URGENT: NHTSA Opens investigation into fuel leaks on the E55.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
Likes: 36
From: Maryland
W212 E63 AMG S Model
Here's some more interesting data for those of you following this.....
I did a little more research on the part numbers on my own 2006 E55 and found there have been a number of part numbers that have been superceeded by newer ones in the fuel system. Take a look:
The 80 liter (21.1 gallon) fuel tank part has been superceeded TWICE since it's original release, the seals underneath the sender and fuel pump have also been superceeded TWICE and the fuel sender has been superceeded once.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has a repair invoice for this issue that can compare these part numbers to the items you had replaced.
It does seem suspicious to me that MBZ has denied any major issue exists, but has been quietly obsoleting older part numbers and replacing them with new ones (and potentially new designs and/or materials) for these critical parts.
-G
I did a little more research on the part numbers on my own 2006 E55 and found there have been a number of part numbers that have been superceeded by newer ones in the fuel system. Take a look:
The 80 liter (21.1 gallon) fuel tank part has been superceeded TWICE since it's original release, the seals underneath the sender and fuel pump have also been superceeded TWICE and the fuel sender has been superceeded once.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has a repair invoice for this issue that can compare these part numbers to the items you had replaced.
It does seem suspicious to me that MBZ has denied any major issue exists, but has been quietly obsoleting older part numbers and replacing them with new ones (and potentially new designs and/or materials) for these critical parts.
-G
Member
Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
From: Exit 9 - New Jersey
04 E55 - 97 E320 - 85 300D
Here's some more interesting data for those of you following this.....
I did a little more research on the part numbers on my own 2006 E55 and found there have been a number of part numbers that have been superceeded by newer ones in the fuel system. Take a look:
The 80 liter (21.1 gallon) fuel tank part has been superceeded TWICE since it's original release, the seals underneath the sender and fuel pump have also been superceeded TWICE and the fuel sender has been superceeded once.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has a repair invoice for this issue that can compare these part numbers to the items you had replaced.
It does seem suspicious to me that MBZ has denied any major issue exists, but has been quietly obsoleting older part numbers and replacing them with new ones (and potentially new designs and/or materials) for these critical parts.
-G
I did a little more research on the part numbers on my own 2006 E55 and found there have been a number of part numbers that have been superceeded by newer ones in the fuel system. Take a look:
The 80 liter (21.1 gallon) fuel tank part has been superceeded TWICE since it's original release, the seals underneath the sender and fuel pump have also been superceeded TWICE and the fuel sender has been superceeded once.
I'd be interested to hear from anyone who has a repair invoice for this issue that can compare these part numbers to the items you had replaced.
It does seem suspicious to me that MBZ has denied any major issue exists, but has been quietly obsoleting older part numbers and replacing them with new ones (and potentially new designs and/or materials) for these critical parts.
-G
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
Doug,
I think the true "root cause" failure mode for this issue is already understood but just buried in the details that MBUSA has provided.
I downloaded the 36-page legal response from MBUSA to NHTSA and there was a section where they provided all of the part number changes and reasons for the changes (fuel tank, fuel pump, etc). This is referred to as "section 7" in the report, but all of the actual data appears to have been redacted before this report was made public on the NHTSA website.
I would LOVE to get my hands on that data... I have a feeling it holds the secrets to this entire fuel leak issue and it's solution.
-G
I think the true "root cause" failure mode for this issue is already understood but just buried in the details that MBUSA has provided.
I downloaded the 36-page legal response from MBUSA to NHTSA and there was a section where they provided all of the part number changes and reasons for the changes (fuel tank, fuel pump, etc). This is referred to as "section 7" in the report, but all of the actual data appears to have been redacted before this report was made public on the NHTSA website.
I would LOVE to get my hands on that data... I have a feeling it holds the secrets to this entire fuel leak issue and it's solution.
-G
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
I agree to all points. Clearly the E55 failure rate of leaking is much higher than the E class chassis as a group. The E55 must have a different fuel pump/regulator assembly due to the higher demand of fuel load under WOT.
MBUSA has dug down deep for this one because they were in "official denial mode" years ago. Even after MBUSA was forced to offer the 20 cent clip recall on the fuel pump. Every one of the early claims to MBUSA years ago was met with a complete denial of any "goodwill" adjustment. Hmmm, 90k car....just out of factory warranty....repeated gas tank leaks.....64,000 miles.....go pound sand.
I hope the red tape clears at NHTSA and MBUSA is forced to at least fix the cars that are leaking and make good past claims. All OE owners and say CPO owners should get lifetime coverage against fuel tank leaks for as long as they own the car and 10 years for everyone else.
MBUSA has dug down deep for this one because they were in "official denial mode" years ago. Even after MBUSA was forced to offer the 20 cent clip recall on the fuel pump. Every one of the early claims to MBUSA years ago was met with a complete denial of any "goodwill" adjustment. Hmmm, 90k car....just out of factory warranty....repeated gas tank leaks.....64,000 miles.....go pound sand.
I hope the red tape clears at NHTSA and MBUSA is forced to at least fix the cars that are leaking and make good past claims. All OE owners and say CPO owners should get lifetime coverage against fuel tank leaks for as long as they own the car and 10 years for everyone else.
Try to look at this situation objectively.....
NHTSA only had 20 cases reported for the E55. That doesn't exactly give them lots of "arm twisting" leverage against MBUSA. The most helpful thing we can do is get people with issues to file official claims and insure that all those ODI#s get added to the original complaint (PE12001).
The MBUSA response indicated that there ARE some parts of the fuel system that are unique to the E55. Based on what I've seen so far this makes sense. The E55 failure rate is WAY higher than the overall failure rate of all W211-chassis vehicles. My current objective is to identify all of the unique E55 fuel system parts and sharpen my focus on those parts.
Keep in mind, MBUSA is going to be a lot more likely to address a documented issue that affects only the E55 cars (~8000 units) vs. every W211-chassis made between 2003-2006 (~300,000+ units). Trying to tie this fuel leak to the larger population of vehicles doesn't seem consistent with the data I've seen, and makes it easier for MBUSA to pick apart the claims.
Read their 36-page response and you'll see that MBUSA is systematically discrediting each claim... This is made easier when people overstate the failure as "fuel spraying into the seat cushions" or other impossible results. We all need to work hard to stay FACTUAL in our comments and observations, and leave the emotions out of the correspondence with NHTSA and MBUSA.
The fact is that NHTSA only had 20 reports of E55 fuel leaks to work with originally. After the last couple of weeks of effort, I have been able to build that number to close to 50. This is real progress and is one of the most important things MBWorld can do to show the true failure rate for this issue and apply additional pressure to MBUSA.
We need to be proactive in collecting and providing this data to NHTSA... If we wait passively for NHTSA to do all of this legwork for us, there is no way we will ever get to a resolution.
-G
NHTSA only had 20 cases reported for the E55. That doesn't exactly give them lots of "arm twisting" leverage against MBUSA. The most helpful thing we can do is get people with issues to file official claims and insure that all those ODI#s get added to the original complaint (PE12001).
The MBUSA response indicated that there ARE some parts of the fuel system that are unique to the E55. Based on what I've seen so far this makes sense. The E55 failure rate is WAY higher than the overall failure rate of all W211-chassis vehicles. My current objective is to identify all of the unique E55 fuel system parts and sharpen my focus on those parts.
Keep in mind, MBUSA is going to be a lot more likely to address a documented issue that affects only the E55 cars (~8000 units) vs. every W211-chassis made between 2003-2006 (~300,000+ units). Trying to tie this fuel leak to the larger population of vehicles doesn't seem consistent with the data I've seen, and makes it easier for MBUSA to pick apart the claims.
Read their 36-page response and you'll see that MBUSA is systematically discrediting each claim... This is made easier when people overstate the failure as "fuel spraying into the seat cushions" or other impossible results. We all need to work hard to stay FACTUAL in our comments and observations, and leave the emotions out of the correspondence with NHTSA and MBUSA.
The fact is that NHTSA only had 20 reports of E55 fuel leaks to work with originally. After the last couple of weeks of effort, I have been able to build that number to close to 50. This is real progress and is one of the most important things MBWorld can do to show the true failure rate for this issue and apply additional pressure to MBUSA.
We need to be proactive in collecting and providing this data to NHTSA... If we wait passively for NHTSA to do all of this legwork for us, there is no way we will ever get to a resolution.
-G
Last edited by 03RSTT; Oct 9, 2012 at 11:18 AM.
Newbie
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
From: South Texas
2009 E63
Fuel leaks
The hot climate/short trip theory is interesting. I live in deep South Texas and my commute to work is about a mile and a half. My car is only an '09 (purchased new Nov '09) with a whopping 15,000 miles on her now. Interesting that my dealer stated that this was not a recall fix within MB and no flags exist. Is there a hardware change between the E55 and E63? I guess I have another year of warranty left, regardless, to deal with it.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
A bit more research and data for everyone:
I went through EVERY part number on this E55 fuel system diagram and highlighted the parts for which there has been revision changes to the part.
I then cross-referenced those highlighted parts with various W211 models including the CLS55 (more on that later) to determine which parts are common across all platforms, and which parts are unique to only the E55. That data is shown here:
Looking at this data, a few specific items jump out at me:
Item #10 (Fuel Tank) - There are three different versions of the fuel tank being used across many different models of W211 cars. Since the leaks are MOST prevalent in the E55, this by itself can not be the cause of the fuel leak.
Item #55 (Fuel Pump / Filter) - The fuel pump in the E55 is unique and is not shared across other W211 vehicles. This is one area where it is quite easy to correlate the fuel leak issue to a unique E55 part. Interestingly, the E55 Wagon has it's own unique part numbers for this pump, so they do not match the E55 part numbers listed here.
The original 2008 recall campaign included all 2003-2006 E55 AMGs as well as the CLS55 (which was only available in 2006). According to production numbers, this should be a total of 10,895 cars (E55s including wagons, plus 2765 CLS55s). Interestingly, the MBUSA recall only indicates that 10,680 cars were built and of those, only 8014 were affected by the recall.... why is this?
My theory is related to the CLS55 production. You will notice that since it is a 2006-only model, certain parts that were "obsoleted" previously (like the first two fuel tank designs, and the first fuel pump design) were never built into the CLS55s. It had the "best" fuel tank design, and the "best" fuel pump design, but there was still a chance that it could get either of two Seal Ring designs... one of which is now "obsoleted". I am left to conclude that when MBUSA calculated the potential exposure they realized that some of the CLS55s had the best component in each of these 3 categories and therefore would not be affected by the fuel leak issue. This may be what allowed them to adjust their field exposure down from 10,680 to only 8,014.
What I am left with is a suspicion that I can't prove (yet)... if a car is repaired using the latest tank design AND the latest fuel pump design AND the latest Seal Rings, the leak will be stopped permanently. I have a feeling that any other combination of parts will always have a higher risk of failure and ongoing issues with fuel leaks. Mercedes Benz has revised parts to insure that the latest revisions (when used together) will not leak, however it is unlikely that they would have spent the time testing all of the combinations of old / new parts to identify which combinations would remain leak-free.
-G
I went through EVERY part number on this E55 fuel system diagram and highlighted the parts for which there has been revision changes to the part.
I then cross-referenced those highlighted parts with various W211 models including the CLS55 (more on that later) to determine which parts are common across all platforms, and which parts are unique to only the E55. That data is shown here:
Looking at this data, a few specific items jump out at me:
Item #10 (Fuel Tank) - There are three different versions of the fuel tank being used across many different models of W211 cars. Since the leaks are MOST prevalent in the E55, this by itself can not be the cause of the fuel leak.
Item #55 (Fuel Pump / Filter) - The fuel pump in the E55 is unique and is not shared across other W211 vehicles. This is one area where it is quite easy to correlate the fuel leak issue to a unique E55 part. Interestingly, the E55 Wagon has it's own unique part numbers for this pump, so they do not match the E55 part numbers listed here.
The original 2008 recall campaign included all 2003-2006 E55 AMGs as well as the CLS55 (which was only available in 2006). According to production numbers, this should be a total of 10,895 cars (E55s including wagons, plus 2765 CLS55s). Interestingly, the MBUSA recall only indicates that 10,680 cars were built and of those, only 8014 were affected by the recall.... why is this?
My theory is related to the CLS55 production. You will notice that since it is a 2006-only model, certain parts that were "obsoleted" previously (like the first two fuel tank designs, and the first fuel pump design) were never built into the CLS55s. It had the "best" fuel tank design, and the "best" fuel pump design, but there was still a chance that it could get either of two Seal Ring designs... one of which is now "obsoleted". I am left to conclude that when MBUSA calculated the potential exposure they realized that some of the CLS55s had the best component in each of these 3 categories and therefore would not be affected by the fuel leak issue. This may be what allowed them to adjust their field exposure down from 10,680 to only 8,014.
What I am left with is a suspicion that I can't prove (yet)... if a car is repaired using the latest tank design AND the latest fuel pump design AND the latest Seal Rings, the leak will be stopped permanently. I have a feeling that any other combination of parts will always have a higher risk of failure and ongoing issues with fuel leaks. Mercedes Benz has revised parts to insure that the latest revisions (when used together) will not leak, however it is unlikely that they would have spent the time testing all of the combinations of old / new parts to identify which combinations would remain leak-free.
-G
Last edited by GregMB; Oct 9, 2012 at 04:47 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
Likes: 36
From: Maryland
W212 E63 AMG S Model
A bit more research and data for everyone:
I went through EVERY part number on this E55 fuel system diagram and highlighted the parts for which there has been revision changes to the part.
I then cross-referenced those highlighted parts with various W211 models including the CLS55 (more on that later) to determine which parts are common across all platforms, and which parts are unique to only the E55. That data is shown here:
Looking at this data, a few specific items jump out at me:
Item #10 (Fuel Tank) - There are three different versions of the fuel tank being used across many different models of W211 cars. Since the leaks are MOST prevalent in the E55, this by itself can not be the cause of the fuel leak.
Item #55 (Fuel Pump / Filter) - The fuel pump in the E55 is unique and is not shared across other W211 vehicles. This is one area where it is quite easy to correlate the fuel leak issue to a unique E55 part. Interestingly, the E55 Wagon has it's own unique part numbers for this pump, so they do not match the E55 part numbers listed here.
The original 2008 recall campaign included all 2003-2006 E55 AMGs as well as the CLS55 (which was only available in 2006). According to production numbers, this should be a total of 10,895 cars (E55s including wagons, plus 2765 CLS55s). Interestingly, the MBUSA recall only indicates that 10,680 cars were built and of those, only 8014 were affected by the recall.... why is this?
My theory is related to the CLS55 production. You will notice that since it is a 2006-only model, certain parts that were "obsoleted" previously (like the first two fuel tank designs, and the first fuel pump design) were never built into the CLS55s. It had the "best" fuel tank design, and the "best" fuel pump design, but there was still a chance that it could get either of two Seal Ring designs... one of which is now "obsoleted". I am left to conclude that when MBUSA calculated the potential exposure they realized that some of the CLS55s had the best component in each of these 3 categories and therefore would not be affected by the fuel leak issue. This may be what allowed them to adjust their field exposure down from 10,680 to only 8,014.
What I am left with is a suspicion that I can't prove (yet)... if a car is repaired using the latest tank design AND the latest fuel pump design AND the latest Seal Rings, the leak will be stopped permanently. I have a feeling that any other combination of parts will always have a higher risk of failure and ongoing issues with fuel leaks. Mercedes Benz has revised parts to insure that the latest revisions (when used together) will not leak, however it is unlikely that they would have spent the time testing all of the combinations of old / new parts to identify which combinations would remain leak-free.
-G
I went through EVERY part number on this E55 fuel system diagram and highlighted the parts for which there has been revision changes to the part.
I then cross-referenced those highlighted parts with various W211 models including the CLS55 (more on that later) to determine which parts are common across all platforms, and which parts are unique to only the E55. That data is shown here:
Looking at this data, a few specific items jump out at me:
Item #10 (Fuel Tank) - There are three different versions of the fuel tank being used across many different models of W211 cars. Since the leaks are MOST prevalent in the E55, this by itself can not be the cause of the fuel leak.
Item #55 (Fuel Pump / Filter) - The fuel pump in the E55 is unique and is not shared across other W211 vehicles. This is one area where it is quite easy to correlate the fuel leak issue to a unique E55 part. Interestingly, the E55 Wagon has it's own unique part numbers for this pump, so they do not match the E55 part numbers listed here.
The original 2008 recall campaign included all 2003-2006 E55 AMGs as well as the CLS55 (which was only available in 2006). According to production numbers, this should be a total of 10,895 cars (E55s including wagons, plus 2765 CLS55s). Interestingly, the MBUSA recall only indicates that 10,680 cars were built and of those, only 8014 were affected by the recall.... why is this?
My theory is related to the CLS55 production. You will notice that since it is a 2006-only model, certain parts that were "obsoleted" previously (like the first two fuel tank designs, and the first fuel pump design) were never built into the CLS55s. It had the "best" fuel tank design, and the "best" fuel pump design, but there was still a chance that it could get either of two Seal Ring designs... one of which is now "obsoleted". I am left to conclude that when MBUSA calculated the potential exposure they realized that some of the CLS55s had the best component in each of these 3 categories and therefore would not be affected by the fuel leak issue. This may be what allowed them to adjust their field exposure down from 10,680 to only 8,014.
What I am left with is a suspicion that I can't prove (yet)... if a car is repaired using the latest tank design AND the latest fuel pump design AND the latest Seal Rings, the leak will be stopped permanently. I have a feeling that any other combination of parts will always have a higher risk of failure and ongoing issues with fuel leaks. Mercedes Benz has revised parts to insure that the latest revisions (when used together) will not leak, however it is unlikely that they would have spent the time testing all of the combinations of old / new parts to identify which combinations would remain leak-free.
-G
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
I'd invite anyone else who has paid for repairs to post up a scanned copy of the repair invoice (blank out your personal info, obviously). I would like to compare the service dates to the introduction of these new part numbers by MBUSA to see if I can get a more accurate sense of when the new designs were rolled-out.
-G
Last edited by GregMB; Oct 9, 2012 at 05:15 PM.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,879
Likes: 22
From: Orange County, CA.
one car at a time
Greg - I am not sure you are aware of my issue in detail, but when I brought my car in I was given the same BS as many (dealer claimed they never had or heard of any problems even though they had a pile of gas tanks in back ), then MB sent me a letter saying they would replace everything at no cost, but that I needed to indemnify them and release any and all future claims, and that I could not be part of any lawsuit....Needless to say, I said thanks but no thanks....
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
Likes: 36
From: Maryland
W212 E63 AMG S Model
On the receipt you posted it showed a fuel filter assembly was replaced. Was that on the driver's side or passenger side? It was interesting that the part number they referenced on your invoice was not the one at the heart of this discussion (diagram Item #40 not Item #55) so it's got me curious.
I'd invite anyone else who has paid for repairs to post up a scanned copy of the repair invoice (blank out your personal info, obviously). I would like to compare the service dates to the introduction of these new part numbers by MBUSA to see if I can get a more accurate sense of when the new designs were rolled-out.
-G
I'd invite anyone else who has paid for repairs to post up a scanned copy of the repair invoice (blank out your personal info, obviously). I would like to compare the service dates to the introduction of these new part numbers by MBUSA to see if I can get a more accurate sense of when the new designs were rolled-out.
-G
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
Ok
The date of my last service was 3/2011. I gave up after that last service when everything was replaced and it still leaked a year later.
Fuel tank
211-470-25-02 latest design
Seal rings
211-471-05-79 latest design
Sender units
211-470-51-94 I dont see it on the list
211-470-17-94 I dont see it on the list
It looks as if I do not have the latest senders. Great, which is why our car still leaks. I have been keeping the fuel level under 3/4 for over a year now.
NHTSA come get this POS out in the garage and throw all your rocket science people on it. This is just a joke. I guess it goes out front of the MB dealership with signs in the window.
The date of my last service was 3/2011. I gave up after that last service when everything was replaced and it still leaked a year later.
Fuel tank
211-470-25-02 latest design
Seal rings
211-471-05-79 latest design
Sender units
211-470-51-94 I dont see it on the list
211-470-17-94 I dont see it on the list
It looks as if I do not have the latest senders. Great, which is why our car still leaks. I have been keeping the fuel level under 3/4 for over a year now.
NHTSA come get this POS out in the garage and throw all your rocket science people on it. This is just a joke. I guess it goes out front of the MB dealership with signs in the window.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
Hang in there a little while longer.
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
I have seen these numbers before (MBWorld member "pj57" listed those also in his repair sheet) but they did not show up on EPC as valid parts when I looked under my own VIN.
Does anyone here have the ability to trace those part numbers to show a "where used" type result? I'd like to know what vehicles those were originally designed for.... Maybe they are the e55 wagon parts?
I'll try to dig into this a bit more on my end also.-G
Last edited by GregMB; Oct 10, 2012 at 07:37 AM.
Super Member
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 959
Likes: 36
From: Maryland
W212 E63 AMG S Model
Hang in there a little while longer.
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 15
From: Northern VA
W211
On my 05 dealer used ds 211-470-5194 and seal 211-417-0579. Which was done in march 2010. Wonder if I take my car in to fix this will they sabotage other parts on the car so I woul need to come I later for them to fix.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
I found a way to do a "where used" type search in EPC (I'm not an expert on that database yet) and found out a few things already.
There appear to actually be 4 (YES, FOUR!) versions of the Item #55 (Delivery Unit w Fuel Level Sender) in the system for the E55 and E55 Wagon.... they appear to be categorized by the chassis number of the car and the model year involved. My suspicion is that this is related to the fuel tank that they are being paired with, and only certain pumps are allowed in certain tanks.
My original search was based on my own VIN# and didn't bring up as many options for Item #55, presumably because I already have a later model tank and the earlier pumps would not be compatible. This new search method I'm using should allow me to see ALL matches in a given parts category.
-G
Last edited by GregMB; Oct 10, 2012 at 10:18 AM. Reason: 9 units included non-US versions
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
My car also has had a full 100% service history with factory MB service since day one. This is just turning out to be a total cluster. The actions of MBUSA are making it very clear the intention of a total coverup. It is not by accident that Audi is taking market share by storm with record US sales in the high line models. Customers get it. I get special invitations to take a R8 spyder out for a afternoon with no strings and my wife actually went along on a wide open run up a mountain road. She was impressed with everything and now wants the S8 as her next car. Nice job MB.
Hang in there a little while longer.
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
I've been in contact with NHTSA and they are VERY interested in seeing my car in person to inspect the leak. My car was built in May 2005 so it's a good example of a late-production E55 with a full service history through MB dealerships.
If their guys can't come to me, I'm tempted to drive down to their offices Washington DC so to give them the opportunity to see it, photograph it and perform analysis on it directly. Having direct access to a failing, unmolested vehicle is a HUGE opportunity for them to document this issue completely and thoroughly.
-G
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
03 E55 AMG, 06 Harley Road King Custom 06 Ram 2500 Cummins, 97 Firebird Race Car, 88 Cutlass Supreme
You wanna read about nightmare outbof warranty repairs look into high end Audi's just out of warranty. I have several friends with shops that all have horror stories on what should have been a simple repair being a nightmare on an Audi.
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
No doubt the cost of ownership is high on top line products. I get it. Its also difficult to work on the E55, SL55, S8, RS6 ect. I get it. I enjoy replacing 600 dollar brakes/rotors on my RS because it brings back the enjoyment of wearing out those rotors. 
But I cant find a solution to repair this stupid E55 gas tank and MB will deny any and all claims to make a valid attempt to solve this problem. There lies the frustration. If I could spend 3000 dollars to fix this I would but we cant. There is no fix. And knowing MBUSA stance on this subject makes it clear who I wish to do business with in the future. 10 year old Audi Allroads, RS6s that have developed gas tank leaks were covered 100% from Audi USA and a recall was issued asap to replace and or reimburse any owners that paid for gas tanks out of pocket. No questions asked.
Safety is safety. I go with the company that cares about vehicle safety.
But I cant find a solution to repair this stupid E55 gas tank and MB will deny any and all claims to make a valid attempt to solve this problem. There lies the frustration. If I could spend 3000 dollars to fix this I would but we cant. There is no fix. And knowing MBUSA stance on this subject makes it clear who I wish to do business with in the future. 10 year old Audi Allroads, RS6s that have developed gas tank leaks were covered 100% from Audi USA and a recall was issued asap to replace and or reimburse any owners that paid for gas tanks out of pocket. No questions asked.
Safety is safety. I go with the company that cares about vehicle safety.
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,212
Likes: 5
From: Chicago
03 E55 AMG, 06 Harley Road King Custom 06 Ram 2500 Cummins, 97 Firebird Race Car, 88 Cutlass Supreme
I hear you on the safety issue. But look round for some of the stories on the power steering lines snaking behind the engine bays and costing huge money ($1000+ due to labor cause of how they run it. 
) to replace when they start leaking. I've heard that one a few times now. The 55 motor is a dream to work on compared to the mess Audi stuffs under its hood.
) to replace when they start leaking. I've heard that one a few times now. The 55 motor is a dream to work on compared to the mess Audi stuffs under its hood.
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
Yep its just the nature of the beast. The engine/trans needs dropped out the bottom of my RS6 to replace the following items. A 40hr labor job
O2 sensors
EGT sensors
Valve cover gaskets
PS rack
downpipes
Torque converter
I have no problem with the list. I enjoy driving the car which is why I bought it. The A8, S8 and many others have a similar list of items to pull engine/trans to repair.
I consider it the price of admission. It would be a different story if I had to pull the engine out 6 times in 3 years to fix EGT sensors that failed every 6 months.
But nothing frustrates me more than a fuel safety issue that puts me or my family at risk by just driving the car. And add the blinders by MBUSA to top line AMG buyers and it boggles my mind. There is no fix for this and the tanks keep leaking. I love driving the E55 again which is why I bought the thing. The 55k engine is nothing but legendary. I should just kick it down the road but its fun to drive. So I keep the fuel level under 3/4 but this is not safe at all and even the most minor crash could be dangerous. In the end the E55 will be gone no later than next year. It goes when the S8 comes in. I would like to see an end to this situation and MBGreg seems very determined to see it thru. Good for him he is close to NHTSA and his car is leaking.
O2 sensors
EGT sensors
Valve cover gaskets
PS rack
downpipes
Torque converter
I have no problem with the list. I enjoy driving the car which is why I bought it. The A8, S8 and many others have a similar list of items to pull engine/trans to repair.
I consider it the price of admission. It would be a different story if I had to pull the engine out 6 times in 3 years to fix EGT sensors that failed every 6 months.
But nothing frustrates me more than a fuel safety issue that puts me or my family at risk by just driving the car. And add the blinders by MBUSA to top line AMG buyers and it boggles my mind. There is no fix for this and the tanks keep leaking. I love driving the E55 again which is why I bought the thing. The 55k engine is nothing but legendary. I should just kick it down the road but its fun to drive. So I keep the fuel level under 3/4 but this is not safe at all and even the most minor crash could be dangerous. In the end the E55 will be gone no later than next year. It goes when the S8 comes in. I would like to see an end to this situation and MBGreg seems very determined to see it thru. Good for him he is close to NHTSA and his car is leaking.
I hear you on the safety issue. But look round for some of the stories on the power steering lines snaking behind the engine bays and costing huge money ($1000+ due to labor cause of how they run it. ) to replace when they start leaking. I've heard that one a few times now. The 55 motor is a dream to work on compared to the mess Audi stuffs under its hood.
) to replace when they start leaking. I've heard that one a few times now. The 55 motor is a dream to work on compared to the mess Audi stuffs under its hood.Last edited by 03RSTT; Oct 11, 2012 at 02:41 AM.
Member
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
2004 MB E55 AMG
My 04 E55 had the recall done in 2008 and again Dec 31 2010. I just received a gas cap warning (new cap) in red on the dash and the dreaded check engine light last week, so the exact same problem has come back. I will check for leaks at the fuel sending unit again.
In Dec 2010 the faulty fuel sending unit caused a vacuum leak and one side of the engine had to be torn apart to access and repair.
This is unbelievable.
I have paid over $1800 to try to solve this issue to date and the MB stealers are d'bags.
ODI ID Number : 10384539
Date Complaint Filed: February 25, 2011
Date of Incident: December 28, 2010
006-997-18-90 Loom tie
211-470-51-94 Sender Unit (replaced in 2008 & Dec 31 2010, likely leaking again)
211-471-05-79 Seal Ring
In Dec 2010 the faulty fuel sending unit caused a vacuum leak and one side of the engine had to be torn apart to access and repair.
This is unbelievable.
I have paid over $1800 to try to solve this issue to date and the MB stealers are d'bags.
ODI ID Number : 10384539
Date Complaint Filed: February 25, 2011
Date of Incident: December 28, 2010
006-997-18-90 Loom tie
211-470-51-94 Sender Unit (replaced in 2008 & Dec 31 2010, likely leaking again)
211-471-05-79 Seal Ring
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
Let's acknowledge that MBUSA probably did the best they could to placate the original owners of these cars during those first few years when the cars were truly "new"... Once the new models were released, their focus was selling those well-heeled clients a newer AMG.
Mercedes-Benz is no different than any other company. They don't want to apply resources and effort to deal with complaints on old, obsolete products... I understand their legal team is doing exactly what they were hired to do (deny claims and protect the financial interests of MBUSA) but ultimately this issue is gaining too much momentum, and there are simply too many reported cases for NHTSA to ignore.
-G
Member
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 191
Likes: 2
13 E63
It was the top line product at the time of release. And these things started leaking early on for those of us in hot climates. 50k and just over 4yrs old for our car. MB did nothing for me. Zero from day one.
Take Audi on the other hand. Gas tank issues cropped up for some Allroads and then a few RS6s just a year back. These were old C5 chassis vehicles and Allroads were not top line even back in the day. RS6 were. Audi paid for gas tanks no questions asked. Issued a recall and reimbursed anyone who paid for gas tanks out of pocket. 1st owner, 3rd owner, 10th owner.
Gas tank leaks that cannot be fixed will bury MB in the long run. Poor vision from the powers that sit up top. IMHO
Take Audi on the other hand. Gas tank issues cropped up for some Allroads and then a few RS6s just a year back. These were old C5 chassis vehicles and Allroads were not top line even back in the day. RS6 were. Audi paid for gas tanks no questions asked. Issued a recall and reimbursed anyone who paid for gas tanks out of pocket. 1st owner, 3rd owner, 10th owner.
Gas tank leaks that cannot be fixed will bury MB in the long run. Poor vision from the powers that sit up top. IMHO
As much as I love my E55, it's not a top line car anymore. It's an aging model that is at best 7 model years old with the oldest W211 examples now 10 years old.... Most are on their 3rd or 4th owners at this point. Hardly exclusive, and hardly a "top line" clientele at this point.
Let's acknowledge that MBUSA probably did the best they could to placate the original owners of these cars during those first few years when the cars were truly "new"... Once the new models were released, their focus was selling those well-heeled clients a newer AMG.
Mercedes-Benz is no different than any other company. They don't want to apply resources and effort to deal with complaints on old, obsolete products... I understand their legal team is doing exactly what they were hired to do (deny claims and protect the financial interests of MBUSA) but ultimately this issue is gaining too much momentum, and there are simply too many reported cases for NHTSA to ignore.
-G
Let's acknowledge that MBUSA probably did the best they could to placate the original owners of these cars during those first few years when the cars were truly "new"... Once the new models were released, their focus was selling those well-heeled clients a newer AMG.
Mercedes-Benz is no different than any other company. They don't want to apply resources and effort to deal with complaints on old, obsolete products... I understand their legal team is doing exactly what they were hired to do (deny claims and protect the financial interests of MBUSA) but ultimately this issue is gaining too much momentum, and there are simply too many reported cases for NHTSA to ignore.
-G
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
Friday Update:
I've received a few more PMs with information so we now have a total of 53 ODI#s on file with NHTSA for this issue.
Breakdown by year:
2003 E55 = 11 reports (8346 DPPM)
2004 E55 = 17 reports (5282 DPPM)
2005 E55 = 18 reports (8130 DPPM)
2006 E55 = 7 reports (5897 DPPM)
E55 Wagons = 0 reports
CLS55 = 0 reports
I wouldn't read too much into the individual failure rates by year, since getting just a couple more guys to file in any given year will increase those values substantially... overall, based on the total NHTSA filings vs. production numbers this issue is about a 0.46% issue.
The 131 names on the master list were added because those individuals had mentioned fuel leak issues in these forums. If I could get all of those people to file an actual claim with NHTSA this failure rate would be at 1.61% (16,000 DPPM)... that's a significant number especially considering that this only accounts for people with fuel leaks that happen to be on MBWorld. Our little group probably only represents 10% of all current E55 owners in the US..... making this more of a 16% (160,000 DPPM) issue!!
-G
I've received a few more PMs with information so we now have a total of 53 ODI#s on file with NHTSA for this issue.
Breakdown by year:
2003 E55 = 11 reports (8346 DPPM)
2004 E55 = 17 reports (5282 DPPM)
2005 E55 = 18 reports (8130 DPPM)
2006 E55 = 7 reports (5897 DPPM)
E55 Wagons = 0 reports
CLS55 = 0 reports
I wouldn't read too much into the individual failure rates by year, since getting just a couple more guys to file in any given year will increase those values substantially... overall, based on the total NHTSA filings vs. production numbers this issue is about a 0.46% issue.
The 131 names on the master list were added because those individuals had mentioned fuel leak issues in these forums. If I could get all of those people to file an actual claim with NHTSA this failure rate would be at 1.61% (16,000 DPPM)... that's a significant number especially considering that this only accounts for people with fuel leaks that happen to be on MBWorld. Our little group probably only represents 10% of all current E55 owners in the US..... making this more of a 16% (160,000 DPPM) issue!!
-G
