← 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

What owners actually said

29 reports
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 · Jan 23, 2026
Fuel/propulsion System

1. What component or system failed or malfunctioned? The low-pressure fuel feed line (Part No. 274-070-35-00) and its associated clamps connected to the high-pressure fuel pump. Availability: State: The defective hose is currently on the vehicle and is available for inspection. If the repair proceeds, I request the dealership t…

Read full complaint

1. What component or system failed or malfunctioned? The low-pressure fuel feed line (Part No. 274-070-35-00) and its associated clamps connected to the high-pressure fuel pump. Availability: State: The defective hose is currently on the vehicle and is available for inspection. If the repair proceeds, I request the dealership to retain the failed part for my inspection. 2. How was your safety or the safety of others put at risk? The failure resulted in raw fuel leaking directly into the engine compartment. This creates an immediate and severe fire hazard, as gasoline is being released near high-temperature engine components. Furthermore, the strong odor of gasoline entered the cabin through the HVAC vents, exposing passengers to toxic fuel vapors while the vehicle was in operation. 3. Has the problem been reproduced or confirmed? Yes. The defect was confirmed by Mercedes-Benz of Orange Park (Dealer Code: 64111). The technician performed a 'cold start' inspection and verified fuel leaking from the low-pressure line to the high-pressure pump. > Note: My service advisor's admitted: Yes sir we will do the hose. 4. Has it been inspected by the manufacturer, police, insurance, or others? Answer: The vehicle has been inspected and the failure documented by an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealership technician. It has not yet been inspected by insurance or police as no fire has occurred yet; however, the dealership has identified the part as defective. 5. Were there any warning lamps or other symptoms prior to failure? There were no warning lamps or dashboard messages. The primary symptom was a pungent smell of raw gasoline inside and outside the vehicle, specifically during cold starts. These symptoms first appeared recently [January 3rd, 2026] and became persistent as ambient temperatures dropped.

NHTSA ODI #11712884

Mileage unknown · Jan 20, 2026
Fuel/propulsion System

Strong gas odor coming from vent when heat and AC is on. Odor was causing dizziness and had to drive with window open or vent off. When opening the hood gas odor was also present. Brought to the mechanic and found fuel lines leaking. Went online and found out this is a very coming problem. I had to spend $657. to repair. M…

Read full complaint

Strong gas odor coming from vent when heat and AC is on. Odor was causing dizziness and had to drive with window open or vent off. When opening the hood gas odor was also present. Brought to the mechanic and found fuel lines leaking. Went online and found out this is a very coming problem. I had to spend $657. to repair. Mechanic stated Mercedes issued a service bulletin but not a recall.

NHTSA ODI #11712012

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

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 · Dec 2, 2025
Electrical SystemEngineUnknown Or Other

The car suddenly glitched and locked itself—with my dog, my purse, my phone, everything—inside on an extremely hot day. There was no one around, and it was terrifying. I had opened the passenger door for my dog to climb in, and as I walked around to the driver’s side, the doors somehow locked on their own. Panic set in immediate…

Read full complaint

The car suddenly glitched and locked itself—with my dog, my purse, my phone, everything—inside on an extremely hot day. There was no one around, and it was terrifying. I had opened the passenger door for my dog to climb in, and as I walked around to the driver’s side, the doors somehow locked on their own. Panic set in immediately. My dog, my phone, and my purse were all inside, and I had no way to call for help. We had just finished a walk, and then this happened out of nowhere. I had to run around searching for someone who could help. Eventually, I found a stranger who called the police, and they had to break the door open because it was over 100 degrees outside. I was terrified my dog would pass out from the heat. There were no warnings, no alerts, no messages. If it weren’t for that random stranger who happened to be there and willing to help, I don’t know how I would have gotten my dog out. It’s a reminder of the kindness of strangers, but the glitching car was truly terrifying and not ok.

NHTSA ODI #11702391

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

Mileage unknown · Jan 8, 2018
Air Bags

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 (NA) MERCEDES-BENZ C200. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBERS: 16V081000 AND 16V363000 (AIR BAGS). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED A LOCAL DEALER …

Read full complaint

TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2008 (NA) MERCEDES-BENZ C200. THE CONTACT RECEIVED NOTIFICATION OF NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBERS: 16V081000 AND 16V363000 (AIR BAGS). THE PARTS TO DO THE REPAIR WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE MANUFACTURER EXCEEDED A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THE RECALL REPAIR. THE CONTACT CALLED A LOCAL DEALER (HENDRICK MOTORS OF CHARLOTTE MERCEDES-BENZ, 5201 EAST INDEPENDENCE BLVD, CHARLOTTE, NC 28212) AND WAS INFORMED THAT THE PARTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT NOTIFIED. THE CONTACT HAD NOT EXPERIENCED A FAILURE. VIN TOOL CONFIRMS PARTS NOT AVAILABLE.

NHTSA ODI #11061193

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.