I’m sharing my recent experience as a long-time Mercedes-Benz owner because I have been unable to obtain any response or clarity from Mercedes-Benz USA regarding warranty coverage questions on my vehicle. My intent is transparency and to help other owners who may encounter similar EV- or warranty-related issues.

Vehicle: 2024 Mercedes-Benz EQS 450 SUV
Mileage when issues were first documented: ~41,000 miles
Mileage at second dealership inspection: ~52,000 miles
Dealerships involved: Mercedes-Benz of Pleasanton, CA and Mercedes-Benz of Fremont, CA
1. What Happened

During my scheduled 40,000-mile service at Mercedes-Benz of Pleasanton, the technician documented the following issues:

• Rear right shock absorber leak/film
• Charging-port arcing

Both issues were documented within the 50,000-mile New Vehicle Limited Warranty period.
At that time, no repair was recommended and no warranty claim was initiated.

Later, at approximately 52,000 miles, Mercedes-Benz of Fremont re-inspected the vehicle and confirmed that:

• The rear shock absorber leak had progressed
• The charging-port arcing condition was still present

When I requested warranty repair, Fremont advised that Pleasanton should address the issue, since it had been documented while the vehicle was still within warranty.

Pleasanton then stated that:

• The shock absorber was considered “normal wear and tear,” and
• The charging-port arcing was “not abnormal.”

The dealership, Pleasanton, also verbally suggested that Electrify America charging equipment is the cause of the arcing but declined to provide this explanation in writing when I requested documentation.

When I asked where the Mercedes-Benz warranty defines shock absorbers or charging ports as wear-and-tear items, I was told that the dealership does not interpret warranty policy and that Mercedes-Benz USA (MBUSA) would need to clarify.
2. Warranty Language and Wear-and-Tear Items

According to the Mercedes-Benz New Vehicle Limited Warranty booklet, the following items are clearly identified as standard wear and tear and are not covered:

• Wheel alignment and balancing
• Brake pads
• Brake discs
• Glass
• Wiper blades and inserts
• Remote control key batteries

Notably, the warranty booklet does not list shock absorbers or charging ports as wear-and-tear items.

If Mercedes-Benz USA considers shock absorbers and/or charging ports to be wear-and-tear components, this should be clearly stated in the warranty documentation. As written, the warranty does not identify these components as exclusions.
3. Attempts to Get Clarification from Mercedes-Benz USA

I emailed Mercedes-Benz USA Customer Care and included multiple corporate contacts, respectfully requesting:

• Written warranty language supporting the denial
• Policy documentation defining “normal wear” as it applies to shock absorbers or charging ports
• Clarification as to why issues documented within the warranty period were denied solely due to mileage at re-inspection
• Guidance on safety considerations related to charging-port arcing

I followed up twice over several weeks.
To date, I have received no response—no clarification, no acknowledgment, and no confirmation of receipt.
4. Shock Absorber Concern

From a customer perspective, a leaking shock absorber at approximately 40,000 miles on a premium ($100K+) vehicle in this class seems unusual and may reasonably raise concerns about materials or workmanship.

I am not making a technical determination—only sharing my experience and concern as an owner.
5. Charging-Port Arcing Concern

The Pleasanton dealership suggested Electrify America is caused the arcing was made verbally but not supported with documentation. Electrify America is also the charging network Mercedes-Benz partnered with for complimentary charging, making it unclear how use of the recommended network could be grounds for warranty denial.

I have since learned that other EQS/EQE owners have reported similar charging-port arcing issues, which suggests this may not be an isolated case. Greater transparency or technical guidance from Mercedes-Benz would be helpful.
6. Why I’m Sharing This

I’ve owned Mercedes-Benz vehicles for more than 25 years because of the brand’s engineering and customer care. Until now, I’ve always believed in their “The Best or Nothing” philosophy. However:

• Issues were documented within the warranty period
• Coverage was denied based solely on mileage at re-inspection
• Dealerships stated they could not explain or document the denial
• Mercedes-Benz USA has provided no response despite multiple attempts

…I feel compelled to share my experience publicly for the sake of transparency and to help other owners understand what to expect.

I’m disappointed with the lack of communication, and it has made me reconsider future Mercedes-Benz purchases.

This post is not an attack on Mercedes-Benz or any dealership.
It is simply a factual account from a long-time customer seeking clarity, consistency, and transparency in warranty interpretation.

If other EQS or EQE owners have experienced shock absorber leaks or charging-port arcing, I would appreciate hearing your experiences or suggestions.

Shock is leaking

 

I also have had a charging port damaged at about 25000 miles that was not covered by the warranty. Since the damage is caused by a third party, not a failure of the design nor an issue with the manufacturing, it is not covered by the warranty. It would be the same if your fueling port was damaged by a pump.

The shocks are definitely a wear item, and while 50k miles is a bit soon for one of them to fail, it does happen. You might ask if you can get some sort of prorated expense on that, though you might have to contact the shock manufacturer for that.

I am not surprised that they are not going to give you a written claim that EA's charger damaged the car, they really have no way of knowing where you charge the car or when damage happened. All they can say is they see damage that was caused by a third party as arcing does not happen in the socket on its own. EA's lawyers would have a field day if they wrote something like that down. You would have to be able to say under oath that you charged the car at an EA station and observed that a) the car was fine before charging, b) the car was damaged immediately after charging, and c) you observed signs of arcing while charging. In my case, I have no idea when the arcing happened. Might have been an EA station, could have been some other charging station too.

 

I can't add anything profound here, but will say that the charging arc thing is tough. EA will point the finger at MB, and MB at EA. There's likely no way to know who caused it, when, or where. Always look inside the charger before you attach it to your vehicle at public charging stations to look for damage. As a customer, I understand how frustrating it is to be stuck in the middle holding the bag for both of them.

In general, a shock going bad at that mileage is not unheard of. Should be covered under MB warranty though. Many aftermarket warranties do not cover air suspension shocks--surely the reason is they go bad often.

 

1. No proof of third-party damage
There has been no evidence presented that the charging-port damage was caused by a third party. I am not buying their theory or making assumptions. Put it in writing, black and white, if you want customers to believe you.

2. EV charging ≠ fuel pump
Comparing an EV charging port to a gasoline pump isn’t technically accurate. A fuel pump is purely mechanical. An EV charging port involves multiple pins, communication between car and charger, high voltage/current, high/low, software, and thermal management. Arcing can result from design, materials, tolerances, or software—….

3. Shock absorbers are not listed as wear items
Please point out where the Mercedes-Benz New Vehicle Limited Warranty explicitly lists shock absorbers as wear-and-tear items for the EQS.

 

1. No proof of third-party damage
There has been no evidence presented that the charging-port damage was caused by a third party. I am not buying their theory or making assumptions. Put it in writing, black and white, if you want customers to believe you.

2. EV charging ≠ fuel pump
Comparing an EV charging port to a gasoline pump isn’t technically accurate. A fuel pump is purely mechanical. An EV charging port involves multiple pins, communication between car and charger, high voltage/current, high/low, software, and thermal management. Arcing can result from design, materials, tolerances, or software—….

3. Shock absorbers are not listed as wear items
Please point out where the Mercedes-Benz New Vehicle Limited Warranty explicitly lists shock absorbers as wear-and-tear items for the EQS.

 

This is original shock from MB. The problem is not wear and tear items and should be covered under warranty. However, I am being denied without any explanation from Corporate.

 

I would agree that a shock that is not explicitly excluded by the warranty is included in the warranty, in that it is a full bumper to bumper warranty with specific exclusions...

 

Air shock should absolutely be covered under warranty. Its covered by the MB extended warranty too.

 

Front struts are air spring and damper combined. Rear dampers are separate from the air springs.

 

Okay, let's be clear about this. Arcing can ONLY happen when the car is charging. At all other times those connections are electrically isolated and there is no voltage or current present. If you pay attention, you can hear the charging contractors closing when the car starts charging and opening when it stops. You will hear a similar sound when you get read to drive and turn the car off after driving for the contractors that supply power to drive system. The most common cause of arc damage would be a poorly fitting charging plug which might be due to damage, wear, or dirt.