The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, a vehicle synonymous with luxury and performance, underwent a redesign in 2008, continuing to evolve its safety features in subsequent years. For the 2014 model year, specifically for those models built after December 2012, Mercedes-Benz implemented crucial enhancements to its side curtain airbag system. This update was designed to improve occupant protection in challenging small overlap frontal crashes, a demanding scenario in vehicle safety assessments.
To evaluate the effectiveness of these enhancements, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) subjected the Mercedes-Benz C-Class to rigorous small overlap frontal crash tests. Interestingly, two tests were conducted, one on a 2012 model and another on a 2013 model manufactured after the critical airbag reprogramming in December 2012. In the initial 2012 model test, the driver’s side curtain airbag did not deploy as expected. However, in the subsequent test with the updated 2013 model, the side curtain airbag deployed correctly, showcasing the impact of the implemented improvements. The official safety ratings and vehicle specifications are based on this second, more representative test. It’s important to note that while the airbag system was enhanced, the fundamental vehicle structure remained consistent across both test models, allowing for structural rating conclusions to be drawn from both tests.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | Marginal |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | Good |
| Chest | Good |
| Hip/thigh | Good |
| Lower leg/foot | Poor |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | Good |
Action shot taken during the second of two small overlap frontal crash tests.
The results revealed a mixed bag of safety performance for the Mercedes 2014 C-Class. While the Mercedes 2014 C-Class demonstrated “Good” ratings for head, neck, chest, and hip/thigh injury measures, indicating robust protection in these critical areas, the structure and safety cage of the vehicle received a “Marginal” rating. This “Marginal” structural rating was largely attributed to significant footwell intrusion observed in both tests.
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).
The extensive footwell intrusion in the 2014 Mercedes C-Class crash tests directly correlated with a “Poor” rating for lower leg and foot injury measures. Analysis of the crash test data showed a high risk of injury to the driver’s left lower leg and at least a significant risk to the right lower leg. Furthermore, in both tests, the dummy’s right foot became trapped by intruding structure and the brake pedal as the left front wheel was forced rearward and inward upon impact.
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.
Conversely, the driver restraints and dummy kinematics were rated “Good,” and in the improved 2013 model test, the frontal and side curtain airbags functioned effectively. These systems worked in concert to protect the driver’s head, preventing contact with жесткие structures or external objects that could cause injury. This highlights the positive impact of the airbag system reprogramming in the Mercedes 2014 C-Class.
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).
In conclusion, the Mercedes 2014 C-Class demonstrates commendable occupant protection in many aspects, particularly with the enhanced airbag system for small overlap frontal crashes. However, the “Marginal” structural rating and “Poor” lower leg/foot injury measures due to footwell intrusion are important considerations for potential buyers. While the Mercedes 2014 C-Class offers luxury and performance, understanding these safety ratings provides a comprehensive picture for informed decision-making, especially for safety-conscious consumers.
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 |
