This Problem Across All Years
The contact owns a 2000 Mercedes-Benz SLK230 The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 05V505000 (Exterior Lighting) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that the vehicle was started; however, the brake lights were inoperable. The contact stated that the brake warning light was illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue. The failure mileage was approximately 50,000. Parts distribution disconnect.
The contact owns a 2000 Mercedes-Benz SLK230 The contact received notification of NHTSA Campaign Number: 05V505000 (Exterior Lighting) however, the part to do the recall repair was not yet available. The local dealer was contacted. The contact stated that the manufacturer had exceeded a reasonable amount of time for the recall repair. The contact stated that the vehicle was started; however, the brake lights were inoperable. The contact stated that the brake warning light was illuminated. The manufacturer was made aware of the issue. The failure mileage was approximately 50,000. Parts distribution disconnect.
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC SENT A SAFETY RECALL # 2006-080005. I MADE AN APPT AT MERCEDES BENZ AT KEARNY MESA, SAN DIEGO, THE SERVICE WRITER (ALFONSO) SAID THAT THEY WILL ONLY REPLACE THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT IF IT FAILS, BUT THE RECALL CLEARLY STATES THAT DUE TO THE HIGH HEAT CREATED BY THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT THE BASE OF THE LAMP SOCKET CAN BE SUBJECT TO THERMAL DEFORMATION OVER TIME, THUS WHEN YOU PUSH THE BRAKE PEDAL THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT WILL NOT WORK BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELECTRICAL CONTACT. THE RECALL ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL IS MORE HEAT RESISTANT MATERIAL BUT THE SERVICE WRITER SAID THAT THE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL IS THE SAME AS WHAT I HAVE ALREADY IN THE CAR, WHICH IS FALSE. *JB
MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC SENT A SAFETY RECALL # 2006-080005. I MADE AN APPT AT MERCEDES BENZ AT KEARNY MESA, SAN DIEGO, THE SERVICE WRITER (ALFONSO) SAID THAT THEY WILL ONLY REPLACE THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT IF IT FAILS, BUT THE RECALL CLEARLY STATES THAT DUE TO THE HIGH HEAT CREATED BY THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT THE BASE OF THE LAMP SOCKET CAN BE SUBJECT TO THERMAL DEFORMATION OVER TIME, THUS WHEN YOU PUSH THE BRAKE PEDAL THE TAIL BRAKE LIGHT WILL NOT WORK BECAUSE THERE IS NO ELECTRICAL CONTACT. THE RECALL ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL IS MORE HEAT RESISTANT MATERIAL BUT THE SERVICE WRITER SAID THAT THE REPLACEMENT MATERIAL IS THE SAME AS WHAT I HAVE ALREADY IN THE CAR, WHICH IS FALSE. *JB
TAIL LAMP FOR MERCEDES BENZ SLK230 KEEPS FAILING. NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 05V-505. WHEN IS MB GOING TO HAVE A RECALL OF THIS DESIGN FAILURE? *NM
TAIL LAMP FOR MERCEDES BENZ SLK230 KEEPS FAILING. NHTSA RECALL NUMBER 05V-505. WHEN IS MB GOING TO HAVE A RECALL OF THIS DESIGN FAILURE? *NM
MERCEDES SLK 230 BRAKE LAMP FAILURE; RELATED TO OVERHEATING AND MELTING OF PLASTIC HOLDER DUE TO POOR CONTACT BETWEEN METAL STRIPS. FAILED BRAKE LAMPS ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; DEFECTIVE PRODUCT CAN ALSO LEAD TO ARCING OF CONTACTS AND FIRE. *JB
MERCEDES SLK 230 BRAKE LAMP FAILURE; RELATED TO OVERHEATING AND MELTING OF PLASTIC HOLDER DUE TO POOR CONTACT BETWEEN METAL STRIPS. FAILED BRAKE LAMPS ARE A SAFETY HAZARD; DEFECTIVE PRODUCT CAN ALSO LEAD TO ARCING OF CONTACTS AND FIRE. *JB
BRAKE LIGHTS BURNS OUT ON AVERAGE OF 3 TO 4 TIMES A YEAR. I BROUGHT TO THE DEALER FOR BULB REPLACEMENT, BUT THE PROBLEM OCCURS A FEW WEEKS LATER. A DAYS AGO, THE PROBLEM RECUR. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER AND HAD THEM FIXED IT; HOWEVER AS, I DROVE OFF THE LOT, THE BRAKE LIGHT WENT OUT AGAIN. THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN RECURRING FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS. THE DEALER HAS REPLACE THE HOUSING TWICE. SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN AND AGAIN. *NM
BRAKE LIGHTS BURNS OUT ON AVERAGE OF 3 TO 4 TIMES A YEAR. I BROUGHT TO THE DEALER FOR BULB REPLACEMENT, BUT THE PROBLEM OCCURS A FEW WEEKS LATER. A DAYS AGO, THE PROBLEM RECUR. I BROUGHT IT TO THE DEALER AND HAD THEM FIXED IT; HOWEVER AS, I DROVE OFF THE LOT, THE BRAKE LIGHT WENT OUT AGAIN. THIS PROBLEM HAS BEEN RECURRING FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS. THE DEALER HAS REPLACE THE HOUSING TWICE. SAME PROBLEM OCCURRED AGAIN AND AGAIN. *NM
2000 MERCEDES BENZ SLK 230 WITH 14072 MILES ONLY HAD TAIL LAMP UNIT R/SIDE REPLACED DUE TO THE BULB "MELTING". ENTIRE ASSEMBLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. UNSAFE, DEFECTIVE DESIGN FOR BULB TO MELT IN SOCKET. PROBLEM DEFINED AT AUTHORIZED REPAIR SHOP AS CAUSE: POOR FIT. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MECHANICS AT SHOP WHO STATED THIS IS COMMON. WHY? NEEDS TO BE A RECALL ON THIS BEFORE THERE IS A FIRE IN VEHICLE DUE TO THIS BULB PROBLEM. *JB
2000 MERCEDES BENZ SLK 230 WITH 14072 MILES ONLY HAD TAIL LAMP UNIT R/SIDE REPLACED DUE TO THE BULB "MELTING". ENTIRE ASSEMBLY NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. UNSAFE, DEFECTIVE DESIGN FOR BULB TO MELT IN SOCKET. PROBLEM DEFINED AT AUTHORIZED REPAIR SHOP AS CAUSE: POOR FIT. I HAVE SPOKEN WITH MECHANICS AT SHOP WHO STATED THIS IS COMMON. WHY? NEEDS TO BE A RECALL ON THIS BEFORE THERE IS A FIRE IN VEHICLE DUE TO THIS BULB PROBLEM. *JB
MY LEFT REAR TAILLIGHT ASSEMBLY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT FOLLOWING THE LIGHT FAILURE. THE DEALER KEPT THE ASSEMBLY. I PAID $180.51.*JB
MY LEFT REAR TAILLIGHT ASSEMBLY REQUIRED REPLACEMENT FOLLOWING THE LIGHT FAILURE. THE DEALER KEPT THE ASSEMBLY. I PAID $180.51.*JB
DT: LIGHT CAME ON DASH PANEL INDICATING THERE WAS A LIGHT PROBLEM, AND DISCOVERED THERE WERE NO BRAKE LIGHTS. TOOK VEHICLE TO A DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID BECAUSE THERE WAS HEAT SO EXTENSIVE FROM BRAKE LIGHT THAT IT MELTED AND WOULD COST $1200 FOR REPAIRS. THERE WAS AN EXTENDED WARRANTY SERVICE PLAN THROUGH FORD. HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT COVERED BECAUSE THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS ISSUE,TSB # PB8210/406 OF 1-31-05. *AK NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE BUT OWNER PLANS TO PAY FOR THIS OUT OF POCKET. *AK *JB
DT: LIGHT CAME ON DASH PANEL INDICATING THERE WAS A LIGHT PROBLEM, AND DISCOVERED THERE WERE NO BRAKE LIGHTS. TOOK VEHICLE TO A DEALERSHIP. THEY SAID BECAUSE THERE WAS HEAT SO EXTENSIVE FROM BRAKE LIGHT THAT IT MELTED AND WOULD COST $1200 FOR REPAIRS. THERE WAS AN EXTENDED WARRANTY SERVICE PLAN THROUGH FORD. HOWEVER, THIS WAS NOT COVERED BECAUSE THERE WAS A TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN ON THIS ISSUE,TSB # PB8210/406 OF 1-31-05. *AK NO REPAIRS HAVE BEEN MADE BUT OWNER PLANS TO PAY FOR THIS OUT OF POCKET. *AK *JB
WE OWN A 2000 MERCEDES SLK 230. THE LIGHT, THAT WARNS OF A LAMP FAILURE SOMEWHERE ON THE VEHICLE, KEPT COMING ON. IT WOULD NOT STAY ON ALL THE TIME HOWEVER, AND WE COULD NOT FIND WHICH LAMP WAS MALFUNCTIONING. WE CALLED THE DEALER, MERCEDES-BENZ OF WILSONVILLE, (WILSONVILLE OREGON - 503-454-5000) AND WERE TOLD TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN WHEN THE WARNING LAMP CAME ON AND STAYED ON. WHEN IT FINALLY DID, A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, WE TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALER. THE SERVICE WAS PERFORMED ON AUGUST 16TH 2004. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND TOLD US THAT THE TAIL LAMP BULBS IN BOTH TAIL LAMPS WERE ARCHING AND HAD MELTED THE TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLY. BOTH TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLIES HAD TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $360.00. THE SERVICE INVOICE STATES "28636 BULB FAILURE MIL 852 INSPECTED BULB FOUND EVIDENCE OF ARCHING BETWEEN SOCKET AND ASSEMBLY 852 R/R BOTH TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLYS/82-2310. I SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE ADVISOR, ALEX GARCIA. HE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD SEEN THIS SAME PROBLEM ON OTHER MERCEDES VEHICLES. I ASKED HIM IF A RECALL HAD BEEN INITIATED BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THIS WAS A CONDITION THAT COULD CAUSE A FIRE IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, NEAR THE GAS TANK. HE TOLD ME THAT NO RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED. I REQUESTED THE OLD PARTS AND WAS ASSURED BY MR. GARCIA THAT I COULD HAVE THEM. HE TOLD ME HE WOULD LEAVE THEM WITH THE SALES DEPARTMENT SO THAT I COULD PICK THEM UP THAT WEEKEND. HOWEVER WHEN I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP ON SATURDAY THE 21ST THE PARTS WERE NOT THERE. I WILL CALL THE DEALERSHIP ON MONDAY AND HOPE TO HAVE THE PARTS RETURNED TO ME. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CONDITION IS A FIRE HAZARD AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED. I SUSPECT THAT FAILURES IN OTHER VEHICLES WERE COVERED BY WARRANTY AND THUS NOT REPORTED. NONETHELESS I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE NOTED. *JB
WE OWN A 2000 MERCEDES SLK 230. THE LIGHT, THAT WARNS OF A LAMP FAILURE SOMEWHERE ON THE VEHICLE, KEPT COMING ON. IT WOULD NOT STAY ON ALL THE TIME HOWEVER, AND WE COULD NOT FIND WHICH LAMP WAS MALFUNCTIONING. WE CALLED THE DEALER, MERCEDES-BENZ OF WILSONVILLE, (WILSONVILLE OREGON - 503-454-5000) AND WERE TOLD TO BRING THE VEHICLE IN WHEN THE WARNING LAMP CAME ON AND STAYED ON. WHEN IT FINALLY DID, A COUPLE OF MONTHS LATER, WE TOOK THE VEHICLE IN TO THE DEALER. THE SERVICE WAS PERFORMED ON AUGUST 16TH 2004. THE SERVICE DEPARTMENT INSPECTED THE VEHICLE AND TOLD US THAT THE TAIL LAMP BULBS IN BOTH TAIL LAMPS WERE ARCHING AND HAD MELTED THE TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLY. BOTH TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLIES HAD TO BE REPLACED AT A COST OF $360.00. THE SERVICE INVOICE STATES "28636 BULB FAILURE MIL 852 INSPECTED BULB FOUND EVIDENCE OF ARCHING BETWEEN SOCKET AND ASSEMBLY 852 R/R BOTH TAIL LAMP ASSEMBLYS/82-2310. I SPOKE WITH THE SERVICE ADVISOR, ALEX GARCIA. HE TOLD ME THAT THEY HAD SEEN THIS SAME PROBLEM ON OTHER MERCEDES VEHICLES. I ASKED HIM IF A RECALL HAD BEEN INITIATED BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME THAT THIS WAS A CONDITION THAT COULD CAUSE A FIRE IN THE REAR OF THE VEHICLE, NEAR THE GAS TANK. HE TOLD ME THAT NO RECALL HAD BEEN ISSUED. I REQUESTED THE OLD PARTS AND WAS ASSURED BY MR. GARCIA THAT I COULD HAVE THEM. HE TOLD ME HE WOULD LEAVE THEM WITH THE SALES DEPARTMENT SO THAT I COULD PICK THEM UP THAT WEEKEND. HOWEVER WHEN I CALLED THE DEALERSHIP ON SATURDAY THE 21ST THE PARTS WERE NOT THERE. I WILL CALL THE DEALERSHIP ON MONDAY AND HOPE TO HAVE THE PARTS RETURNED TO ME. I BELIEVE THAT THIS CONDITION IS A FIRE HAZARD AND SHOULD BE CORRECTED. I SUSPECT THAT FAILURES IN OTHER VEHICLES WERE COVERED BY WARRANTY AND THUS NOT REPORTED. NONETHELESS I BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE NOTED. *JB