← New search

2015 MERCEDES-BENZ C200

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 C200 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

Limited mileage data: 0 of 29 reports include usable mileage. There isn’t enough coverage to show a useful chart.

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.

  • Structure. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Suspension. Review the 8 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →
  • Fuel/propulsion System. Review the 4 owner reports in this category and discuss these concerns during a pre-purchase inspection. Read reports →

NHTSA owner reports · September 18, 2026 snapshot.

0 crash reports0 fire reports0 injury reports

Structure complaints

8 reports
Clear category filter
Mileage unknown · Jul 13, 2026
Structure

Car was pulling to one side. Replaced the front routers and breaks. Problem still persisted. After more investigating the subframe was found to be rusting out, Mercedes of New London CT said it was unsafe to drive. But allowed my daughter to drive it home. This car was purchased it brand new from Mercedes=Benz of Warwick. The ca…

Read full complaint

Car was pulling to one side. Replaced the front routers and breaks. Problem still persisted. After more investigating the subframe was found to be rusting out, Mercedes of New London CT said it was unsafe to drive. But allowed my daughter to drive it home. This car was purchased it brand new from Mercedes=Benz of Warwick. The car was garaged all it life. This should not happen. They have had recalls and problems with this model just not this one. My concern is the safety of those driving this model clearly the problem was not solved. Please make Mercedes notify people driving this model, that there is a known subframe corrosion issue.

NHTSA ODI #11750145

Mileage unknown · Jun 3, 2026
Structure

My 2015 C300 W205 failed at its state inspection today due to a rusted through rear subframe. I understand that the W204 warranty on this was extended to 20 years/unlimited miles but the W205 was not. I have contacted Mercedes customer care for a potential goodwill repair since this seems to be a known issue with class actions …

Read full complaint

My 2015 C300 W205 failed at its state inspection today due to a rusted through rear subframe. I understand that the W204 warranty on this was extended to 20 years/unlimited miles but the W205 was not. I have contacted Mercedes customer care for a potential goodwill repair since this seems to be a known issue with class actions pending. This should not be failing and it’s unclear why Mercedes did not include all models with the same design in its extended warranty. The costs could be up to $7k.

NHTSA ODI #11741830

Mileage unknown · Apr 28, 2026
Structure

The rear of the car would begin to slip during turns and when brakes were applied. When I had the issue checked out, my mechanic said that the rear subframe has severe corrosion, rust and holes. The subframe perforation is causing instability in the rear wheels, which is a safety issue. I took the car to Mercedes for an inspecti…

Read full complaint

The rear of the car would begin to slip during turns and when brakes were applied. When I had the issue checked out, my mechanic said that the rear subframe has severe corrosion, rust and holes. The subframe perforation is causing instability in the rear wheels, which is a safety issue. I took the car to Mercedes for an inspection and they confirmed the holes in the sub frame,with the inspector stating that the sub frame is "about to fall off". I believe this to be a safety issue as having the wheels or subframe fall off could cause fatalities. This appears to be a manufacturing defect given recalls for the same issue in other models of the 2015 c300. See video of the inspection of my car here: [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11734329

Mileage unknown · Mar 17, 2026
Structure

The rear subframe completely rusted out on both sides causing the car to swerve very dangerously to the left when braking. The subframe was diagnosed by the dealer. There was a " collision prevention assist+ inoperative" warning a week prior the the car noticeably swerving when braking

NHTSA ODI #11724992

Mileage unknown · Jan 27, 2026
Structure

I have been informed by my dealer's service unit that the rear subframe of my car (2015 Mercedes C class) is rusted with holes. My understanding is that this can affect the integrity of the structure and cause problems while driving. According to your website [XXX] ) , this should be covered under a warranty extension. However…

Read full complaint

I have been informed by my dealer's service unit that the rear subframe of my car (2015 Mercedes C class) is rusted with holes. My understanding is that this can affect the integrity of the structure and cause problems while driving. According to your website [XXX] ) , this should be covered under a warranty extension. However, Mercedes says that my car is not, and to fill out this form if I believe it should be. INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11713745

Mileage unknown · Dec 3, 2025
Structure

I took my car for service and they found a rusted rear subframe, with a small hole in it. I was informed that the car was not safe for my annual trip from NJ to FL (about 1000 miles). I was also told that this defect was a recall for cars through 2014. My car is a 2015 and I have the same defective part - which is supposed t…

Read full complaint

I took my car for service and they found a rusted rear subframe, with a small hole in it. I was informed that the car was not safe for my annual trip from NJ to FL (about 1000 miles). I was also told that this defect was a recall for cars through 2014. My car is a 2015 and I have the same defective part - which is supposed to be manufactured with rustproof material. I am requesting that this car be recalled and the part replaced by the manufacturer.

NHTSA ODI #11702655

Mileage unknown · Nov 27, 2025
Structure

My car’s rear subframe was so badly disintegrated due to severe corrosion. It made the driving so dangerous when braking and nearly caused an head-on collision. I have reported this issue under tracking number 11701609 and would like to provide pictures on the corrosion issue.

NHTSA ODI #11701834

Mileage unknown · Nov 25, 2025
Structure

My wife first noticed loud noise from the back of the car when braking. Subsequently, when I drove it one day after, the car lost balance and nearly went into the opposite direction of the road on a two-lane street. The MB dealership later confirmed the problem was a severely corroded rear subframe that needs to be repaired at v…

Read full complaint

My wife first noticed loud noise from the back of the car when braking. Subsequently, when I drove it one day after, the car lost balance and nearly went into the opposite direction of the road on a two-lane street. The MB dealership later confirmed the problem was a severely corroded rear subframe that needs to be repaired at very significant expense. This is a serious safety issue that could have caused a head-on collision for me and my wife as a passenger on that occasion. I believe this issue warrants a full investigation by the NHTSA. I understand other Mercedes models such as the 2008-2015 C300 (W204) had the same corrosion issue and was under a recall but my car model (W205) was not covered by this recall. Thank you for your attention to this matter. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)

NHTSA ODI #11701609

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.