2006 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Problems, recalls and owner-reported issues
Engine is the leading concern among 183 owner complaints filed for this model year. This is the 13th highest complaint count among 23 C-Class model years with reports.
Of the 2006 reports, 10 involved a crash. 14 people were injured.
What owners report most often
Recalls and investigations
No safety recalls on file.
Representative owner complaints
183 reports, newest first.
Other or unspecified, Sep 25, 2007
"CHROME" COATINGS ON GEARSHIFT AND MISCELLANEOUS INTERIOR TRIM IS PRONE TO SHREDDING APART, RESULTING IN SHARP METALLIC SHARDS THAT CAN BECOME LODGED BENEATH THE SKIN. *JB
Structure, Electrical system, Aug 24, 2006
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE WEARING SUNGLASSES THE INSTRUMENT PANEL WAS NOT READABLE. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS HOW THE VEHICLE WAS MANUFACTURED. UPDATED 09/15/06. *JB
Service brakes, Hydraulic, Engine and engine cooling, Aug 1, 2006
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE TRAVELING VARIOUS SPEEDS, THERE WAS A KNOCKING SOUND COMING FROM THE ENGINE COMPARTMENT. THE DEALERSHIP WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE PROBLEM. THE BRAKE PEDAL SHAKES WHILE DEPRESSED. THE DEALERSHIP DETERMINED THIS WAS NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS.
Seats, Apr 17, 2006
THE MERCEDES CLK350 VIN [XXX]- THE PASSENGER SEAT AND DRIVER SEAT WHEN RELEASED TO ALLOW A REAR PASSENGER OUT OF THE CAR CAUSES THE HEAD REST TO AUTOMATICALLY DESCEND AND CAN TRAP THE REAR OCCUPANTS HAND IN PLACE AS IT DID WITH A 10 YEAR CHILD IN MY CAR. THE CONTROL TO RAISE THE HEADREST IS DISABLED WHEN THE SEAT IS IN THIS POSITION THEREBY NOT ALLOWING ANY METHOD TO RELEASE THE TRAPPED HAND. I SPOKE WITH MERCEDES THIS MORNING AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS IS HOW IT IS DESIGNED AND THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT BUT WOULD TELL THEIR ENGINEERS. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A DANGEROUS SITUATION SINCE EVERYONE NEEDS TO USE THE FRONT SEAT TO ASSIST THEMSELVES WHEN EXITING THE VEHICLE. *NM UPDATED 07/16/2012 *JS INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6)
Tires, Wheels, Apr 7, 2006
I BOUGHT A NEW 2006 C230 ON 2/27/2006 . I WAS DRIVING THIS CAR ON THE FREEWAY AT NIGHT AND AFTER 10-15 MINUTES OF DRIVING THE TIRE ON DRIVER REAR SIDE WAS SHREDDED. I REPLACED THIS TIRE WITH THE SPARE TIRE. AFTER ALL REMAINING TIRES WERE CHECKED THAT WERE GOOD TO DRIVE...I DROVE ANOTHER 15-20 MINS AND DRIVER SIDE FRONT TIRE SHREDDED. AT THIS TIME I HAD TO CALL AAA AND HAD THE CAR TOWED TO MERCEDES DEALERSHIP IN BEVERLY HILLS. THIS DEALERSHIP DIAGNOSED THE PROBLEM AS SOMETHING HAD IMPACTED THE WHEELS OF THE CAR AND THAT SHREDDED THE TIRES. I ALSO LOOKED AT THE WHEELS MYSELF AND I DID NOT SEE ANY DAMAGE TO THE WHEELS WHERE THEY WERE POINTING TO SAYING THERE IS SLIGHT RAISED OR INDENTATION . THEY TOLD ME MERCEDES WILL NOT COVER FOR THE WARRANTY OF THE TIRES AND WHEELS. I FEEL THAT I DID NOT DO ANYTHING OUT OF THE ORDINARY WHILE DRIVING THIS CAR TO CAUSE THIS DAMAGE AND I SHOULD NOT BE AT FAULT FOR THIS AND THAT THE MERCEDES COMPANY SHOULD COVER THIS COST AND REIMBURSE THE COST OF WHEELS AND TIRES. THE COST OF THE PARTS WAS $1050 AND I PAID $1431 IN TOTAL TO THE DEALERSHIP AT BEVERLY HILLS. ALSO THE MERCEDES LOGO ON MY NEW WHEELS THAT WAS PUT ON IS RUSTED AND DOES NOT NEW WHILE THE OLD WHEELS THAT WERE NOT REPLACED HAVE THE MERCEDES LOGO THAT LOOKS NEW. ALSO, IF THERE IS ANY EXTRA OR SPECIAL WARRANTY FOR TIRES AND WHEELS ...I WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THIS WARRANTY WHILE PURCHASING THE CAR. *JB
Fuel system, Gasoline, Apr 5, 2006
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED THE VEHICLE HAD SERIOUS TRANSMISSION PROBLEMS. THE VEHICLE LURCHED CONTINUOUSLY WHILE DRIVING AT 10 MPH. THERE WAS ALSO A LOUD CLUNKING NOISE WHEN THE VEHICLE SHIFTED GEARS. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A SERVICE DEALER, WHO DETERMINED THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE FUEL PUMP. THE FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED, BUT THE PROBLEMS CONTINUED. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN BACK TO THE SERVICE DEALER, WHO WAS UNABLE TO DUPLICATE THE ISSUE.
Exterior lighting, Equipment, Mar 20, 2006
MANY NEWER CARS ARE EQUIPPED WITH BLINDING, BLUE-GREEN, HEADLIGHTS THAT ARE A SAFETY HAZARD AND SHOULD BE PROHIBITED. THERE ARE SEVERAL PROBLEMS. FIRST, WHEN SEEN FROM ANY ANGLE, THESE HEADLIGHTS ARE HIGHLY DISTRACTING, IN THAT THEY DRAW ONES EYES FROM THE ROAD AHEAD AND ON EITHER SIDE; THE REASON THAT THEY ARE DISTRACTING IS THAT THEY ARE OF A NOTABLY DIFFERENT COLOR AND ARE MUCH BRIGHTER THAN THE TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT LIGHTS. SECOND, WHEN VIEWED FROM ANY ANGLE, THE LIGHT "FLARES" ABOUT ONES EYES, FORMING SPIKES THAT RADIATE OUTWARDS FROM THE LIGHT ITSELF, THEREBY OBSCURING ONE'S VIEW OF THINGS ABOVE, BELOW AND ON EITHER SIDE OF THE LIGHT ITSELF. THIRD, WHEN VIEWED FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION, THE LIGHTS ARE OFTEN BLINDING, DEPENDING ON WHETHER THE ROAD IS FLAT OR HILLY, THE RESULT BEING TO OBSCURE ALMOST EVERYTHING AHEAD, ABOUT THE SAME AS TRADITIONAL INCANDESCENT LIGHTS ON "HIGH"BEAM. FOURTH, WHEN VIEWED FROM THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION ON ROADWAYS THAT ARE NOT PERFECTLY LEVEL, THESE HEADLIGHTS ALTERNATE RAPIDLY, BACK AND FORTH, LIKE A STROBE LIGHT, BETWEEN "STANDARD" AND "BLINDING," A RESULT OF THE FACT (WHICH I ASSUME) THAT THE LIGHTS ARE VERY TIGHTLY FOCUSED, AND THE PROBLEM BEING THAT THE "FOCUSED" LIGHT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS IS REPEATEDLY FOCUSED ON THE EYES OF THE DRIVER HEADING IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. THE MOST HAZARDOUS ARE ITEMS THREE AND FOUR, BUT ITEM FOUR IS PARTICULARLY HAZARDOUS BECAUSE IT COMBINES THE WORST OF ALL OF THE OTHERS - BOTH DISTRACTION AND BLINDINGNESS. CLEARLY, HEADLIGHTS NEED TO BE DESIGNED TO LIGHT THE WAY AHEAD; BUT THERE ARE COMPETING GOALS, WHICH INCLUDE NOT BLINDING OTHER DRIVERS. LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS WORLD, WHAT IS GOOD FOR ONE PERSON MUST BE WEIGHED AGAINST ITS NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON OTHERS. THAT IS WHERE GOVERNMENT HAS A KEY RESPONSIBILITY; TO ASSESS THE BENEFITS AND BURDENS AND ARRIVE AT A COMPROMISE THAT OPTIMALLY SUITS EVERYONE'S NEEDS BEST. *NM
Power train, Equipment, Jan 10, 2006
THE TRANSMISSION OF MY NEW CAR, 2006 MBZ C280, HAS FAILED THREE TIMES. THE CAR GOES INTO A FALSE NEUTRAL WHILE DRIVING AND THEN EVENTUALLY FALLS INTO GEAR. AFTER THIS EPISODE, THE CAR CONTINUES TO DRIVE IN A LOW GEAR. THE DEALERSHIP HAS TRIED: 1. REPLACING THE VALVE BODY ON THE CAR'S TRANSMISSION AND UPLOADING THE NEW SOFTWARE 2. REPLACING THE TRANSMISSION WITH A COMPLETELY NEW TRANSMISSION FROM THE DEALERSHIP 3. REPLACING THE VALVE BODY OF THE NEW TRANSMISSION. *JB