Rear subframe

[DSM10000]

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.

Where is this Police document?

You are the one using words such as Worry "and Terrifies"

The Subfrane doesn't fail and fall off of the car. There would be some warning that it is defective and there are no records of ANY accident that I have heard ifbeing attributed to these failures.

MB are renowned for having Brake pipes corrode when other Manufacturers do not.

Vauxhall has had issues with the Zafira catching fire and there are many more examples of other manufacturers having potentially more dangerous faults such as engines cutting out at random leaving the driver without assurance for steering and braking etc.

The point I and others who agree with me are making is that a sense of proportionality is required and if you are worried and terrified then get your vehicle checked.

 

[AndrewOl]

Google is your friend if you are looking for the document. If you contact North Wales Police maybe they will send you a personal copy. Reference is 2029/752 - Mercedes Rear Subframe Failure. Dated 09/10/2020.
A proportionate response from MB would be a safety recall to inspect the vehicles with this potential issue. That is what safety recalls are for. I’m happy that this does not concern you. What about all of the owners of these cars that don’t frequent online forums and rely on their local garage to service and mot their car?
As a customer of MB I expect more from them. Simply waiting for ‘proof’ that a known design defect in your product caused an accident is not good enough.

 

[DSM10000]

Google is your friend if you are looking for the document. If you contact North Wales Police maybe they will send you a personal copy. Reference is 2029/752 - Mercedes Rear Subframe Failure. Dated 09/10/2020.
A proportionate response from MB would be a safety recall to inspect the vehicles with this potential issue. That is what safety recalls are for. I’m happy that this does not concern you. What about all of the owners of these cars that don’t frequent online forums and rely on their local garage to service and mot their car?
As a customer of MB I expect more from them. Simply waiting for ‘proof’ that a known design defect in your product caused an accident is not good enough.

Why would the Police get involved in this?

They are not responsible for vehicle safety or recalls.

VOSA are.

Have they issued a recall?

As stated : There are no reports of any accidents occurring due to these failures.

Have you any idea what the official line from MB is? I do not know.

This issue is now in the Public domain and I am sure that VOSA will be proactive if they see a need.

 

[AndrewOl]

I’m waiting for a response from MB. Not sure of the back story as to why the police would make such a strong statement.
As you say this has been in the public domain for over a year now. Given the seriousness of the statement from the Police I expect MB to respond. Even if that response is to say the Police have got it wrong and there is nothing to worry about. The tales of rotted out subframes on this and other forums suggest otherwise though. Silence from MB is creating an information vacuum which is not a good situation.

 

[markjay]

Google is your friend if you are looking for the document. If you contact North Wales Police maybe they will send you a personal copy. Reference is 2029/752 - Mercedes Rear Subframe Failure. Dated 09/10/2020.

This letter?

I think you may be confusing the original information request (quoted in the letter as points 1 to 4) with the response from the police.

The police response is a simple one-liner: "North Wales Police do not hold any information in relation to your request, as we are not aware of any failures locally".

 

[DSM10000]

This letter?

I think you may be confusing the original information request (quoted in the letter as points 1 to 4) with the response from the police.

The police response is a simple one-liner: "North Wales Police do not hold any information in relation to your request, as we are not aware of any failures locally".

That letter is of no value in this debate without a report from a Qualified Engineer with access to Metallurgical analysis techniques.

There is no evidence that the incident referred to was due to a faulty subframe.

A coil spring breaking (very common on many vehicles) could cause this as could many other suspension failures so this is just conflation.

 

[AndrewOl]

This letter?

I think you may be confusing the original information request (quoted in the letter as points 1 to 4) with the response from the police.

The police response is a simple one-liner: "North Wales Police do not hold any information in relation to your request, as we are not aware of any failures locally".

You are quite right, I have been interpreting this letter incorrectly. I took 1 to 4 as statements from the police.

 

[AndrewOl]

That letter is of no value in this debate without a report from a Qualified Engineer with access to Metallurgical analysis techniques.

There is no evidence that the incident referred to was due to a faulty subframe.

A coil spring breaking (very common on many vehicles) could cause this as could many other suspension failures so this is just conflation.

You mean someone with detailed engineering knowledge of both the design and manufacturing techniques used to make the subframes?
I wonder who would be best qualified to make that assessment?

 

[DSM10000]

You mean someone with detailed engineering knowledge of both the design and manufacturing techniques used to make the subframes?
I wonder who would be best qualified to make that assessment?

Any qualified and independent Metallurgist as stated

 

[st13phil]

From what I've learnt of the issue:

1. Mercedes-Benz are well aware of the corrosion issues that affect the rear subframe on various models. According to information on various German marque forums they have issued a technical bulletin on the matter (that has been published on at least one forum), but according to those same forums MB routinely deny the bulletin's existence
2. The corrosion is not being picked up by routine vehicle safety inspections such as the MOT in the UK and the equivalent inspection regimes in Germany and other countries
3. The corrosion generally comes to the attention of an owner when a catastrophic failure of one of the rear suspension mountings occurs
4. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the UK are inconsistent in their response when presented with an affected car. Some deal with the matter quickly and professionally, replacing the subframe free of charge, while others deny any responsibility on the part of Mercedes-Benz on a variety of - apparently spurious - grounds

Points 2 & 3 are something that concerns me. That a component fundamental to the safety of the vehicle can suffer a level of corrosion that renders it likely to fail in normal use, yet that corrosion cannot be detected by routine safety inspection needs to be addressed.

Points 1 & 4 do nothing to instil confidence that MB are handling the matter openly and invite conspiracy theories that there is some sort of cover up. Whether there is one or not, only MB know, but if dealers operated consistently and simply replaced corroded subframes without question it would go a long way to quashing such conspiracy theories.

 

[AndrewOl]

From what I've learnt of the issue:

1. Mercedes-Benz are well aware of the corrosion issues that affect the rear subframe on various models. According to information on various German marque forums they have issued a technical bulletin on the matter (that has been published on at least one forum), but according to those same forums MB routinely deny the bulletin's existence
2. The corrosion is not being picked up by routine vehicle safety inspections such as the MOT in the UK and the equivalent inspection regimes in Germany and other countries
3. The corrosion generally comes to the attention of an owner when a catastrophic failure of one of the rear suspension mountings occurs
4. Mercedes-Benz dealers in the UK are inconsistent in their response when presented with an affected car. Some deal with the matter quickly and professionally, replacing the subframe free of charge, while others deny any responsibility on the part of Mercedes-Benz on a variety of - apparently spurious - grounds

Points 2 & 3 are something that concerns me. That a component fundamental to the safety of the vehicle can suffer a level of corrosion that renders it likely to fail in normal use, yet that corrosion cannot be detected by routine safety inspection needs to be addressed.

Points 1 & 4 do nothing to instil confidence that MB are handling the matter openly and invite conspiracy theories that there is some sort of cover up. Whether there is one or not, only MB know, but if dealers operated consistently and simply replaced corroded subframes without question it would go a long way to quashing such conspiracy theories.

Either way this is doing massive damage to the reputation of MB. My first MB was a GL420 which was a complete money pit. Lovely car but just too much hassle. Stuck with MB and got a nice A207 with the OM642 engine. I can live with rotting brake pipes and a bit of worry about oil cooler seals. What is really putting me off the brand is all the obfuscation around the subframe issue. Is there a problem or isn’t there? There are lots of people out there like me who just want to know. I would be happy to contribute to the costs too as if the subframe needs replacing as it has lasted 11 years. It is the not knowing that is doing the damage.

 

[DSM10000]

So rotting brake pipes (that could cause equally catastrophic outcomes) are OK.?

 

[AndrewOl]

Bit disappointing that brake pipes need replacing on a 11 year old car. Although brake pipe corrosion is a common failure mode for steel pipes and as such is generally picked up during routine safety inspections. If the report is acted on then the risk of failure is mitigated. The subframe issues only seem to be getting dealt with reactively. The difficulty for any inspection is what does good look like for an 11 year old subframe?

 

[DSM10000]

Bit disappointing that brake pipes need replacing on a 11 year old car. Although brake pipe corrosion is a common failure mode for steel pipes and as such is generally picked up during routine safety inspections. If the report is acted on then the risk of failure is mitigated. The subframe issues only seem to be getting dealt with reactively. The difficulty for any inspection is what does good look like for an 11 year old subframe?

Corroded brake pipes can go for a year between an MOT inspection.

My point is that all cars can suffer from a failure of a component that could be dangerous.

The subframe issue is something that will be dealt with..

 

[Petrol Pete]

I have commented on this before . Just like the sun roof safety recall that affected three quarter of a million Mercedes Benz cars it took a single (non accident) failure in the USA to light a fire under Mercedes Benz.

I predict unless there is a catastrophic sub frame failure causing injury or death in the USA MB will just duck and dive this issue.

My friend was asked to scrap a perfectly good W204 by the owner when it failed it's MOT at his garage (rear sub frame corroded ) as the owner did not want to pay for the repair.
I know for a fact that he did not 'report' it to Mercedes Benz or anyone else for that matter, why would he ?

I am not saying that W204's are being scrapped daily because of this fault but those that are are probably not being recorded anywhere.

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

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.

The only thing I have seen online - and I looked after you said the Police had made a statement - appears to be quoting the content of the freedom of information request, and not a statement from them. They said they have no data to release. Unless you can provide a link to the contrary?

 

[Bobby Dazzler]

Bit disappointing that brake pipes need replacing on a 11 year old car. Although brake pipe corrosion is a common failure mode for steel pipes and as such is generally picked up during routine safety inspections. If the report is acted on then the risk of failure is mitigated. The subframe issues only seem to be getting dealt with reactively. The difficulty for any inspection is what does good look like for an 11 year old subframe?

If the issue cannot be picked up in an MOT, then the ability for a a dealer to detect it as part of any proactive inspection will be limited at best, but would be hellishly expensive to execute unless there was a critical safety issue, ie a high rate of failures and/or catastrophic consequences.

Mercedes would be better placed meeting the cost - or contributing to the cost - in the event of a failure. That way people who are affected get help, and money is not spent - and therefore wasted - on those who are not affected. Seems reasonable to me as long as main dealers are consistent in their response.

 

[Fastcar155]

Hi , all though I said I was leaving this forum I have monitored the words.

To help other forum members to help or hinder them this is my experience of my C207.

Model year 2015 with full Mercedes service history.

Mileage 39000

I admit I was not going through a good time with some of my comments on this forum but I took my car to a well regarded Mercedes specialist to have an inspection report of the brake pipes and rear subframe.

Both the items where inspected and as new on their written report.

Conclusion and this comment I feel does matter.

I am the only driver of this car from new and the car has never been used when gritting has taken place , the car is washed underneath regularly and in the last four years has been in Portugal over the winter.

I hope this helps.

 

[Spider10]

I had a Nissan pathfinder for a no of year's, 1 day there was a knock on the door, I was met by a engineer who had turned up out of the blue to inspect the chassis, Id never heard of the issues they had until i looked it up there response was if it failed the inspection they would buy the vehicle from me and scrap it .
If Nissan can do this why can't MB?
Luckily mine was fine it was mainly the Nivara

 

[sgregory124]

This issue is similar to the problem many E46 BMW's (particularly M3's) had, where the torque from the rear wheels twisting the rear axle eventually ripped the suspension struts from the boot floor. To my knowledge BMW never officially acknowledged the existence of the problem and repairs were usually at the owners own cost (as I discovered).

I had it on my M3 just before I sold it (annoyingly) but I can say that whilst it would have been dangerous to leave unrepaired, I had plenty of warning it was failing - noise from the rear over speed bumps and more obviously, steering pulling to one side (quite severely in the end). Seems to me that the problem with the sub-frame would manifest in a similar way and you'd likely have to be completely ignorant to miss something like that going wrong?

As others have said, get the car inspected professionally - no point in wondering 'what might be' every time you use the car.