bosendorfer

I recently received the "malfunction" notice for the car level height, where it looked like the back of the car was in a permanent high level position, the front may or may not have been high; I couldn't really tell for sure, but it looked a little high.

I have a 2007 E350 Wagon 4Matic that has the automatic Airmatic system, without the buttons for lowering or raising that are usually located to the bottom left of the gear selector knob. I just have the button to switch between "C" (Comfort) and "S" (Sport) to the upper right of the knob.

When I took it the MB dealer they determined that a short existed in the wire controlling the Airmatic valve(s), which kept it in the high position. I was informed it was the wiring in the wheel well that had visible indications of chafing.

So my question is: Would you consider this "chafing" to be considered "wear and tear", or would the chafing possibly be due to poor wiring placement and/or lack of proper wire protection? I asked the Service Adviser, who is pretty good, to check the service bulletins and make sure that this wasn't covered; he advised me there wasn't anything for it.

I have approximately 30,000 miles on the car, and I am a little disconcerted that the wires were chafed, plus I had to pay about $260.00 for the repair out of pocket, since my warranty is over.

foreyes

This is a somewhat common failure. It happened to my 2003 E500 last year. In my opinion this is a design flaw, as this wire leading to the airmatic compressor rubs against the driver's side front wheelwell liner, causing damage to the wire. I soldered the wire and sealed it with heat shrink tubing. This failure could be avoided by more thoughtful routing of the airmatic wires or the use of a protective wiring loom.

bosendorfer

I had just had the "Flexible Service Plus, Major Maintenance, Perform VEH with ABR" (Cost: $484.23) and I see on the Service Sheet, Page 3 of 4, that it was supposedly checked for "Underside of vehicle - Required; Leakage - Major components; Check for chafe marks, line routing, damaged components". I would have thought that this would have been seen before, but maybe I am missing something about it. I thought I was having the service done according to the MBUSA recommended service intervals in order to address issues like this.

I had the above service done on 07 Dec 11. I posed the question as to whether the wiring should have been done differently or covered better, but all the SA said was that if MBUSA issues a Service Bulletin about it, they would refund to me the amount, and that he has seen that happen.

It still kind of bothers me that I had to pay $291.99 for a repair (wire chafing) as a result of what looks like the wiring being placed poorly or not properly protected.

bc6t

I understand your frustration, but since this has been a known issue since 2003 I doubt that Mercedes will do anything about it. What bothers me about your experience is how they justified the $291.99? I recently replaced the entire air pump myself with my own labor. The pump (OEM) cost $250 and it took me approx. 2 hours. I am sure that I can do it in under an hour the second time and the wire you speak of is roughly a $20 item with the connectors on both sides. Owning a Mercedes is just not worth it without a warranty or a good independent mechanic if you cannot do the work yourself.

bosendorfer

You are correct on the time commitment. According to another MBWORLD member that communicated with me, it was brought to my attention that there was a Star Bulletin about replacing the exact part that was chafed, the cable harness, Part 000-540-38-05, which is listed on the Star Bulletin DTB S-B-32.22/78a. That shows a time allotted of 0.3 hrs for the short test and 0.2 hrs to change the cable harness. The cable harness is the same part number shown on my invoice for the repair.

Now I am getting rather more frustrated, because it appears that since this is a known issue, as you state, from 2003, and not only is there a Star Bulletin about it, but the time allotted commitment corresponding to the procedure compared to what I was actually charged is wrong.