CSR

Mercedes-Benz · NHTSA safety record

2015 Mercedes-Benz C200

Every safety complaint, recall and defect investigation the US government holds on this vehicle.

Owners have filed 29 safety complaints about the 2015 Mercedes-Benz C200 with the US government. Of those, no death is recorded. No recall campaign has been matched to this year, make and model.

The most complained-about system is the body structure, named in 8 complaints, 28% of the total.

Compiled from NHTSA's complaint, recall and investigation files · Covers January 2018 to September 2026 · How this is counted

What is on file

29 complaints on file

29

Complaints

0

Describe a crash

0

Mention fire

0

People injured

0

Deaths

A complaint is an unverified account by the person who filed it, not a finding of fault. One complaint is one ODI number, which is how NHTSA counts them.

No recall campaign was matched to this year, make and model. That is not the same as a clean vehicle: recalls are issued against production ranges, and the only reliable check is your own VIN.

Which system owners named

Complaints naming each system
STRUCTURE 8 · 28%
SUSPENSION 8 · 28%
UNKNOWN OR OTHER 6 · 21%
FUEL/PROPULSION SYSTEM 4 · 14%
ENGINE 3 · 10%
AIR BAGS 2 · 7%
STEERING 2 · 7%
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM 1 · 3%
VEHICLE SPEED CONTROL 1 · 3%
0 4 8

One complaint can name several systems, so these add up to more than 29.

When the complaints arrived

By the year NHTSA received them

By the year NHTSA received them, which is not the year the failures happened. They peaked in 2026 at 24.

28 21 14 7
18 25 26

This is the year the complaint was filed, not the year the failure happened. The range runs from 2018 to 2026, the last of them a part year, which is why its column is drawn faint.

Crash test ratings

NHTSA New Car Assessment Program

NHTSA has not crash tested the 2015 Mercedes-Benz C200. Its New Car Assessment Program tests a selection of each year's vehicles and does not reach motorcycles, heavy trucks, motorhomes or most low-volume models, so an absence here says nothing about how the vehicle would perform. It is not a low score.

What owners have reported about this vehicle is below, and it is a different question: a crash test measures what happens to the people inside in a controlled impact, while a complaint records what broke during ordinary use.

Defect investigations

1 on file

An investigation means NHTSA has decided a pattern is worth examining. A preliminary evaluation is often closed with no action; an engineering analysis is the stage that usually precedes a recall.

Desiccated Air Bag Inflator Rupture

EA21002

Still open engineering analysis · opened September 17, 2021

the air bags

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.

In owners’ own words

Quoted from the complaint file

Quoted from NHTSA's complaint file. These are unverified accounts by the people who filed them, not findings of fault.

SUSPENSION
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

NHTSA complaint 11760266, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER
Vehicle rear subframe has rusted through, causing vehicle to swerve upon braking, making the car unsafe to drive for the occupant, other vehicles on the road, and pedestrians. Mercedes dealer has advised that subframe has rusted through, requires replacement. The car will be brought to the dealer for repair (at owner's expense) by Friday, 8/28/2026. We can request that the dealer provide us with the subframe - please advise. The vehicle provided no warning indications.

NHTSA complaint 11759222. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

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, 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 complaint 11757917. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

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 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

NHTSA complaint 11754785, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

STRUCTURE:BODY
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 complaint 11750145. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

STRUCTURE:BODY
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 complaint 11741830. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

Compare

Other 2015 Mercedes-Benz models

Every Mercedes-Benz on this site — 227 vehicles.

If this is your car and a dealer keeps failing to fix it, your state's lemon law may require the manufacturer to replace it or buy it back. How many repair attempts it takes, and how long you have to file, is set by the state you bought in and by nothing on this page.

Where these numbers come from

A complaint is one owner's account and has not been verified by NHTSA or by us. A vehicle with more complaints is not necessarily worse: models that sold in larger numbers collect more of them. How this is counted.

Compiled and maintained by
Independent developer and analyst