What 18 owners told NHTSA about the 2024 Mercedes-benz GLS 450 4matic

During interstate travel in rainy conditions, the vehicle appeared to lose traction and hydroplane. The tires appeared to have adequate remaining tread; however, they did not provide expected traction and the vehicle felt as though it was driving on ice. This was inconsistent with my prior experience operating the vehicle for over a year in various weather conditions without encountering similar issues. The Electronic Stability Program (ESP), traction control system, and 4MATIC all-wheel drive system did not appear to intervene to stabilize the vehicle. The vehicle spun and was involved in a crash. Despite the impact, no airbags deployed. The vehicle was rendered undrivable and towed from the scene. It is currently located at a collision repair facility and is available for inspection upon request. The suspected systems involved include the Electronic Stability Program (ESP), traction control system (TCS), 4MATIC all-wheel drive system, and Supplemental Restraint System (SRS/airbags). The vehicle has not yet undergone a full manufacturer engineering inspection, but such a review has been requested. The loss of traction at interstate speed in wet conditions created a serious safety risk to the occupants of the vehicle and surrounding motorists. The apparent lack of stability control intervention and the absence of airbag deployment increased the potential risk of injury. The vehicle was inspected by law enforcement at the scene, towed, and has been reviewed by insurance representatives as part of a claim. A manufacturer inspection is pending based on a defective claim that was filed. There were no warning lights, alerts, or messages related to traction control, stability control, or airbags prior to the incident.

NHTSA ODI 11721041

The 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLS 450 exhibits a critical "Spatial Mapping Offset" defect within the MBUX 360-degree camera interface and the Active Brake Assist (ABA) logic. Specifically, the digital rendering of physical obstacles on the dashboard display is offset by approximately 0.5 feet (6 inches). This creates a "false clear" condition where the driver is visually signaled that an obstacle has been cleared while the vehicle’s chassis is still in a strike position. On September 27, 2025, this defect resulted in a collision with a stationary post. Despite the system’s Parking Control Module identifying the object (recorded as "Orange/Indented" in dealer Repair Order #731706), the system failed to escalate to a Red Triangle alert or initiate autonomous braking. Furthermore, the vehicle’s sensing suite is demonstrably unstable, exhibiting "Phantom Alerts" (detecting non-existent obstacles) and total Augmented Reality (AR) camera blackouts in direct sunlight—a failure the manufacturer’s representative attributed to solar interference. The manufacturer (MBUSA) has formally denied a defect exists, claiming the system is not designed to detect stationary objects or operate below 4 mph. However, I have documented video/photographic evidence of the vehicle successfully intervening for stationary objects at these speeds in other scenarios (e.g., concrete garage posts). This proves the system's safety protocols are intermittent and unreliable. This lack of synchronization between real-time spatial data and the driver interface makes a collision mathematically inevitable and constitutes a significant public safety hazard.

NHTSA ODI 11717545

Over the past 14 months, the emergency breaking system has gone off approximately 25 times during non-emergency situations. Most of the incidents have been when no other vehicles or impediments are anywhere close by. This has created a very significantly unsafe and ongoing situation for my family which so far are being ignored by Mercedes Benz.

NHTSA ODI 11664075

The contact owns a 2024 Mercedes-Benz GLS580. The contact stated while driving 25 MPH with his wife in the front passenger's seat, the Forward Collision Avoidance: Automatic Emergency Braking system engaged and the vehicle stopped abruptly, causing both the contact and his wife to be propelled forward. The contact stated that there were no other vehicles or pedestrians around the vehicle prior to the failure. The contact was able to continue driving. The vehicle was taken to the dealer, where the contact was informed that the computer did not communicate that the malfunction had occurred. No further assistance was provided. The manufacturer was notified of the failure and a case was opened. The manufacturer advised the contact to take the vehicle back to the dealer for further diagnostic testing. The vehicle was taken back to the dealer, who informed the contact that they could not assist due to the previous assessment. The vehicle was not diagnosed or repaired. The contact followed up with the manufacturer and was advised that the failure needed to recur 4 - 5 times for a buyback to be considered. The failure mileage was approximately 2,200.

NHTSA ODI 11589306