The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, redesigned for the 2015 model year, has undergone rigorous testing to evaluate its safety performance. This detailed analysis, based on data from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), provides a comprehensive overview of the 2016 Mercedes-benz C-class safety ratings across various crash scenarios and safety features. This information is crucial for prospective buyers and automotive enthusiasts interested in understanding the safety standards of this luxury vehicle.
Small Overlap Front Crash Test: Driver-Side
Rating applies to 2015-21 models
Tested vehicle: 2016 Mercedes-Benz C 300 4-door
The small overlap front crash test assesses the vehicle’s structural integrity and occupant protection in a challenging frontal collision scenario.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Chest | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Hip/thigh | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Lower leg/foot | Good |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | Acceptable |
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class earned a “Good” rating for structural integrity and safety cage, indicating robust protection of the occupant space. In driver injury measures, all categories including head/neck, chest, hip/thigh, and lower leg/foot also received “Good” ratings, showcasing excellent protection across various body regions.
However, the driver restraints and dummy kinematics were rated as “Acceptable”. The test revealed that while the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag, it rolled to the left due to excessive forward movement allowed by the seat belt. Despite this, the side curtain airbag deployed effectively, providing substantial forward coverage to shield the head from impacts with side structures or external objects.
Action shot taken during the small overlap frontal crash test.
The dummy’s position in relation to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel after the crash test indicates that the driver’s survival space was maintained well.
The dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but rolled partway around the left side, allowing the head to move toward the gap in coverage between the frontal and side curtain airbags.
The driver’s space was maintained well, and risk of injuries to the dummy’s legs and feet was low.
Technical measurements for the small overlap front test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CEN1634 |
| Lower occupant compartment – Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 5 |
| Lower occupant compartment – Footrest (cm) | 10 |
| Lower occupant compartment – Left toepan (cm) | 5 |
| Lower occupant compartment – Brake pedal (cm) | 8 |
| Lower occupant compartment – Parking brake (cm) | |
| Lower occupant compartment – Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 2 |
| Upper occupant compartment – Steering column | 1 |
| Upper occupant compartment – Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 4 |
| Upper occupant compartment – Upper dash (cm) | 4 |
| Upper occupant compartment – Lower instrument panel (cm) | 4 |
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CEN1634 |
| Head – HIC-15 | 161 |
| Head – Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck – Tension (kN) | 1.0 |
| Neck – Extension bending moment (Nm) | 5 |
| Neck – Maximum Nij | 0.20 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 21 |
| Femur – Left (kN) | 1.2 |
| Femur – Right (kN) | 1.3 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 3 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 5 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) – Left | 0 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) – Right | 0 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 0.50 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 0.43 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 2.8 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 2.4 |
| Foot acceleration (g) – Left | 80 |
| Foot acceleration (g) – Right | 73 |
About the small overlap front test
Moderate Overlap Front Crash Test: Original Test
Rating applies to 2015-21 models
Tested vehicle: 2015 Mercedes-Benz C 300 4-door 4wd
The moderate overlap front test simulates a more common type of frontal collision, impacting a wider portion of the vehicle’s front end. The ratings for this test for the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class are based on tests conducted by Mercedes-Benz and evaluated by the IIHS.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | Good |
| Structure and safety cage | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Chest | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Leg/foot, left | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Leg/foot, right | Good |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | Good |
In the moderate overlap front test, the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class achieved “Good” ratings across all categories. This includes overall evaluation, structure and safety cage, driver injury measures for head/neck, chest, and legs/feet (both left and right), and driver restraints and dummy kinematics. This consistent “Good” performance highlights the vehicle’s robust frontal crash protection in a more common collision scenario.
Technical measurements for the moderate overlap front test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | VTF1415 |
| Footwell intrusion – Footrest (cm) | 1 |
| Footwell intrusion – Left (cm) | 1 |
| Footwell intrusion – Center (cm) | 1 |
| Footwell intrusion – Right (cm) | 1 |
| Footwell intrusion – Brake pedal (cm) | 2 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Left (cm) | 0 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Right (cm) | 0 |
| Steering column movement – Upward (cm) | 3 |
| Steering column movement – Rearward (cm) | -7 |
| A-pillar rearward movement (cm) | 0 |
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | VTF1415 |
| Head – HIC-15 | 148 |
| Head – Peak gs at hard contact | 16 |
| Neck – Tension (kN) | 1.1 |
| Neck – Extension bending moment (Nm) | 11 |
| Neck – Maximum Nij | 0.20 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 22 |
| Legs – Femur force – left (kN) | 1.6 |
| Legs – Femur force – right (kN) | 1.3 |
| Knee displacement – left (mm) | 1 |
| Knee displacement – right (mm) | 2 |
| Maximum tibia index – left | 0.40 |
| Maximum tibia index – right | 0.31 |
| Tibia axial force – left (kN) | 2.3 |
| Tibia axial force – right (kN) | 2.5 |
| Foot acceleration (g) – Left | 36 |
| Foot acceleration (g) – Right | 53 |
About the original moderate overlap front test
Side Impact Crash Test: Original Test
Rating applies to 2015-21 models
Tested vehicle: 2015 Mercedes-Benz C 400 4-door 4wd with standard front and rear head curtain airbags and standard front seat-mounted torso airbags
The side impact test evaluates the vehicle’s ability to protect occupants in a side collision. The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class was tested with standard side airbags and curtain airbags, and the ratings are based on tests conducted by Mercedes-Benz and assessed by the IIHS.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | Good |
| Structure and safety cage | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Torso | Good |
| Driver injury measures – Pelvis/leg | Good |
| Driver head protection | Good |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Head/neck | Good |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Torso | Good |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Pelvis/leg | Good |
| Rear passenger head protection | Good |
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrated “Good” performance in the side impact test across all metrics for both driver and rear passenger safety. This comprehensive “Good” rating encompasses overall evaluation, structural integrity, all driver and rear passenger injury measures (head/neck, torso, pelvis/leg), and head protection for both front and rear occupants. This indicates excellent side impact protection for all occupants.
Technical measurements for the side impact crash test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Test ID | VTS1417 |
|---|---|
| B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver’s seat (cm) | -20.5 |
| Negative numbers indicate the amount by which the crush stopped short of the seat centerline. |
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | VTS1417 |
| Head HIC-15 | 228 |
| Neck – Tension (kN) | 1.0 |
| Neck – Compression (kN) | 0.3 |
| Shoulder – Lateral deflection (mm) | 40 |
| Shoulder – Lateral force (kN) | 1.2 |
| Torso – Maximum deflection (mm) | 35 |
| Torso – Average deflection (mm) | 32 |
| Torso – Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 4.56 |
| Torso – Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.51 |
| Pelvis – Iliac force (kN) | 2.4 |
| Pelvis – Acetabulum force (kN) | 1.2 |
| Pelvis – Combined force (kN) | 3.6 |
| Left femur – L-M force (kN) | 0.4 |
| Left femur – L-M moment (Nm) | 36 |
| Left femur – A-P moment (Nm) | 74 |
Passenger injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | VTS1417 |
| Head HIC-15 | 225 |
| Neck – Tension (kN) | 0.7 |
| Neck – Compression (kN) | 0.1 |
| Shoulder – Lateral deflection (mm) | 34 |
| Shoulder – Lateral force (kN) | 1.1 |
| Torso – Maximum deflection (mm) | 22 |
| Torso – Average deflection (mm) | 18 |
| Torso – Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 1.94 |
| Torso – Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.19 |
| Pelvis – Iliac force (kN) | 2.4 |
| Pelvis – Acetabulum force (kN) | 2.0 |
| Pelvis – Combined force (kN) | 4.2 |
| Left femur – L-M force (kN) | 0.5 |
| Left femur – L-M moment (Nm) | 33 |
| Left femur – A-P moment (Nm) | 51 |
About the original side crash test
Roof Strength Test
Rating applies to 2015-21 models
Tested vehicle: 2016 Mercedes-Benz C 300 4-door
The roof strength test measures the vehicle’s roof resistance in rollover accidents.
| Overall evaluation | Good |
|---|---|
| Curb weight | 3,522 lbs |
| Peak force | 24,642 lbs |
| Strength-to-weight ratio | 7.00 |
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class achieved a “Good” rating in roof strength, with a strength-to-weight ratio of 7.00. This indicates that the roof can withstand over 7 times the vehicle’s weight, providing significant protection in rollover scenarios.
Head Restraints & Seats Evaluation
Seat type: Power leather seat
The head restraints and seats are evaluated for their ability to protect against whiplash injuries in rear-end collisions.
| Overall evaluation | Good |
|---|---|
| Dynamic rating | Good |
| Seat/head restraint geometry | Good |
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class with power leather seats received “Good” ratings for both dynamic performance and seat/head restraint geometry. This combined “Good” rating signifies effective protection against whiplash injuries in rear impacts.
Technical measurements for head restraints & seats
| Seat type | Power leather seat |
|---|---|
| Geometry – Backset (mm) | 38 |
| Geometry – Distance below top of head (mm) | -14 |
| Seat design parameters – Pass/fail | Pass |
| Seat design parameters – Max T1 acceleration (g) | 16.1 |
| Seat design parameters – Head contact time (ms) | 57 |
| Seat design parameters – Force rating | 1 |
| Neck forces – Max neck shear force (N) | 21 |
| Neck forces – Max neck tension (N) | 464 |
About the head restraint & seat testCurrently, IIHS tests apply only to front seats.
Headlight Ratings
Ratings are given for 3 different headlight variations available on the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, highlighting the importance of trim level selection for optimal visibility.
Trim level: C 300 with Lighting package
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| High-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| Curve-adaptive? | Yes |
| High-beam assist? | Yes |
| Overall rating | Poor |
The C 300 trim equipped with the Lighting package, featuring LED projector low and high beams, curve-adaptive functionality, and high-beam assist, received a “Poor” overall rating for headlights.
Low beam performance: Low beams provided inadequate visibility on both straightaways and curves. Glare was also detected.
High beam performance: High beams offered good visibility on the right straightaway and fair on the left. Curve visibility was fair on gradual curves but inadequate on sharp curves. High-beam assist offered some compensation for low beam limitations.
Technical measurements for headlights (Lighting package)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Trim level(s) | – C 300 trim equipped with Lighting package |
| Low-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| High-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| Curve-adaptive? | Yes |
| High-beam assist? | Yes |
| Overall rating Applies to 2016-17 models | Poor |
| LOW BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) | Amount glare exceeded threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 75.1 m | 10.7% |
| Straightaway left edge | 32.2 m | 10.7% |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 52.8 m | None |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 32.7 m | None |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 44.8 m | None |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 38.0 m | None |
| HIGH BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) |
|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 172.4 m |
| Straightaway left edge | 141.2 m |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 68.1 m |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 70.8 m |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 50.2 m |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 54.9 m |
Trim level: C 300 with Premium 2 package
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| High-beam headlight type | LED reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating | Poor |
The C 300 trim with the Premium 2 package, featuring LED projector low beams and LED reflector high beams without curve-adaptive or high-beam assist, also received a “Poor” overall headlight rating.
Low beam performance: Low beams offered fair visibility on the right straightaway but inadequate on the left and on most curves. Glare was not an issue.
High beam performance: High beams provided fair visibility on the right straightaway and inadequate visibility elsewhere, including curves.
Technical measurements for headlights (Premium 2 package)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Trim level(s) | – C 300 trim equipped with Premium 2 package |
| Low-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| High-beam headlight type | LED reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating Applies to 2016-18 models | Poor |
| LOW BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) | Amount glare exceeded threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 86.0 m | None |
| Straightaway left edge | 37.9 m | None |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 50.1 m | None |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 38.1 m | None |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 45.6 m | None |
| 150m radius left curve, right edge | 37.8 m | None |
| HIGH BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) |
|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 136.9 m |
| Straightaway left edge | 100.7 m |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 63.9 m |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 57.3 m |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 54.0 m |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 47.4 m |
Trim level: C 300 (Standard)
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| High-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating | Poor |
The base C 300 trim with standard Halogen reflector headlights, without curve-adaptive or high-beam assist, also received a “Poor” overall headlight rating.
Low beam performance: Low beams provided inadequate visibility on straightaways and curves. Glare was not detected.
High beam performance: High beams offered good visibility on the right straightaway but inadequate visibility on curves.
Technical measurements for headlights (Standard)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Trim level(s) | – C 300 trim |
| Low-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| High-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
| Overall rating Applies to 2016-18 models | Poor |
| LOW BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) | Amount glare exceeded threshold |
|---|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 47.2 m | None |
| Straightaway left edge | 20.2 m | None |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 44.2 m | None |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 25.9 m | None |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 32.2 m | None |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 25.0 m | None |
| HIGH BEAMS | Average minimum useful illumination distance (5 lux) |
|---|---|
| Straightaway right edge | 156.0 m |
| Straightaway left edge | 136.8 m |
| 250m radius right curve, right edge | 57.6 m |
| 250m radius left curve, left edge | 54.7 m |
| 150m radius right curve, right edge | 40.0 m |
| 150m radius left curve, left edge | 41.5 m |
About the headlight evaluation
Front Crash Prevention: Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Ratings are provided for two front crash prevention system configurations available on the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
System details: Optional Pre-Safe Brake & Standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus
Package name: Optional Driver Assistance Package
Overall evaluation (Applies to 2015-16 models): Superior
- This system meets forward collision warning requirements.
- In 12 mph test: Collision Avoided.
- In 25 mph test: Collision Avoided.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class equipped with the optional Pre-Safe Brake and standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus, part of the Driver Assistance Package, achieved a “Superior” rating in front crash prevention. The system successfully avoided collisions in both 12 mph and 25 mph tests and meets forward collision warning standards.
System details: Standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus
Overall evaluation (Applies to 2015-16 models): Advanced
- This system does not meet forward collision warning requirements.
- In 12 mph test: Collision Avoided.
- In 25 mph test: Impact speed reduced by 14 mph.
The standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus system, without the optional Pre-Safe Brake, received an “Advanced” rating. While it avoided a collision in the 12 mph test, it only reduced the impact speed by 14 mph in the 25 mph test and does not meet forward collision warning requirements.
About the original front crash prevention test
Child Seat Anchors (LATCH)
Rating applies to 2015-21 models
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | Good |
| Vehicle trim | C 300 |
| Seat type | leather |
The LATCH system for child seat anchors in the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class received a “Good” overall rating.
This vehicle has 2 rear seating positions with complete child seat attachment (LATCH) hardware and 1 additional seating position with only a tether anchor.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | Good |
| Vehicle trim | C 300 |
| Seat type | leather |
LATCH Rating Icons and Key
1 2 3 | Rating icon | Rating ||—|—|
| Good | Good |
| Acceptable | Acceptable |
| Marginal | Marginal |
| Poor | Poor |
| | Seating positions that rely on borrowed lower anchors or have only a tether anchor available are not rated. |
| Tether anchor | Tether anchor |
| Lower anchors | Lower anchors |
| Shared lower achors | Lower anchor(s) can be borrowed from adjacent positions(s) |
| | No hardware available |
Details by seating position
| Position | Rating |
|---|---|
| 1 | Good |
| Tether anchor | easy-to-find location, no other hardware could be confused for anchor |
| Lower anchors | not too deep in seat, not too much force needed to attach, easy to maneuver around anchors |
| 2 | Tether anchor |
| Lower anchors | none available |
| 3 | Good |
| Tether anchor | easy-to-find location, no other hardware could be confused for anchor |
| Lower anchors | not too deep in seat, not too much force needed to attach, easy to maneuver around anchors |
Technical measurements for Child Seat Anchors
Seat position 21 (Position 3 in table above)
3
| Lower anchor A |
|---|
| Open access rated |
| Depth |
| Force (lbs) |
| Clearance angle (degrees) |
| Lower anchor B |
| Open access rated |
| Depth |
| Force (lbs) |
| Clearance angle (degrees) |
| Tether anchor |
| Location |
| Confusing hardware present |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor |
| Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH |
Seat position 22 (Position 2 in table above)
2
| Lower anchor A |
|---|
| No lower latch for this seat position |
| Lower anchor B |
| No lower latch for this seat position |
| Tether anchor |
| Location |
| Confusing hardware present |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor |
| Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH |
Seat position 23 (Position 1 in table above)
1
| Lower anchor A |
|---|
| Open access rated |
| Depth |
| Force (lbs) |
| Clearance angle (degrees) |
| Lower anchor B |
| Open access rated |
| Depth |
| Force (lbs) |
| Clearance angle (degrees) |
| Tether anchor |
| Location |
| Confusing hardware present |
| Has contrasting label within 3 inches of tether anchor |
| Tether anchors can be accessed while seatback is properly positioned for use of LATCH |
About the child seat anchor evaluation
Conclusion: 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Safety Performance
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrates strong safety performance in most crash tests, achieving “Good” ratings in moderate overlap front, side impact, roof strength, and head restraints & seats evaluations. However, the “Acceptable” rating in the small overlap front test and “Poor” headlight ratings across all trim levels indicate areas for potential improvement. Prospective buyers should consider these headlight ratings, especially if night driving is a frequent occurrence. The availability of a “Superior” rated front crash prevention system with optional packages is a significant safety plus, while the standard system still offers “Advanced” level prevention. Overall, the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class provides a solid level of safety, particularly in crash protection, but careful consideration of headlight options and front crash prevention system choices is advised.
