Rear subframe

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

adyb46

New Member
Joined
Nov 19, 2021
Messages
8
Location
Yeovil Somerset
Car
2010 c250cgi
Hi, I'm Ady, only just joined the forum, I've got a 2010 c250cgi that's just failed the mot due to a hole in the rear subframe, been on this forum and found out how common it is & it's got a 12yr warranty, I've been in touch with mb in Dorchester & it's booked in for inspection, will keep you posted
 
Hi Andy and welcome . Sorry to hear your first post on here is regarding something that can send your car directly to the scrapyard. it's good that you have researched this I personally suspect this fault on W204 C class is far more common than we think.

If it has a full MB service history that will be helpful , but I am sure you have seen how even on cars with full MB service history MB sometimes try to wriggle out of this stating the corrosion warranty is for paint work only.

They know full well that this is a problem do not let them fob you off. best of luck and keep us informed on how you get on :thumb:
 
Getting it fixed seems random - some people seem to get stone-walled and others have it done apparently without question.

I can only think a lot of it is down to how the dealer handles it - if you get refused it may be worth asking / researching for a dealer that has done the job under warranty/
 
Our 2005 R171 SLK is currently residing with our local MB dealer awaiting a decision from MBUK on replacing a failed subframe. Hopefully it will be approved as its FSH and only 50,000 miles. They did say that W204 subframes are being replaced as a matter of course but the 171 takes longer to get authorised. Hopefully we will both get the outcome we want.
 
Our 2005 R171 SLK is currently residing with our local MB dealer awaiting a decision from MBUK on replacing a failed subframe. Hopefully it will be approved as its FSH and only 50,000 miles. They did say that W204 subframes are being replaced as a matter of course but the 171 takes longer to get authorised. Hopefully we will both get the outcome we want.
Please keep us updated on this thread, I have an 08 R171 SLK!
 
A friend recently had his 2014 E Cass Coupe fail the MOT due to a heavily corroded and split rear subframe.

It has been serviced by a very good independent in Southampton for the last few years. The independent approached MB on his behalf and after two weeks MB approved the repair in full and the car is now repaired.
 
The independent I use has a 2013 C Class outside his premises with a heavily corroded and split subframe.

The owner described it as if the rear of the car was trying to overtake the front when braking
 
I have a 2010 A207 and this is really starting to worry me. It’s my wife’s car and the thought of something happening when she is on the motorway terrifies me. In my mind I should be able to rely on the mot picking up early signs so I can do something about it but I’m not so sure. Other option is to dump it which I don’t want to do. If I end up doing that I won’t buy another MB. I know this is not just an MB issue but the lottery around replacement and the lack of a coordinated response from them is down to MB. There is no way that I should be worrying about a serious structural failure of a 11 year old MB.
 
I have a 2010 A207 and this is really starting to worry me. It’s my wife’s car and the thought of something happening when she is on the motorway terrifies me. In my mind I should be able to rely on the mot picking up early signs so I can do something about it but I’m not so sure. Other option is to dump it which I don’t want to do. If I end up doing that I won’t buy another MB. I know this is not just an MB issue but the lottery around replacement and the lack of a coordinated response from them is down to MB. There is no way that I should be worrying about a serious structural failure of a 11 year old MB.
So stop worrying, stop being terrified and arrange a proper inspection with a local MB specialist.

Why should you be able to rely on the MOT?.

The problem generally starts from within hidden sections and the level of inspection required to fully check the subfrane for early signs is outside the scope of the MOT.

Once the problem develops then it will, at some point, be noticeable at MOT.

As said ,ny friend has had the subframe on his W207 replaced FOC by Mercedes.

I agree that it shouldn't happen so early in a cars life but it does so owners, who are now aware of the issue, also need to be proactive in getting their vehicles checked and not relying on a vary basic annual safety and roadworthiness check.
 
My 2013 C-Class is due a service at MB Brooklands next month. I'll ask them to inspect the subframe... to the extent that it can be checked (my understanding is that they rot from the inside).
 
That’s all very well but I think you are missing the point. As you say this is a well documented problem. It looks like everyone knows someone who knows someone that got theirs replaced for free. My point is why are MB not being pro active and asking all owners to bring their vehicles in for an inspection? This is what safety recalls are for. MB were quick enough to call the cars in to remove the illegal software in them.
 
That’s all very well but I think you are missing the point. As you say this is a well documented problem. It looks like everyone knows someone who knows someone that got theirs replaced for free. My point is why are MB not being pro active and asking all owners to bring their vehicles in for an inspection? This is what safety recalls are for. MB were quick enough to call the cars in to remove the illegal software in them.
I hadn’t realised there was a safety recall for this?
 
That’s all very well but I think you are missing the point. As you say this is a well documented problem. It looks like everyone knows someone who knows someone that got theirs replaced for free. My point is why are MB not being pro active and asking all owners to bring their vehicles in for an inspection? This is what safety recalls are for. MB were quick enough to call the cars in to remove the illegal software in them.
There is no point to miss and conflating the emissions software update (which was a mandated EU, and American et al act) is just not helpful.

Are you suggesting every Mercedes owner regardless of vehicle type, age etc needs to be contacted to have their vehicle inspected?

It currently seems to be the C Class W204 onward (on which your car is based) are the most likely to be affected but by no means all are.

I have no idea (and neither do you) how many vehicles are in need of a replacement subframe but MB will be collecting information from Dealers etc and will formulating a response, and, then hopefully, sharing the information, with VOSA.

It is something that needs proper evaluation but knee jerk panic is hardly a reasoned response.

As said if you are concerned then contact MB or an Independent and have your vehicle assessed for your own peace of mind.
 
I’m suggesting that MB recall all the cars that they designed and built with a potentially serious fault for inspection. If this has got to the stage that the police are making statements about it then is it really the case that we just hope that MB tell VOSA about it? I for one expect more from any manufacturer and if MB are sitting on their hands hoping nothing bad happens then that is very disappointing.
 
I hadn’t realised there was a safety recall for this?

As far as I know there was a recall in the US for the subframe issues for several models ranging from late nineties to around 2005.

But MB never officially acknowledged the subframe issue on the 2009-2013 W204.
 
I’m suggesting that MB recall all the cars that they designed and built with a potentially serious fault for inspection. If this has got to the stage that the police are making statements about it then is it really the case that we just hope that MB tell VOSA about it? I for one expect more from any manufacturer and if MB are sitting on their hands hoping nothing bad happens then that is very disappointing.

The police letter that is being circulated is a response to an RFI from an MB owner, and it simply says that 'there is no data' (meaning the police don't have to respond). I am not aware that the MB subframe issue has ever been acknowledged by any police force as a cause for an accident.
 
The police letter that is being circulated is a response to an RFI from an MB owner, and it simply says that 'there is no data' (meaning the police don't have to respond). I am not aware that the MB subframe issue has ever been acknowledged by any police force as a cause for an accident.
Exactly.

Whilst it is a serious issue there is no need for the hysteria some are showing..
 
I’m not sure what ‘hysteria’ you are referring to. If the police are willing to make a statement that “This failure could potentially be the cause of single and multiple vehicle collisions” and then go on to accuse MB of obfuscation I see this as a serious issue.
I expect MB to act to protect their customers. It is not acceptable for any manufacturer to wait until there is proof that a subframe failure caused an accident. MB should be pro actively addressing this issue. They have the best data regarding the failure mode. This issue is now in the public domain and they should act.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom