Model year record
1997 Mercedes-Benz E 300 recalls & problems
The 1997 Mercedes-Benz E 300 has no safety recalls on file with NHTSA, and 8 owner complaints. The most-reported problem area is engine and engine cooling (3 complaints).
Safety recalls
No safety recalls have been filed for the 1997 Mercedes-Benz E 300.
Recall repairs are free at any authorised dealer. A recall listed here may already have been fixed on a particular car: enter its 17-character VIN at nhtsa.gov/recalls to see open recalls.
Fuel economy
E300 Diesel Diesel
| City / highway | 23 / 30 mpg |
|---|---|
| Fuel | Diesel |
3 L · 6 cyl · Automatic 5-spd · Rear-Wheel Drive · about $3,700/year to fuel
EPA estimates from fueleconomy.gov for each engine and transmission sold. Annual cost is the EPA's estimate for 15,000 miles a year at its current fuel and electricity price assumptions. Your results will vary.
What owners report
| Problem area | Complaints | Typical mileage* |
|---|---|---|
| Engine and engine coolingEngine; Engine › Gasoline | 3 | — |
| Electrical system12v/24v/48v battery | 2 | — |
| Power trainAutomatic transmission; Automatic transmission › Control module (tcm/pcm/tecm) | 2 | — |
| Service brakes, hydraulicAntilock/traction control/electronic limited slip; Foundation components › Disc › Rotor | 2 | — |
| Fuel system, gasoline | 1 | — |
| SuspensionFront | 1 | — |
| Exterior lightingBrake lights | 1 | — |
*Median odometer reading when the problem happened, where owners gave one. One complaint can name several problem areas.
Recent owner complaints
- Electrical system
THE WIRE HARNESS IS BRITTLE AND THE INSULATION IS DISINTEGRATING, RESULTING IN SHORTS AND ELECTRICAL FAILURES. THE HEADLIGHTS STOPPED WORKING UNEXPECTEDLY.
- Exterior lighting › Brake lights
TL*- THE CONTACT OWNS A 1997 MERCEDES E300. WHILE DRIVING AT VARIOUS SPEEDS AND PRESSING THE BRAKE PEDAL THE REAR PASSENGER BRAKE LIGHT DID NOT ILLUMINATE. RECALL#05V505000 RELATED TO THE 1999 SLK MERCEDES. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 89,000. THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 90,000. *AK
- Suspension › Front
DT*: THE CONTACT STATED WHILE DRIVING 35MPH A LOUD BANG WAS HEARD COMING FROM UNDERNEATH THE VEHICLE. AFTER HEARING THE NOISE, THE VEHICLE BEGAN HANDLING DIFFERENTLY AND WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR INSPECTION WHO DETERMINED THE SUSPENSION HAD COLLAPSED ON FRONT PASSENGER SIDE. THE SUSPENSION HOUSING WAS ENTIRELY REPLACED AND THE ATTACHMENT OF THE SPRING TO THE BODY WAS RE WELDED. THE CONTACT IS CONCERNED THE PROBLEM COULD OCCUR ON THE DRIVER SIDE. THE MANUFACTURER PARTIALLY COVERED THE REPAIR AND ASKED THE CONTACT TO SIGN A CONFIDENTIALLY WAIVER BECAUSE OF A RECENT INFLUX OF VEHICLES BEING REPAIRED WITH THE SAME PROBLEM.
- Engine and engine cooling › Engine › Diesel
PROBLEMS WITH MERCEDES-BENZ E300 DIESEL.*MR THE CONSUMER HAS HAD ONGOING PROBLEMS WITH THE ENGINE HESITATING AND STALLING WHILE DRIVING AND HAS SPENT APPROX $3800.00 IN REPAIRS FOR DEFECTIVE VEHICLE. *CB
- Service brakes, hydraulic › Antilock/traction control/electronic limited slip
ROTORS WERE NOT WORKING PROPERLY, THEY WERE MAKING NOISE WHEN APPLYING BRAKES, AND THERE WAS EXTENDED STOPPING DISTANCE.CONTACTED DEALER, AND DEALER STATED THAT ROTORS WERE ONLY SUPPOSE TO LAST 20000 MILES.*AK
- Engine and engine cooling › Engine
THE FIRST ENGINE OIL LEAK WAS REPAIRED UNDER WARRANTY AT 8/25/2000 (48,523 MILES) AND THE REPLACEMENT GASKETS ARE LEAKING AGAIN ON 9/15/2001 (AT 58,500 MILES). *AK
- Power train › Automatic transmission
WHILE DRIVING ON HIGHWAY, GEARS SHIFTED BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN TWO GEARS; ACCELERATION AT 25-50 MPH. TOOK VEHICLE TO DEALER. *AK ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS VEHICLE WOULD HESITATE AT 40 MPH AND VEHICLE IS BUCKING, DEALER REPLACED RESONANCE FLAP, AND FUEL INJECTION PUMP, PROBLEM STILL EXISTS, CONSUMER ALSO COMPLAINS OF POOR FUEL EFFICIENCY. *TT
- Electrical system › 12v/24v/48v battery
WHILE STARTING VEHICLE BATTERY UNDER REAR PASSENGER SEAT HAD EXPLODED. DEALER/MANUFACTURER WERE NOTIFIED AND WERE UNWILLING TO ASSIST. *AK CONSUMER STATES IN SPITE OF VARIOUS ATTEMPTS, A FOUL SMELL STILL REMAINS. *SLC
Owner complaints are submitted to NHTSA by the public and are not verified. Shown as filed (NHTSA removes personal details); long reports are shortened.
NHTSA defect investigations
- FRONT SUSPENSION COIL SPRING EJECTIONClosed
ODI HAS FOCUSED THIS INVESTIGATION ON ASSESSING THE RISKS POSED BY A SEPARATED SPRING AS (1) A ROAD HAZARD AND (2) THE POTENTIAL FOR VEHICLE CONTROL TO BE COMPROMISED AFTER THE FRONT COIL SPRING HAS BEEN EJECTED FROM ITS INTENDED POSITION IN THE VEHICLE.BOTH RISKS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH CORROSION, FLEXING, AND FRACTURE OF THE UPPER FRONT SUSPENSION MOUNTING BRACKET.TIME-IN-SERVICE FAILURE RATES ARE NOTABLY HIGHER IN SALT BELT STATES SINCE CORROSION IS A PRIMARY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE FAILURE MODE.SINCE A NUMBER OF INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE VEHICLE WAS BEING OPERATED, ODI IS SKEPTICAL THAT OWNERS CAN ALWAYS DETECT THE SUBTLE SIDE TO SIDE DIFFERENCE IN RIDE HEIGHT AND/OR INSPECT OR NOTICE THAT THE UPPER SUSPENSION BRACKET HAS BEEN COMPROMISED BY CORROSION.(1) ROAD HAZARD - ALTHOUGH THE (APPROX. 7 LB.) FRONT SUSPENSION SPRING THAT MAY BE EJECTED AT HIGHWAY SPEEDS COULD POSE A SERIOUS ROAD…