CSR

Mercedes-Benz · NHTSA safety record

2015 Mercedes-Benz C220

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

Owners have filed 8 safety complaints about the 2015 Mercedes-Benz C220 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 suspension, named in 4 complaints, 50% of the total.

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

What is on file

8 complaints on file

8

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
SUSPENSION 4 · 50%
UNKNOWN OR OTHER 3 · 38%
STRUCTURE 2 · 25%
POWER TRAIN 1 · 13%
0 4 8

One complaint can name several systems, so these add up to more than 8.

Crash test ratings

NHTSA New Car Assessment Program

NHTSA has not crash tested the 2015 Mercedes-Benz C220. 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.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER
The vehicle’s rear subframe has become severely rusted and structurally compromised. This failure has caused the vehicle to pull sharply to the right when the brakes are applied. The rear subframe and affected components are still on the vehicle and are available for inspection upon request. This condition creates a serious safety risk because the vehicle can suddenly pull hard to one side during braking, making it extremely difficult to maintain control. At highway speeds or during emergency braking, this could cause the driver to lose control of the vehicle, leave the roadway, collide with another vehicle or object, or potentially result in a rollover. The failure is especially concerning

NHTSA complaint 11766498, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

SUSPENSION
The rear subframe on the car is rusting badly and the Mercedes certified mechanic states that the entire frame needs replacement. With braking, the car could fishtail and be in a serious crash. The two model years prior to mine have had similar problems and a recall has been established for those years. I am asking the NHTSA to work with Mercedes-Benz to establish a recall for the 2015 C class before someone is injured as a result of this defect.

NHTSA complaint 11766545. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

SUSPENSION
I noticed some unstable braking at higher speeds. I took the vehicle to a mechanic and he discovered severe rust with perforation of the rear subframe "very near to where some of the suspension connects to it and is allowing a lot of extra movement, especially under braking." He told me that the vehicle was unsafe to drive on the highway or at speeds over 40 mph and should be repaired, preferably through Mercedes as soon as possible. I've reached out to Mercedes Benz USA. They told me that this has been a common problem and some vehicles have had the warranty extended because of it. My vehicle is not included in the warranty extention but they suggested that it may be eligible for a

NHTSA complaint 11765376, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

SUSPENSION
The rear structural subframe on my vehicle has experienced severe, premature corrosion perforation (rotting from the inside out), resulting in a major compromise of the vehicle’s structural integrity. This subframe is a critical safety component that supports the entire rear suspension, differential, and braking components. The subframe has rusted to the point of developing holes and structural cracks under normal operating conditions. This severe deterioration creates an immediate safety hazard, as a total failure or snapping of the subframe while driving can cause a sudden loss of vehicle control, unpredictable suspension geometry changes, and a severe risk of a high-speed

NHTSA complaint 11764483, quoted in part. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

STRUCTURE:BODY
The sunroof panel being cracked on this car is a well known and documented issue. There have been several recalls for it just not on my specific model. Yet I’m just like them, stuck with a broken in half sunroof panel that let water seep in and ruin my sunroof twice now, and the only fix is to pay $4500. This is insanely high for the small panel I’m talking about.

NHTSA complaint 11751245. Filed by an owner and not verified by NHTSA or by us.

UNKNOWN OR OTHER
Sunroof Glass failure vin:55SWF4KB1FU039607 2015 Mercedes C300 2PM July 16 2026, Tampa highway near college park east coordinates28.06840 N.82.35292W TEMPERATURE 91F

NHTSA complaint 11750865. 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