This Problem Across All Years
I am reporting a safety issue involving my Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 following repairs performed by an authorized dealership, Critz Mercedes-Benz in Savannah, Georgia. I brought the vehicle in due to persistent noise when shifting gears and steering-related symptoms. I asked the dealership to fully investigate the cause of the issue and not limit the diagnosis or repair to any single system, as I am not a mechanic and relied on their expertise. I paid $5,674.90 for the repair. During the process, a service advisor contacted me regarding an additional charge of approximately $800, which I approved to ensure the vehicle was repaired correctly and to avoid any claim that I declined recommended work. After the first repair, the noise was still present. I contacted the service advisor and returned the vehicle. After the vehicle had already been released to me, the dealership’s own technician recorded a diagnostic video stating that a suspension arm was “about to break.” I have the video and the email containing the link. This confirms the vehicle was returned to me with a serious unresolved safety defect, and I returned it after learning of this issue. The dealership performed additional work and released the vehicle again, but the noise remained. I asked the service advisor to hear the noise in person, after which he verbally stated that “all GLK 350s do that.” I later sent a text expressing my concern, and he replied in writing stating the same. I also have a saved and transcribed voicemail repeating this statement. Since the repair, the condition has worsened. Steering noise continues and braking effectiveness has degraded, requiring longer stopping distance. Because steering and suspension directly affect braking and vehicle control, this presents a safety risk. Due to the expense of the failed repair, I have no immediate alternative transportation and have been forced to continue driving the vehicle. The vehicle is available for inspection.
I am reporting a safety issue involving my Mercedes-Benz GLK 350 following repairs performed by an authorized dealership, Critz Mercedes-Benz in Savannah, Georgia. I brought the vehicle in due to persistent noise when shifting gears and steering-related symptoms. I asked the dealership to fully investigate the cause of the issue and not limit the diagnosis or repair to any single system, as I am not a mechanic and relied on their expertise. I paid $5,674.90 for the repair. During the process, a service advisor contacted me regarding an additional charge of approximately $800, which I approved to ensure the vehicle was repaired correctly and to avoid any claim that I declined recommended work. After the first repair, the noise was still present. I contacted the service advisor and returned the vehicle. After the vehicle had already been released to me, the dealership’s own technician recorded a diagnostic video stating that a suspension arm was “about to break.” I have the video and the email containing the link. This confirms the vehicle was returned to me with a serious unresolved safety defect, and I returned it after learning of this issue. The dealership performed additional work and released the vehicle again, but the noise remained. I asked the service advisor to hear the noise in person, after which he verbally stated that “all GLK 350s do that.” I later sent a text expressing my concern, and he replied in writing stating the same. I also have a saved and transcribed voicemail repeating this statement. Since the repair, the condition has worsened. Steering noise continues and braking effectiveness has degraded, requiring longer stopping distance. Because steering and suspension directly affect braking and vehicle control, this presents a safety risk. Due to the expense of the failed repair, I have no immediate alternative transportation and have been forced to continue driving the vehicle. The vehicle is available for inspection.
Brake lines prematurely rusted through and through causing brakes not to work
Brake lines prematurely rusted through and through causing brakes not to work
Dealer reported to me that the brake lines are rusted. Dealer reported the lines are painted rather than coated as they were in the past. Vehicle is less than 10 years old so brake line rusting seems unusual.
Dealer reported to me that the brake lines are rusted. Dealer reported the lines are painted rather than coated as they were in the past. Vehicle is less than 10 years old so brake line rusting seems unusual.
Sudden loss of brake function with large amounts of brake fluid leaking from the car.
Sudden loss of brake function with large amounts of brake fluid leaking from the car.
VEHICLE HAS ~ 20K MILES, BROUGHT INTO DEALER BECAUSE ABS LIGHT WENT ON WHILE DRIVING SAYING SYSTEM WAS INOPERATIVE. DEALER THEN FOUND GAS TANK LEAK, AND WOULD NOT LET ME LEAVE THE DEALER, BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY HAZARD. SEARCH SHOWS RECALL FOR EARLIER MODEL YEAR 2012 WITH SAME ISSUE, BUT DEALER SAYS NO RECALL FOR 2013. ABS SENSORS ARE ALSO MALFUNCTIONING WHILE DRIVING. TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS FOR ABS SENSORS. TWO BEEN REPLACED WITHIN ONE WEEK!
VEHICLE HAS ~ 20K MILES, BROUGHT INTO DEALER BECAUSE ABS LIGHT WENT ON WHILE DRIVING SAYING SYSTEM WAS INOPERATIVE. DEALER THEN FOUND GAS TANK LEAK, AND WOULD NOT LET ME LEAVE THE DEALER, BECAUSE OF THE SAFETY HAZARD. SEARCH SHOWS RECALL FOR EARLIER MODEL YEAR 2012 WITH SAME ISSUE, BUT DEALER SAYS NO RECALL FOR 2013. ABS SENSORS ARE ALSO MALFUNCTIONING WHILE DRIVING. TWO SEPARATE INCIDENTS FOR ABS SENSORS. TWO BEEN REPLACED WITHIN ONE WEEK!
EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILS TO RELEASE. IF RELEASED BRAKE CANNOT BE APPLIED BECAUSE IT FREEZES. BRAKE WAS USED REGULARLY WHEN IN PARK AS PRESCRIBED. BRAKE WAS ALSO EXCERSIZED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES ON P.165 OF THE 2012-3 GLK OWNERS MANUAL. UNDERBODY OF CAR WAS GENTLY WASHED PERIODICALLY TO FLUSH ANY SALT ETC. FROM EXPOSED BRAKE LINES AS PER MANUAL WHEN CAR WAS WASHED ON A REGULAR BASIS. NOW IT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. THERE IS NO VISIBLE CORROSION ON THE BRAKE LINES. THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH MBUSA 2012 -2015 GLKS. RESULT" ONE E CANNOT APPLY THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. THIS IS A KNOW PROBLEM WITH C AND GLK CLASS CARS THAT MBUSA REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE. IT MAYBE A PROBLEM WITH THE LINKAGE IN THE FIREWALL. AGAIN THIS IS A SAFETY PROBLEM IN AN EMERGENCY. CAR IS ALWAYS GARAGED.
EMERGENCY BRAKE FAILS TO RELEASE. IF RELEASED BRAKE CANNOT BE APPLIED BECAUSE IT FREEZES. BRAKE WAS USED REGULARLY WHEN IN PARK AS PRESCRIBED. BRAKE WAS ALSO EXCERSIZED ACCORDING TO PROCEDURES ON P.165 OF THE 2012-3 GLK OWNERS MANUAL. UNDERBODY OF CAR WAS GENTLY WASHED PERIODICALLY TO FLUSH ANY SALT ETC. FROM EXPOSED BRAKE LINES AS PER MANUAL WHEN CAR WAS WASHED ON A REGULAR BASIS. NOW IT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS. THERE IS NO VISIBLE CORROSION ON THE BRAKE LINES. THIS IS A KNOWN PROBLEM WITH MBUSA 2012 -2015 GLKS. RESULT" ONE E CANNOT APPLY THE EMERGENCY BRAKE IN AN EMERGENCY SITUATION. THIS IS A KNOW PROBLEM WITH C AND GLK CLASS CARS THAT MBUSA REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE. IT MAYBE A PROBLEM WITH THE LINKAGE IN THE FIREWALL. AGAIN THIS IS A SAFETY PROBLEM IN AN EMERGENCY. CAR IS ALWAYS GARAGED.