URGENT: NHTSA Opens investigation into fuel leaks on the W211 E Class
#227
Your Confirmation Number (ODI Number) is: 10543317.
2004 E320 4Matic. Noticed gas smell in garage the morning after I filled up. Makes me nervous as my gas water heater is right in front of where I park. I have been parking it outside until I can get it fixed. Crazy that there are this many people with the same issue and it is taking this long for a reputable company like Mercedes Benz to even acknowledge the problem. I wonder if anyone has started a facebook page acknowledge this issue with the fuel tank.
2004 E320 4Matic. Noticed gas smell in garage the morning after I filled up. Makes me nervous as my gas water heater is right in front of where I park. I have been parking it outside until I can get it fixed. Crazy that there are this many people with the same issue and it is taking this long for a reputable company like Mercedes Benz to even acknowledge the problem. I wonder if anyone has started a facebook page acknowledge this issue with the fuel tank.
#231
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Margate, FL and Huntington, NY
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
2003 ML500 W163, 1997 993 C2S, 2008 CL63, 1998 E430W W210
Another case of the fuel smell
Hello members. Need some advice. I am in the car business and specialize in hand-picked Benzes, BMW's and Porsches. I just picked up a beautiful 2004 E500W W211, and want to keep the car for myself. It is a one owner car and only has 44k miles on it. I just have it a week, it had a half tank of gas when I got it and there were no issues. I filled it up on Fri night and got this potent gas smell from the left quarter panel wheel well, no smell on the interior. My question is should I file the NHTSA complaint under my name even though I am not the original owner? Has anyone heard of any updates as to weather or not they are going to make a recall out of this, it seems to have been going on for over a year. I read all 10 pages of this thread last night. Thanks to anyone who has some insight
#232
Out Of Control!!
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ
Posts: 15,903
Received 4,435 Likes
on
3,152 Posts
'71 Pinto
Pull the rear seat cushion to inspect interior – odor, staining, leakage etc. If so, file complaint. If not, attachment shows fuel tank to identify exterior problem. In addition, visit MB dealer to review VMI (Vehicle Master Inquiry) – repair history may show if units were replaced.
#233
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Granite State
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
8 Posts
.
Additionally, someone from the NHTSA called me to talk about the issue. He said the filter/sending unit is a maintenance item with a replacement schedule of every 65k miles. Sure enough the manual says to replace the fuel filter every 65k. Unfortunately, with this model car, the filter is part of the sending unit, so the whole assembly needs to be replaced.
I'm sure Mercedes-Benz is pushing this narrative with NHTSA as a way to explain-away this fuel leak issue...
It doesn't explain why my car (with only around 40,000 original miles) started leaking fuel....and it certainly doesn't mean much for the guys who have already paid to have the fuel sender replaced. New parts should ALSO be good for 65,000 miles..... But from what I have seen, even the replacement parts leak like crazy.
Mercedes owes us a REAL solution, not excuses....
![smash](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/smashfreak.gif)
-G
#234
Well, this was a lot of fun. I almost died today thanks to this issue. I never really noticed it before. So today, I decided to stop by the garage with my old man to even out the air pressure on my tires, and I pulled the W211 out to give her some air. I'm smoking a cigarette and topping off the tires, and I finished the front driver's so I decide to move to the rear. That's when I noticed a stream of clear liquid flowing underneath the car where the passenger seat is located. Since the W211 is not a mid-engine sports car I decided it's not the A/C, so I stuck my hand in it. While I did so, I also took a pull off my cigarette. I go to smell my hand and didn't like that I came so close to being cremated alongside my W211 (not a bad way to go, I guess). This could have been a bad day for me. Came online, took 3 minutes to find this thread. Anyway, lawyers tomorrow, NHTSA, will post ODI, etc. WTF, MB? Seriously?
![bs](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/bs.gif)
#235
Additionally, someone from the NHTSA called me to talk about the issue. He said the filter/sending unit is a maintenance item with a replacement schedule of every 65k miles. Sure enough the manual says to replace the fuel filter every 65k. Unfortunately, with this model car, the filter is part of the sending unit, so the whole assembly needs to be replaced.
My car is nowhere near either of those two service triggers and still experienced the leaking fuel issue.
#236
I have a 2004 E320 and have been smelling gas for quite sometime as well. Took it to a private shop for diagnosis and they notified me that the fuel tank needs to be replaced due to a leak at a whopping cost of $2300. Contacted the dealership they told me there was no open recall with the fuel tanks in any of the E class models and to bring it in pay 160$ for diagnosis and they would see what the problem is. After going online and reviewing the complaints I contacted the NHTSA as well my conformation is 10544974.
Everyone needs to call them and make a complaint without this nothing will happen.
# to call is 888-327-4236 they will put a letter together and file the complaint for review. If enough of us do this they will have to take action. Seems to be an ongoing problem for the E class models
Everyone needs to call them and make a complaint without this nothing will happen.
# to call is 888-327-4236 they will put a letter together and file the complaint for review. If enough of us do this they will have to take action. Seems to be an ongoing problem for the E class models
#237
Newbie
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W126 300SE, W211 E200K, W212 E300 E200K, W212 2014 E300 BlueTec Hybrid
Just to share I'm from Malaysia. The problem is not in USA only.
I own a locally assemble 2009 W211 E200 SE with 1.8 Kompressor (facelift)
Problem: (fuel smell 1st reported on 2nd service 25K KM)
Intermittent check engine light warning and fuel smell outside - rear tires area
1st visit to workshop (car in workshop - 1 week)
part replaced - a lot of vacuum hoses in the engine compartment, Regeneration line fuel evaporation
check engine light warning - fixed
fuel smell again after spritted driving
2nd visit to workshop (car in workshop - 1 week)
part replaced - charcoal canister
fuel smell again after spritted driving
3rd visit to workshop (car in workshop - 3 week)
part replaced - Filler neck, Filler cap, Fuel pump seal ring
Was inform the car was tested by "engineer" from the dealership and Mercedes and "certified" as fixed.
fuel smell again after spritted driving.
4th visit to workshop (car in workshop - 2 1/2 week)
part replaced - charcoal canister again (now using CLS version - bigger)
fuel smell again after spritted driving
5th visit to workshop (car in workshop - 2 week)
part replaced - ???
fuel smell again after spritted driving
The petrol smell is there when the car is "hot" driven for 1 hour or more and some spritted driving.
The petrol level in the tank can be at full, 3/4 full or at 1/4 full
no sign of leak under the car - only smell
I own a locally assemble 2009 W211 E200 SE with 1.8 Kompressor (facelift)
Problem: (fuel smell 1st reported on 2nd service 25K KM)
Intermittent check engine light warning and fuel smell outside - rear tires area
1st visit to workshop (car in workshop - 1 week)
part replaced - a lot of vacuum hoses in the engine compartment, Regeneration line fuel evaporation
check engine light warning - fixed
fuel smell again after spritted driving
2nd visit to workshop (car in workshop - 1 week)
part replaced - charcoal canister
fuel smell again after spritted driving
3rd visit to workshop (car in workshop - 3 week)
part replaced - Filler neck, Filler cap, Fuel pump seal ring
Was inform the car was tested by "engineer" from the dealership and Mercedes and "certified" as fixed.
fuel smell again after spritted driving.
4th visit to workshop (car in workshop - 2 1/2 week)
part replaced - charcoal canister again (now using CLS version - bigger)
fuel smell again after spritted driving
5th visit to workshop (car in workshop - 2 week)
part replaced - ???
fuel smell again after spritted driving
The petrol smell is there when the car is "hot" driven for 1 hour or more and some spritted driving.
The petrol level in the tank can be at full, 3/4 full or at 1/4 full
no sign of leak under the car - only smell
#238
Junior Member
My last post on this thread was @ #225, also posted under thread "gas fumes in garage".
Ran the fuel tank down to almost empty and took it onto MB service last Friday. Got a call today saying it was done. Didn't speak to SA but he said in the message something like they replaced the sending unit and fuel pump unit.
Picking it up tomorrow, will share the results.
I received a call from a guy with NHTSA after I filed a complaint. He wants me to call him with my service information to see what was fixed at MB.
If you read my other posts on this issue I disclosed I do have the extended warranty w/ MB. So I was not worried about the cost since it will be covered. However, I did ask my SA if this would have been covered since it was a known issue and owners have been reporting it to NHTSA. He acted sort of confused and said it wouldn't have been covered nor would "good will" have been offered.
Going to ask him what the bill would have been if it wasn't covered under my MB ELW.
Ran the fuel tank down to almost empty and took it onto MB service last Friday. Got a call today saying it was done. Didn't speak to SA but he said in the message something like they replaced the sending unit and fuel pump unit.
Picking it up tomorrow, will share the results.
I received a call from a guy with NHTSA after I filed a complaint. He wants me to call him with my service information to see what was fixed at MB.
If you read my other posts on this issue I disclosed I do have the extended warranty w/ MB. So I was not worried about the cost since it will be covered. However, I did ask my SA if this would have been covered since it was a known issue and owners have been reporting it to NHTSA. He acted sort of confused and said it wouldn't have been covered nor would "good will" have been offered.
Going to ask him what the bill would have been if it wasn't covered under my MB ELW.
#239
MBWorld Fanatic!
Any updates on this??? My problem has gotten exponentially worse as I've been doing a lot of driving, the garage now reeks of gasoline after I fill up and the smell is even noticeable in a non-enclosed space... I'm fearing that it is a big safety issue. Where are we at with the recall? What did was Mercedes response to the NHTSA deadline? I need to get this fixed before emissions as well but I don't really want to pay out of pocket unless it is absolutely necessary.
#240
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Granite State
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
8 Posts
.
Any updates on this??? My problem has gotten exponentially worse as I've been doing a lot of driving, the garage now reeks of gasoline after I fill up and the smell is even noticeable in a non-enclosed space... I'm fearing that it is a big safety issue. Where are we at with the recall? What did was Mercedes response to the NHTSA deadline? I need to get this fixed before emissions as well but I don't really want to pay out of pocket unless it is absolutely necessary.
The spilled fuel will evaporate if you remove the rear seat and open the access cover for a while. Drive around until you are at 3/4 tank or less before trying to clean things up. It will always leak if it is more than 3/4 full.
When the low fuel warning light comes on, you should add exactly 10 gallons of fuel. That will bring you to 3/4 full and you won't have fuel leaks. It's inconvenient but better than smelling raw fuel.
-G
#241
MBWorld Fanatic!
Alright I will do that for the time being, thanks. Still though, I would like to get this fixed - what is the status on the investigation and possible recall?
#242
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Granite State
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
8 Posts
.
Beyond that, it's a waiting game. MB-USA has a really expensive legal team doing everything it can to delay this process and prevent an expensive recall.... the more official claims that NHTSA receives, the harder it is for MB-USA to deny that an issue exists.
I'm not holding my breath that the factory will EVER provide a fix for this, especially considering the costs involved to recall and repair thousands of cars. The best you can probably do is replace the leaking senders at your own expense and then use the epoxy trick to flood the weak and "cracking prone" areas of the senders to help reinforce them.
A couple of guys have done it and so far it seems to be working well.
-G
#243
Super Member
ODI# 10549853.
Mine just started today, although technically it is a re-occurrence as it has had work done on it for this very issue. It's pretty bad too.
Mine just started today, although technically it is a re-occurrence as it has had work done on it for this very issue. It's pretty bad too.
#245
Super Member
Same here. This is the second time I have filled this tank, and this is the first time I had it happen. Thought I was in the clear on account of this having been fixed before. Wishful thinking on my part.
#246
Super Member
So I have been reading on this issue and MBs response to it. It's funny as they are both right and wrong.
They wrote the following:
Unlike fuel leaks inside the engine compartment, there are no sources of ignition above or below the tank so fire cannot occur as a result of leakage. Specifically, in the unlikely event that fuel exceeds the capacity of the containment wells and drains off the top of the tank, it would be directly by molded channels off the side of the tank or onto the heat shield. The heat shield between the drive shaft and the tank prevents any fuel from every (sic) reaching the muffler or exhaust system. But even if there were no heat shield, the operating temperature of the muffler and exhaust pipes are too low to result in ignition. The combustion temperature of liquid gasoline is 1300* F and the temperature of the outside of the muffler is 750* F (worst case) and the temperature of the heat shield is less than 250* F."
They are correct as far as the temperatures at which liquid fuel ignites. This is scientific fact and can be found in any high school chemistry book. Past that, I dispute all else.
First, they claim that the fuel will not reach the exhaust system. If that was truly the case, then why is the fuel dripping on to the left exhaust pipe almost to the muffler on my car from this leak? Somehow, I doubt I'm the only one.
Secondly, while the pipes themselves may not get hot enough to ignite the fuel (allegedly), what about an external source or cause? Would not a leaking fuel tank create greater risk for a vehicle fire in the event of a rear collision? The answer is absolutely yes, and that's a fact. The car and the tank are both designed to reduce that possibility of ignition counting the absence of fuel externally. But now we have metal striking on metal at high speed creating great potential for spark(s) which is something that MB can not deny. It is physically impossible for a spark or the potential for a spark to not be created in an impact, nor can it be argued to be a least likely occurrence. Or maybe all the campfires started in a similar fashion were actually started by magic rather than physics?
Oh by the way, gasoline starts to turn to vapor when exposed to air. So let's take a step back for a second about spontaneous ignition. Yes, the liquid form has a higher flash point than the gaseous form. But what do you know, as a gas it flashes at 495 degrees Fahrenheit. oops. Here's that citation for the naysayers.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/...istopher.shtml
But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor science teacher. I'm just a guy that reads, studies, and is progressively working towards a PHD while doing this as a hobby. It's getting fixed no matter how I do it, and I'm documenting everything as I go along.
They wrote the following:
Unlike fuel leaks inside the engine compartment, there are no sources of ignition above or below the tank so fire cannot occur as a result of leakage. Specifically, in the unlikely event that fuel exceeds the capacity of the containment wells and drains off the top of the tank, it would be directly by molded channels off the side of the tank or onto the heat shield. The heat shield between the drive shaft and the tank prevents any fuel from every (sic) reaching the muffler or exhaust system. But even if there were no heat shield, the operating temperature of the muffler and exhaust pipes are too low to result in ignition. The combustion temperature of liquid gasoline is 1300* F and the temperature of the outside of the muffler is 750* F (worst case) and the temperature of the heat shield is less than 250* F."
They are correct as far as the temperatures at which liquid fuel ignites. This is scientific fact and can be found in any high school chemistry book. Past that, I dispute all else.
First, they claim that the fuel will not reach the exhaust system. If that was truly the case, then why is the fuel dripping on to the left exhaust pipe almost to the muffler on my car from this leak? Somehow, I doubt I'm the only one.
Secondly, while the pipes themselves may not get hot enough to ignite the fuel (allegedly), what about an external source or cause? Would not a leaking fuel tank create greater risk for a vehicle fire in the event of a rear collision? The answer is absolutely yes, and that's a fact. The car and the tank are both designed to reduce that possibility of ignition counting the absence of fuel externally. But now we have metal striking on metal at high speed creating great potential for spark(s) which is something that MB can not deny. It is physically impossible for a spark or the potential for a spark to not be created in an impact, nor can it be argued to be a least likely occurrence. Or maybe all the campfires started in a similar fashion were actually started by magic rather than physics?
Oh by the way, gasoline starts to turn to vapor when exposed to air. So let's take a step back for a second about spontaneous ignition. Yes, the liquid form has a higher flash point than the gaseous form. But what do you know, as a gas it flashes at 495 degrees Fahrenheit. oops. Here's that citation for the naysayers.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/...istopher.shtml
But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor science teacher. I'm just a guy that reads, studies, and is progressively working towards a PHD while doing this as a hobby. It's getting fixed no matter how I do it, and I'm documenting everything as I go along.
#247
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1995 E320 Cab; 2007 E350 Sport
Just took our 2007 E350 in under our extended limited warranty, they replaced the fuel tank, auxiliary pump (2114704094), seal ring and grommet.
If I did not have ELW, I am afraid of what it would cost.
If I did not have ELW, I am afraid of what it would cost.
#248
MBWorld Fanatic!
Your #1 job is to file an official complaint on the NHTSA website. The link has been posted on these forums numerous times....
Beyond that, it's a waiting game. MB-USA has a really expensive legal team doing everything it can to delay this process and prevent an expensive recall.... the more official claims that NHTSA receives, the harder it is for MB-USA to deny that an issue exists.
I'm not holding my breath that the factory will EVER provide a fix for this, especially considering the costs involved to recall and repair thousands of cars. The best you can probably do is replace the leaking senders at your own expense and then use the epoxy trick to flood the weak and "cracking prone" areas of the senders to help reinforce them.
A couple of guys have done it and so far it seems to be working well.
-G
Beyond that, it's a waiting game. MB-USA has a really expensive legal team doing everything it can to delay this process and prevent an expensive recall.... the more official claims that NHTSA receives, the harder it is for MB-USA to deny that an issue exists.
I'm not holding my breath that the factory will EVER provide a fix for this, especially considering the costs involved to recall and repair thousands of cars. The best you can probably do is replace the leaking senders at your own expense and then use the epoxy trick to flood the weak and "cracking prone" areas of the senders to help reinforce them.
A couple of guys have done it and so far it seems to be working well.
-G
#249
MBWorld Fanatic!
So I have been reading on this issue and MBs response to it. It's funny as they are both right and wrong.
They wrote the following:
Unlike fuel leaks inside the engine compartment, there are no sources of ignition above or below the tank so fire cannot occur as a result of leakage. Specifically, in the unlikely event that fuel exceeds the capacity of the containment wells and drains off the top of the tank, it would be directly by molded channels off the side of the tank or onto the heat shield. The heat shield between the drive shaft and the tank prevents any fuel from every (sic) reaching the muffler or exhaust system. But even if there were no heat shield, the operating temperature of the muffler and exhaust pipes are too low to result in ignition. The combustion temperature of liquid gasoline is 1300* F and the temperature of the outside of the muffler is 750* F (worst case) and the temperature of the heat shield is less than 250* F."
They are correct as far as the temperatures at which liquid fuel ignites. This is scientific fact and can be found in any high school chemistry book. Past that, I dispute all else.
First, they claim that the fuel will not reach the exhaust system. If that was truly the case, then why is the fuel dripping on to the left exhaust pipe almost to the muffler on my car from this leak? Somehow, I doubt I'm the only one.
Secondly, while the pipes themselves may not get hot enough to ignite the fuel (allegedly), what about an external source or cause? Would not a leaking fuel tank create greater risk for a vehicle fire in the event of a rear collision? The answer is absolutely yes, and that's a fact. The car and the tank are both designed to reduce that possibility of ignition counting the absence of fuel externally. But now we have metal striking on metal at high speed creating great potential for spark(s) which is something that MB can not deny. It is physically impossible for a spark or the potential for a spark to not be created in an impact, nor can it be argued to be a least likely occurrence. Or maybe all the campfires started in a similar fashion were actually started by magic rather than physics?
Oh by the way, gasoline starts to turn to vapor when exposed to air. So let's take a step back for a second about spontaneous ignition. Yes, the liquid form has a higher flash point than the gaseous form. But what do you know, as a gas it flashes at 495 degrees Fahrenheit. oops. Here's that citation for the naysayers.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/...istopher.shtml
But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor science teacher. I'm just a guy that reads, studies, and is progressively working towards a PHD while doing this as a hobby. It's getting fixed no matter how I do it, and I'm documenting everything as I go along.
They wrote the following:
Unlike fuel leaks inside the engine compartment, there are no sources of ignition above or below the tank so fire cannot occur as a result of leakage. Specifically, in the unlikely event that fuel exceeds the capacity of the containment wells and drains off the top of the tank, it would be directly by molded channels off the side of the tank or onto the heat shield. The heat shield between the drive shaft and the tank prevents any fuel from every (sic) reaching the muffler or exhaust system. But even if there were no heat shield, the operating temperature of the muffler and exhaust pipes are too low to result in ignition. The combustion temperature of liquid gasoline is 1300* F and the temperature of the outside of the muffler is 750* F (worst case) and the temperature of the heat shield is less than 250* F."
They are correct as far as the temperatures at which liquid fuel ignites. This is scientific fact and can be found in any high school chemistry book. Past that, I dispute all else.
First, they claim that the fuel will not reach the exhaust system. If that was truly the case, then why is the fuel dripping on to the left exhaust pipe almost to the muffler on my car from this leak? Somehow, I doubt I'm the only one.
Secondly, while the pipes themselves may not get hot enough to ignite the fuel (allegedly), what about an external source or cause? Would not a leaking fuel tank create greater risk for a vehicle fire in the event of a rear collision? The answer is absolutely yes, and that's a fact. The car and the tank are both designed to reduce that possibility of ignition counting the absence of fuel externally. But now we have metal striking on metal at high speed creating great potential for spark(s) which is something that MB can not deny. It is physically impossible for a spark or the potential for a spark to not be created in an impact, nor can it be argued to be a least likely occurrence. Or maybe all the campfires started in a similar fashion were actually started by magic rather than physics?
Oh by the way, gasoline starts to turn to vapor when exposed to air. So let's take a step back for a second about spontaneous ignition. Yes, the liquid form has a higher flash point than the gaseous form. But what do you know, as a gas it flashes at 495 degrees Fahrenheit. oops. Here's that citation for the naysayers.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2003/...istopher.shtml
But what do I know? I'm not a lawyer, nor science teacher. I'm just a guy that reads, studies, and is progressively working towards a PHD while doing this as a hobby. It's getting fixed no matter how I do it, and I'm documenting everything as I go along.
#250
Junior Member
My last posts were #225 & 238.
Update. It's been several weeks now since the repair.
Under my MB ELW they preformed the following
from invoice)
Cuase:
478200 Evaporative Emissions Control System Check 1113WMCPC. (N/C)
1 auxiliary pump, 211-470-40-94 (N/C)
1 cable harness, 211-440-05-07 (N/C)
1 bracket, 211-471-02-41 (N/C)
2 seal ring, 211-471-05-79 (N/C)
477085 Sensors (both) for fuel gauge replace (after check) 1113WMCPC. (N/C)
36704 leaking left side fuel sending unit, perf fuel leak test with smoke tester, R&R rear seat bottom, repl left side fuel sending unit and both seals. Damage code 09001-04-7.
Car had 36,704 miles when repaired on Sept. 24 2013
I was told that to remove the sending unit under the rear drivers side seat they must remove the other unit (I believe it houses the filter) because they are connected by wires. So they replaced the seals on that one while it was out.
I have filled the tank twice and parked it in my garage and no gas smell is produced even over night.
I faxed a copy of the repair invoice to NHTSA and spoke with a rep. there. He said what I did was all that was needed from the NHTSA as far as shining a light on this problem. Yes I filed a complaint.
My SA said the repair would have run me about $1,200-1,400 if not covered under MB ELW. (Mercedes Benz Extended Limited Warranty). Paid $3,100 for it the week before my original Manufacturer 4/50 warranty ran out. It was the 7 year 75,000 mile ELW. Runs out 05/2014 and has already paid for itself.
Update. It's been several weeks now since the repair.
Under my MB ELW they preformed the following
![Frown](https://mbworld.org/forums/images/smilies/frown.gif)
Cuase:
478200 Evaporative Emissions Control System Check 1113WMCPC. (N/C)
1 auxiliary pump, 211-470-40-94 (N/C)
1 cable harness, 211-440-05-07 (N/C)
1 bracket, 211-471-02-41 (N/C)
2 seal ring, 211-471-05-79 (N/C)
477085 Sensors (both) for fuel gauge replace (after check) 1113WMCPC. (N/C)
36704 leaking left side fuel sending unit, perf fuel leak test with smoke tester, R&R rear seat bottom, repl left side fuel sending unit and both seals. Damage code 09001-04-7.
Car had 36,704 miles when repaired on Sept. 24 2013
I was told that to remove the sending unit under the rear drivers side seat they must remove the other unit (I believe it houses the filter) because they are connected by wires. So they replaced the seals on that one while it was out.
I have filled the tank twice and parked it in my garage and no gas smell is produced even over night.
I faxed a copy of the repair invoice to NHTSA and spoke with a rep. there. He said what I did was all that was needed from the NHTSA as far as shining a light on this problem. Yes I filed a complaint.
My SA said the repair would have run me about $1,200-1,400 if not covered under MB ELW. (Mercedes Benz Extended Limited Warranty). Paid $3,100 for it the week before my original Manufacturer 4/50 warranty ran out. It was the 7 year 75,000 mile ELW. Runs out 05/2014 and has already paid for itself.