The Mercedes-Benz C-Class has long been synonymous with luxury and performance, and the 2014 model year continues this tradition. For potential owners and enthusiasts alike, understanding the safety aspects of this vehicle is paramount. This article delves into the safety ratings of the Mercedes C Class 2014, focusing on the critical small overlap frontal crash test conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). We will analyze the performance of this model, highlighting key safety features and areas identified for improvement.
The Mercedes-Benz C-Class underwent a redesign in 2008, with continuous enhancements in safety features over the years. Notably, from the 2010 models onward, a driver’s knee airbag was incorporated to bolster frontal crash protection. Further improvements were introduced in 2013 models built after December 2012, with reprogrammed side curtain airbags designed to deploy in small overlap frontal crashes. These updates aimed to provide enhanced occupant protection in challenging collision scenarios.
To assess the effectiveness of these safety upgrades, the IIHS conducted two small overlap frontal crash tests on the C-Class. The first test involved a 2012 model, while the second utilized a 2013 model manufactured after the airbag reprogramming. Crucially, in the initial test, the driver-side curtain airbag did not deploy as expected. However, in the subsequent test with the updated model, the airbag deployed correctly, indicating an improvement in the safety system’s performance.
Action shot from the Mercedes-Benz C-Class 2014 small overlap frontal crash test, highlighting vehicle deformation.
The official safety ratings and vehicle specifications are based on the second, more successful test. Despite the airbag deployment issue in the first test, the structural rating considers both tests because the vehicle’s fundamental structure remained unchanged. This comprehensive approach provides a robust evaluation of the Mercedes C Class 2014‘s structural integrity and occupant safety.
Examining the evaluation criteria, the Mercedes C Class 2014 achieved varying ratings. In terms of structure and safety cage integrity, the rating was “Marginal” (M), suggesting areas for structural improvement in small overlap crashes. However, in driver injury measures, the C-Class showed “Good” (G) performance for head/neck, chest, and hip/thigh protection. The lower leg/foot protection was rated “Poor” (P), indicating a potential vulnerability in this area. Driver restraints and dummy kinematics were rated “Good” (G), signifying effective restraint systems.
Post-crash dummy position inside the Mercedes-Benz C-Class 2014, showing steering wheel and instrument panel relation after the impact.
Analysis of the dummy’s position relative to the door frame, steering wheel, and instrument panel, combined with footwell intrusion observations, revealed that the driver’s survival space was not ideally maintained in the small overlap test. This observation underscores the structural challenges posed by this type of crash.
Despite the structural concerns, the frontal and side curtain airbags demonstrated effective coordination in the second test. They worked together to prevent the dummy’s head from making contact with hard structures or external objects, mitigating potential head injuries.
Airbag deployment effectiveness in the Mercedes-Benz C-Class 2014 crash test, showing head protection.
However, a significant issue identified in both tests was the extensive intrusion into the driver footwell. This intrusion contributed to a high risk of injury to the 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 during the crash.
Footwell intrusion in the Mercedes-Benz C-Class 2014 crash test, illustrating potential lower leg injury risks.
Technical measurements from the tests provide further insights. Intrusion measurements in the lower occupant compartment were substantial, particularly at the footrest and toepan areas. Driver injury measures, such as tibia index and foot acceleration, also indicated significant forces on the lower legs.
In conclusion, the Mercedes C Class 2014 demonstrates a mixed safety performance in the IIHS small overlap frontal crash test. While occupant protection for the head, chest, and upper legs is good, structural weaknesses and footwell intrusion pose a risk of lower leg injuries. The improved side curtain airbag deployment in later 2013 and 2014 models is a positive step. Potential buyers should consider these safety findings alongside other factors when evaluating the Mercedes C Class 2014.
