The Mercedes-Benz C-Class, a popular luxury sedan, underwent redesigning for the 2008 model year. Significant safety enhancements were introduced over the years, including a driver’s knee airbag in 2010 to bolster frontal crash protection. For 2013 models built after December 2012, further improvements were made to the side curtain airbags, reprogramming them to deploy in small overlap frontal crashes. This enhancement aimed to provide superior occupant protection in these challenging crash scenarios.
To evaluate the effectiveness of these updates, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted two small overlap frontal crash tests on the C-Class. One test involved a 2012 model, and the second test utilized a 2013 model manufactured after the airbag reprogramming. Notably, in the initial test with the 2012 model, the driver’s side curtain airbag did not deploy. However, in the subsequent test with the 2013 model, the side curtain airbag deployed as intended, showcasing the improvement from the reprogramming.
The official safety ratings and vehicle specifications are based on the results of the second test, which featured the updated airbag system. Despite the airbag system update, the structural rating considers data from both tests, as the vehicle’s fundamental structure remained unchanged.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Small Overlap Frontal 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 from the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250 small overlap frontal crash test, highlighting vehicle deformation and safety systems engagement.
The IIHS ratings revealed a mix of performance aspects for the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250 in the small overlap test. For overall small overlap frontal crash protection, the vehicle received a “Marginal” rating (M). Concerning structural integrity, the “Structure and safety cage” was rated as “Poor” (P), indicating significant room for improvement in maintaining the occupant survival space.
In terms of driver injury measures, the C 250 demonstrated “Good” (G) protection for the head/neck, chest, and hip/thigh areas. However, the lower leg/foot protection was rated “Poor” (P), signaling a potential vulnerability in this area during a small overlap crash. The driver restraints and dummy kinematics were rated “Good” (G), suggesting effective performance of the seatbelt and airbag systems in controlling occupant movement.
Post-crash dummy position in the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250 test, showing footwell intrusion and relation to vehicle components.
Analysis of the dummy’s position after the crash, in conjunction with measurements of footwell intrusion, indicated that the driver’s survival space was not optimally maintained. This observation aligns with the “Poor” rating for structure and safety cage.
Side curtain and frontal airbags deploying effectively in the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250 crash test to protect the head.
Despite the structural challenges, the frontal and side curtain airbags performed effectively in the second test. They worked in concert to prevent the dummy’s head from making dangerous contact with жесткие structures or external objects, mitigating potential head injuries. This highlights the benefit of the airbag system enhancements in the 2013-14 models.
Extensive footwell intrusion in the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250 crash test, posing lower leg injury risks and foot entrapment.
A significant finding from both crash tests was the extensive intrusion into the driver footwell area. This intrusion was identified as a major contributor 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 impact.
Technical Measurements Summary:
The technical measurements from the crash tests provide a more detailed picture of the structural deformation and potential injury risks. Key measurements include:
- Lower occupant compartment intrusion: Significant intrusion was observed at the footrest, toepan, and brake pedal areas, reaching up to 50 cm at the footrest in the second test.
- Upper occupant compartment intrusion: Intrusion was less severe in the upper compartment areas like the steering column and upper dash.
- Driver injury measures: Head injury criterion (HIC) was relatively low, and chest compression was minimal. However, tibia index values for both legs were elevated, especially for the left leg, corroborating the “Poor” lower leg/foot injury rating.
Conclusion:
The 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250, while offering good protection in some areas like head and chest injuries due to effective airbag deployment, exhibits structural vulnerabilities in small overlap frontal crashes. The “Poor” structural rating and significant footwell intrusion lead to a heightened risk of lower leg injuries for the driver. Prospective buyers should consider these findings when evaluating the overall safety performance of the 2014 Mercedes-Benz C 250, particularly regarding small overlap frontal crash scenarios.
