Model Reports 8 min read Updated 12 Jul 2026

Mercedes-Benz Clk 2007: reliability & common MOT faults

Elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2007 Mercedes-Benz Clk include Linkage pins and bushes (rear) (~19.4× peers) and Pins and bushes (front) (~7.9× peers). Based on UK DVSA open data for test year 2025 (1,286 failed first-attempt tests), compared with similar age and mileage peers. Available test years: 2024, 2025.

1,286 failed first-attempt tests · 3,214 first tests (test year 2025)

Standout pattern: Linkage pins and bushes (rear) — about 19.4× more often than on similar peer cars.

Key takeaways before you buy

  • Linkage pins and bushes (rear): about 19.4× more often than similar cars
  • Pins and bushes (front): about 7.9× more often than similar cars
  • Ball joint (front): about 4.3× more often than similar cars

Common faults

These are MOT failure patterns that show up more often on this registration year than on similar cars of the same class, age band, and mileage in the same test year (leave-one-out peer comparison; whole model family excluded).

Statistical patterns from MOT defect codes — not manufacturer TSBs, recalls, or a diagnosis of any individual car. Fail and advisory patterns are kept separate.

Based on 1,286 failed first-attempt tests in test year 2025.

Linkage pins and bushes (rear)

This failure pattern appears about 19.4× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 34 failed first-attempt tests; 2.6% of failed tests for this model year.

Rear · 34 failures · ×19.4 vs similar cars · 2.6% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

Pins and bushes (front)

This failure pattern appears about 7.9× more often than on similar peer cars — recorded on 31 failed first-attempt tests; 2.4% of failed tests for this model year.

Front · 31 failures · ×7.9 vs similar cars · 2.4% of failed first tests · Likely common fault pattern

No patterns met the strongest callout thresholds on this page; showing the highest-lift rows that still cleared the display floors.

# Fault pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 34 ×19.4 2.6% Likely common fault pattern
2 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 31 ×7.9 2.4% Likely common fault pattern
3 Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 300 ×4.3 23.3% Likely common fault pattern
4 Road Wheels — Attachment (front)
Road Wheels > Attachment
 Front 30 ×3.2 2.3% Likely common fault pattern
5 Coil spring (front)
Suspension > Springs > Coil springs > Coil spring
 Front 148 ×2.2 11.5% Possible elevated fault

Only patterns that clear minimum sample and elevation thresholds are shown (at least 20 failures and 2.0× peer lift).

Wear patterns

These patterns look like wear or usage effects rather than model-specific design faults. Tyres, brake friction material, and alignment-related defects often track mileage and road use. They are not treated as a model design fault in our common-faults ranking.

# Pattern Location Failures vs similar cars Share of fails Confidence
1 Tread depth (rear)
Tyres > Tread depth
 Rear 81 ×2.4 6.3% Wear / usage pattern — not treated as a model design fault

Advisories

Advisory items recorded on failed first-attempt tests that appear elevated versus peers. Advisories are not a fail rate — they flag issues noted at the test, often before they become failures.

# Advisory pattern Location Notes vs similar cars Share Confidence
1 Linkage pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Linkage pins and bushes
 Rear 25 ×10.6 1.9% Likely common fault pattern
2 Wheel bearings (front)
Suspension > Wheel bearings
 Front 107 ×7.0 8.3% Elevated vs peers
3 Pins and bushes (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Rear 34 ×6.7 2.6% Elevated vs peers
4 Anti-roll bar (rear)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Anti-roll bar
 Rear 40 ×6.4 3.1% Elevated vs peers
5 Pins and bushes (front)
Suspension > Anti-roll bars > Pins and bushes
 Front 35 ×4.7 2.7% Likely common fault pattern
6 Ball joint (front)
Suspension > Suspension arms > Ball joint
 Front 101 ×3.4 7.9% Likely common fault pattern
7 Rigid brake pipes (front)
Brakes > Rigid brake pipes
 Front 143 ×2.8 11.1% Elevated vs peers
8 Flexible brake hoses (rear)
Brakes > Flexible brake hoses
 Rear 97 ×2.8 7.5% Elevated vs peers

FAQs

We do not show a single reliability score for the 2007 Mercedes-Benz Clk on this page. Among 1,286 failed first-attempt MOT tests (test year 2025), Linkage pins and bushes (rear) appears more often than on similar peer cars (about 19.4× more often than peers; 34 observed failures; 2.6% of failed tests). Treat this as a pre-purchase checklist from DVSA open data — not a guarantee for any individual car.
Among failed first-attempt tests we surface patterns that appear more often than on similar peer cars. Top example: Linkage pins and bushes (rear) (about 19.4× more often than peers; 34 observed failures; 2.6% of failed tests). These are statistical signals, not a diagnosis of any individual car.
Linkage pins and bushes (rear) shows up more often than on similar peer cars (about 19.4× more often than peers; 34 observed failures; 2.6% of failed tests). That does not prove a causal design fault — age, mileage, and usage still matter. Treat it as a pre-purchase check point, not a manufacturer TSB.
Common MOT problem areas for the 2007 Mercedes-Benz Clk include Linkage pins and bushes (rear), Pins and bushes (front), Ball joint (front). These are elevated versus similar peer cars where lift clears our floors — not a full list of every possible fault on an individual car.
Advisories flag issues noted at the test and are not a fail rate. We show advisory patterns that look elevated versus peers among failed first-attempt tests, separate from common failure rows. Use them as early-warning checks, not as a pass/fail score.
This page highlights elevated MOT failure patterns for the 2007 Mercedes-Benz Clk (registration year) using UK DVSA open data for the selected test year. Patterns are ranked against similar age and mileage peers. It is a buyer checklist from MOT defect statistics — not a full service history or manufacturer TSB list.
No. MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules. Patterns here come from MOT defect statistics only and should not be read as engine or gearbox reliability scores.
PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

About this data

Universe. UK class 4 cars only; normal MOT tests (not retests); results pass, PRS, or fail; one first test per vehicle per calendar year.

PRS policy. PRS means the vehicle failed items that were fixed at the test station and then passed the same day. We count PRS as a first-attempt fail in headline rates so same-day repairs do not hide problems.

Peer baseline. We compare this model year with other class 4 cars of similar age and mileage in the same test year, excluding the whole model family so the car is not compared with itself (leave-one-out peer baseline).

Data years. Test years covered: 2024, 2025.

Limitations.

  • MOT tests do not cover engine internals, gearboxes, or many electronic modules — so this is not a full reliability score.
  • Common faults are inferred from MOT defect statistics, not manufacturer TSBs or recalls.
  • Matching on age and mileage reduces but does not remove every usage or maintenance difference between cars.
  • Pass rates and star scores appear only when those data marts are available; this page never invents them.

Display rules config: 1

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

Most reliable Mercedes-Benz models

See brand-wide MOT rankings and year guidance for Mercedes-Benz (separate from this model-year report).