES IN THE SAME PLACES AND RECEIVED THE SAME INFORMATION FROM MBUSA. THE WORST AREAS ARE IN EVERY WHEEL WELL CAUSING THE WHEEL WHEELS TO BUCKLE AND CHIP INTO THE SUSPENSION AND BREAK AREA AND IT HAS CAUSE THE FRAME OF THE CAR TO SEVERELY WEAKEN, IN ADDITION MY REAR TRUNK KEY HOLE AREA IS RUSTING THROUGH AND I WAS ADVISED IT WILL RUST THROUGH AND AT THAT POINT THE LOCKING MECHANISM WILL COME OFF AND I WILL AT THAT POINT NEED TO REPLACE THE TRUNK LID POSSIBLY CAUSING THE TRUNK TO INVOLUNTARY OPEN WHILE OPERATING THE VEHICLE. *TR

NHTSA ODI #10472635

82,000 miles · Oct 4, 2010
Structure

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCEDES E 320. THE CONTACT STATED THAT EVERY PANEL ON THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED. THE CONTACTS PERSONAL MECHANIC ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE POSSIBLY WOULD NOT PASS INSPECTION WITHIN A YEAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF THE RUST, BUT THE CONTACT STATED TH…

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2000 MERCEDES E 320. THE CONTACT STATED THAT EVERY PANEL ON THE VEHICLE WAS RUSTED. THE CONTACTS PERSONAL MECHANIC ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE POSSIBLY WOULD NOT PASS INSPECTION WITHIN A YEAR. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE CAUSE OF THE RUST, BUT THE CONTACT STATED THERE WAS INFORMATION ONLINE SUGGESTING THAT THE MANUFACTURER MAY HAVE USED WATER BASED PAINT ON THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 82,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 129,000.

NHTSA ODI #10359148

Mileage unknown · Sep 8, 2006
Structure

I WANT TO BRING THIS MATTER TO YOU REGARDING THE MERCEDES BENZ MODEL W210 1997/2002 THEY ARE PRONE TO RUST ON THE DOOR/TRUNKS AND THE FRONT UPPER SPRING MOUNTS.. AS THE SPRING MOUNTS SEPARATED ON MY CAR AND CAUSED LOSS OF STEERING THE SPOT WELDS RUSTED OUT ON A SIX YEAR OLD CAR WITH 47,000 MILES THAT IS GARAGED AND DETAILED WE…

Read full complaint

I WANT TO BRING THIS MATTER TO YOU REGARDING THE MERCEDES BENZ MODEL W210 1997/2002 THEY ARE PRONE TO RUST ON THE DOOR/TRUNKS AND THE FRONT UPPER SPRING MOUNTS.. AS THE SPRING MOUNTS SEPARATED ON MY CAR AND CAUSED LOSS OF STEERING THE SPOT WELDS RUSTED OUT ON A SIX YEAR OLD CAR WITH 47,000 MILES THAT IS GARAGED AND DETAILED WEEKLY I DID A SEARCH AND THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM AND THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL FROM MBUSA I CONTACTED MBUSA AND WAS TOLD THE PROBLEM IS NOT COVERED SINCE ITS OUT OF WARRANTY..BTW EURO MBS HAVE A 10 YEAR RUST WARRANTY AND USA MBS HAVE A 4 YEAR WARRANTY FROM RUST... THIS SHOULD BE A RECALL BEFORE IT KILLS A DRIVER AND PASSENGERS! *JB

NHTSA ODI #10167702

118,890 miles · Jul 19, 2006
Structure

2000 MERCEDES BENZ E320. WITH 118,000 MILES, HAVING BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED, AND NEVER IN A MAJOR ACCIDENT, THE FRONT SUBFRAME OF THE CAR BROKE ALL THE WAY THROUGH, NEAR THE UPPER CONTROL ARM. THE FRONT END IMMEDIATELY MADE LOUD SCRAPING NOISES. UPON TAKING IT TO A DEALER, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. WE WERE FIRST GIV…

Read full complaint

2000 MERCEDES BENZ E320. WITH 118,000 MILES, HAVING BEEN WELL-MAINTAINED, AND NEVER IN A MAJOR ACCIDENT, THE FRONT SUBFRAME OF THE CAR BROKE ALL THE WAY THROUGH, NEAR THE UPPER CONTROL ARM. THE FRONT END IMMEDIATELY MADE LOUD SCRAPING NOISES. UPON TAKING IT TO A DEALER, WE WERE TOLD IT WAS NOT SAFE TO DRIVE. WE WERE FIRST GIVEN AN ESTIMATE OF $9500 FOR THE REPAIR, AND TOLD IT WOULD TAKE FIVE WEEKS TO GET A REPLACEMENT SUBFRAME. THE MECHANIC WOULD NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER IT WAS DEFECTIVE, ONLY THAT IT WAS VERY RUSTY, AND THAT IT WAS BROKEN. WE CONTACTED M-B USA. THEY OPENED A CASE, SENT OUT AN INVESTIGATOR. M-B USA WOULD NOT ADMIT THAT THE PREMATURE RUST, AND FAILURE, OF THAT SUBFRAME WAS THE RESULT OF A FACTORY DEFECT, BUT THEY AGREED TO PAY $3000 OUT OF THE FINAL PRICE QUOTE OF $7500. THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT, IF WE EXPECTED TO GET MORE, WE WOULD HAVE TO SUE THEM. TO RECEIVE THE $3000, WE HAD TO SIGN A RELEASE. WE THEN FILED AN INSURANCE CLAIM WITH AAA, ON THE THEORY THAT THE DAMAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CAUSED BY SOME SORT OF ROAD INCIDENT (POTHOLE, ETC). HOWEVER, THE INSURANCE INVESTIGATOR INSPECTED THE CAR (AND TOOK PHOTOGRAPHS), AND THEN DENIED THE CLAIM, NOTING EXTENSIVE RUST THROUGHOUT THE UNDERBODY OF THE CAR, AND ON THE FRONT AND REAR SUBFRAME COMPONENTS. MY LATER RESEARCH DISCOVERED, MERCEDES-BENZ USED A TYPE OF STEEL ON STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THEIR CARS CALLED HSLA (HIGH STRENGTH, LOW ALLOY). THEY USED THIS HSLA STEEL OSTENSIBLY BECAUSE OF ITS GREATER STRENGTH, AND CRASH RESISTANCE. IN THEORY, HSLA STEEL SHOULD HAVE HIGHER-THAN-NORMAL CORROSION RESISTANCE, SO IT'S MY BELIEF THAT MERCEDES-BENZ EITHER GOT BAD BATCHES OF THIS HSLA STEEL, OR THEY SUBSTITUTED AN INFERIOR GRADE OF STEEL. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY CARS WERE PRODUCED HAVING THIS PROBLEM, BUT IT WORRIES ME. PEOPLE MAY BE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD RIGHT NOW, UNAWARE THAT IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS OF THEIR CARS MAY BE READY TO FAIL. *NM

NHTSA ODI #10162902

Mileage unknown · Apr 8, 2004
Electrical SystemStructure

VEHICLE HAS TWO DEFECTS THAT MAY INDIRECT CAUSE INJURY AND ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. *PH THE VEHICLE HAS A SUNROOF DIRECTLY OVER THE SHIFTING CONSOLE AND HAS A CONSOLE THAT OPENS TO HOLD LIQUIDS DIRECTLY OVER THE SHIFTING CONSOLE. WHEN THERE WAS LESS THAN ONE MINUTE OF LIGHT RAIN, IT WILL GET DOWN IN THE SHIFTER AND THE…

Read full complaint

VEHICLE HAS TWO DEFECTS THAT MAY INDIRECT CAUSE INJURY AND ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR. *PH THE VEHICLE HAS A SUNROOF DIRECTLY OVER THE SHIFTING CONSOLE AND HAS A CONSOLE THAT OPENS TO HOLD LIQUIDS DIRECTLY OVER THE SHIFTING CONSOLE. WHEN THERE WAS LESS THAN ONE MINUTE OF LIGHT RAIN, IT WILL GET DOWN IN THE SHIFTER AND THE VEHICLE WOULD BECOME UNDRIVEABLE AND MUST BE TOWED TO THE NEAREST DEALER. THE VEHICLE WAS ONLY 4 MONTHS OLD AND MERCEDES DID NOT COVER MOISTURE DAMAGE WITHIN THE WARRANTY. DURING MODERATE RAIN AND WET (NOT FLOODED) STREETS, AS THE CONSUMER STOPPED THE VEHICLE, THE WINDOWS BEGAN TO GO UP AND DOWN, THE ALARM WENT OFF AND ON, AND THE LIGHTS WENT ON AND OFF BY THEMSELVES. MODEL/E-320 *SC *JB

NHTSA ODI #10066950

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

3

DP05007 · Transmission Malfunction

Opened Nov 7, 2005 · Closed Mar 27, 2006

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Power Train:automatic Transmission; Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

Additional source detail variants (2)

Power Train:automatic Transmission:control Module (tcm/pcm/tecm)

THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

Power Train:automatic Transmission

THE PETITIONER ALLEGES THAT COFFEE FROM A CUP, PLACED IN THE CUP HOLDER, SPILLED ONTO THE GEAR SHIFTER AND SHUT DOWN THE VEHICLE?S ENTIRE ELECTRICAL SYSTEM. THE CONCERN RAISED BY THE PETITIONER WAS INVESTIGATED (SQ01-010) AND WAS CLOSED AFTER ODI CONCLUDED THAT THE FACTS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.ODI HAS SUBSEQUENTLY RECEIVED NINE MORE COMPLAINTS ALLEGING FLUID CONTAMINATION OF THE TRANSMISSION SHIFTER SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WAS CLOSED, NONE OF WHICH REPORT CRASHES OR INJURIES.THESE NINE COMPLAINANTS MAINLY EXPRESSED DISSATISFACTION WITH THE DESIGN OF THE CUP HOLDER AND THE COST OF REPLACING THE CONTAMINATED ELECTRONIC SELECTOR MODULE.SIMILARLY, IN PETITIONER?S CASE SHE WAS ABLE TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE TO A PLACE WHERE IT COULD BE SAFETY STOPPED AFTER THE LIQUID SPILLAGE.THE PETITIONER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE OF A SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT.IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING AND THE NEED TO ALLOCATE AND PRIORITIZE NHTSA'S LIMITED RESOURCES TO BEST ACCOMPLISH THE AGENCY'S SAFETY MISSION, THE PETITION IS DENIED.

PE03058 · Engine Crankshaft Pulley Failure

Opened Dec 17, 2003 · Closed Apr 22, 2004

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

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

SQ01010 · Sudden Engine Shut Down

Opened Sep 25, 2001 · Closed Feb 4, 2002

Status: closed (inferred from source dates) · Engine And Engine Cooling

No summary supplied.