The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, a vehicle synonymous with luxury and performance, underwent a significant redesign in 2008. For the 2013 and 2014 models manufactured after December 2012, Mercedes-Benz implemented further safety enhancements, specifically reprogramming the side curtain airbags. This update aimed to bolster occupant protection, particularly in challenging small overlap frontal crashes. To understand the real-world impact of these changes, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) subjected the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class to rigorous testing.
The IIHS conducted two small overlap frontal crash tests on the C-Class. The first test involved a 2012 model, representing the pre-reprogramming airbag system. In this initial test, the driver’s side curtain airbag unfortunately did not deploy. Subsequently, a second test was performed on a 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class built after December 2012, equipped with the updated airbag programming. In this second evaluation, the side curtain airbag deployed as intended, demonstrating the effectiveness of the implemented safety upgrade. The official safety ratings and vehicle specifications are based on this second, more representative test. However, it’s important to note that the structural rating considers data from both tests, as the vehicle’s fundamental structure remained unchanged.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Small overlap frontal crash test | M |
| Structure and safety cage | P |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Hip/thigh | G |
| Lower leg/foot | P |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Action shot taken during the second of two small overlap frontal crash tests.
Despite the improved airbag deployment, the IIHS tests revealed some critical insights into the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class‘s performance in small overlap frontal crashes. Analysis of the dummy’s position after the crash, in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel, combined with observed footwell intrusion, indicated that the driver’s survival space was not optimally maintained. This suggests a potential area for structural improvement in this vehicle model.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test, together with the footwell intrusion, indicates that the driver’s survival space wasn’t maintained well (second test shown).
On a positive note, the enhanced frontal and side curtain airbags demonstrated effective coordination in the second test. They worked together to adequately protect the head, preventing it from making dangerous contact with stiff structures or external objects during the collision. This highlights the benefit of the airbag system reprogramming in mitigating head injury risk in such accidents for the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
In the second test, the frontal and side curtain airbags worked well together to keep the head from coming close to any stiff structure or outside objects that could cause injury.
However, both crash tests consistently showed significant intrusion into the driver footwell area. This structural issue was identified as a contributing factor to a heightened risk of injury to the left lower leg, and at least a considerable risk to the right lower leg. Furthermore, in both tests, the dummy’s right foot became trapped due to intruding structure and the brake pedal, a consequence of the left front wheel being forced rearward and inward upon impact. This footwell deformation remains a concern regarding lower extremity safety in a 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap frontal crash scenario.
In both tests, intrusion into the driver footwell was extensive and contributed to a high risk of injury to the left lower leg and at least a significant risk to the right lower leg. Also in both tests, the dummy’s right foot was trapped by intruding structure and the brake pedal as the left front wheel was forced rearward and inward during the crash (second test shown).
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CEN1211 |
| Lower occupant compartment | |
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 |
| Footrest (cm) | 32 |
| Left toepan (cm) | 24 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 21 |
| Parking brake (cm) | 14 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 0 |
| Upper occupant compartment | |
| Steering column | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 11 |
| Lower instrument panel (cm) | 11 |
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CEN1327 |
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 248 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 0.8 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 9 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.15 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 20 |
| Femur (kN) | |
| Left | 4.9 |
| Right | 3.2 |
| Knee displacement (mm) | |
| Left | 3 |
| Right | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) | |
| Left | 3 |
| Right | 1 |
| Maximum tibia index | |
| Left | 2.14 |
| Right | 1.13 |
| Tibia axial force (kN) | |
| Left | 10.6 |
| Right | 4.1 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 147 |
| Right | 98 |
In conclusion, the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrates improved occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes due to the reprogrammed side curtain airbags. While head protection is effectively managed by the airbag system, structural deficiencies, particularly in the footwell area, present a potential risk of lower leg injuries. These findings offer valuable insights for prospective buyers and those involved in 2014 Mercedes-Benz C-Class auto repair, emphasizing the importance of understanding both the strengths and weaknesses in vehicle safety performance.
