The NHTSA crash tests for the C300 RWD disappoint me, especially the two star rating for the front seat passenger in the front barrier crash test.

I know MB says it does its own real world testing but two stars? MB should do better.

My dealer wants me to lease a 2012 C300 but I am now hesitant. I don't think MB has kept up safety wise as it should. The MB salesman says all cars are faring worse under the new tougher NHTSA standards. But from what I see some are doing just fine.

 

Please don't buy a nice car with the intention of ramming it

 

Huh?

 

We don't know if anything in the front of the vehicle changed when/if the platform was modified to accept the new 4 cylinder turbo. However, don't be too distressed about the two star rating, as there is no evidence that the car is any less safe than in previous years when the result was a 4 star rating. What has happened is that NHTSA has reacted to "grade inflation". So many new cars were clustering at the 4 and 5 star rating that the measurement device was losing its value in discriminating between cars. This also gave NHTSA an opportunity to raise the bar. In doing so, starting in 2011, they expected to see a wider range of results on the new, tougher scale, providing auto makers the incentive to redesign to re-acquire higher grades. Keep in mind, the C Class W204 launched in 2007 model year (2006 calendar year), so the basic vehicle architecture which provides the basis for impact performance would have been frozen around 2003/2004, when the capability it offered was essentially state of the art. When the W205 launches, and likely achieves 4 or 5 stars again with the new design anticipating the new standards, one would not say it was only as good as the old 4 star 2008/2009 W204.

I haven't searched all the results to see who is performing well under the new standards, but it is likely those manufacturers who were fortunate enough to read the NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking with some suggestion of the new standards in time to modify their platforms. This is a situation of timing, not capability or engineering integrity. The luck of when a vehicle is being developed versus when NHTSA is modifying standards is chance.

One last point. There has never been any data which has been able to correlate NHTSA results with real world injury or fatality data. It is merely a relative basis of comparison for performance on those specific tests, which don't actually replicate the majority of real-world crash events. For example, the test which results in star ratings is a full frontal barrier, a minority of real world crashes (a perfect hit into a concrete wall or bridge abutment!). Most frontal impacts are offset, which is a different test, and requires different design solutions. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (iihs.org) performs and publishes results of that test, and I believe the C Class is still a Top Pick for them.

I became somewhat familiar with this topic during my tenure as a manager in the vehicle safety department for a major automaker.

If this did not make sense, please come back with more discussion!

 

Sportstick: This makes perfect sense. I am sure the 2012 is no less safe than earlier model years. But if I am going to get a new car (which I must do as my lease expires in August of 2012) wouldn't I be better off safety wise with a car that meets the new more stringent standard. Some manufacturers are there with some models today.

I care a lot about safety and this is a site I have found very helpful. And this article explains that GM and Toyota are there with some models.

 

This entire issue depends on how one defines "safety", as there are many issues involved. There was an expression among design engineers, "You show me the accident. I'll design you the car." Essentially, there are so many variables in what can happen, that there is no "bright line" dividing more from less safe vehicles. And, again, while testing is a good thing, the test results have not correlated with actual real world results. There is some faith involved in the presumption that, assuming equivalent situations, some cars are relatively better than others. However, situations are never equivalent. In fact, all the data supports that the capability of the driver is more of a factor in outcomes than any attribute of the vehicle. However, I can anticipate that you are thinking, "Fine, holding all else equal, aren't more stars better?" Again, not necessarily. Those tests resulting in those stars are very specific and measure just that one type of event, and even then, there is enough car to car variability on what comes off the line at one assembly plant, and test variability, that up to a 20% variance in results is not unknown.

The ability of the entire engineering team to anticipate and plan for the widest variety of capabilities is likely going to produce the best overall risk reduction on the road. Even if MB is a star or two lower on the new most stringent standards, what did they do when specifying the strength of the alloy in the A-pillars, the sophistication of the ESP algorithms, the composition and kinematic path of the fuel tank upon impact, the dynamic behavior of the head restraints, etc, etc. To some degree, having been "inside", I rely on faith of the philosophy of such companies as MB, BMW, Volvo. I am suspicious that some Asian companies design to the test, specifically to get the marketing advantage of advertising star results, and do not have the same overall discipline and vigor in pursuing those standards across the entire vehicle.

Again, keep in mind that all vehicles must meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard requirements. The stars are the result of a consumer information program to try to demonstrate who has gone above and beyond the call of regulations. Personally, I have more faith in the testing paradigm of the IIHS, and would feel more comfortable with their more comprehensive analysis, as well as tougher standards than the FMVSS. Look at their Top Pick list and select among those, realizing that the comparisons of results apply to cars within 500lbs of each other. More difference than that, and mass wins.

Let's continue to discuss, as you may wish.

 

Good points Sportstick. Size and weight are also on my mind for two reasons. First, I am mindful that I drive on roads filled with Escalades and other big vehicles. Second, the cabin of the C feels cramped to me so I wonder if I would be happier with a bigger vehicle. Maybe an M class. The dealer is pushing me to do something by the end of the year because of the incentives they have. But I don't want any to commit to a vehicle I won't be happy with. Finally, what are your thoughts about the blind spot system and the automatic braking (I think MB calls it Distronic)?

About designing to the test, I suspect they all do it to some extent but that's all we have to go on. The anecdotes don't mean much because no one talks about the fatalities.

 

M Class is a great vehicle, and also an IIHS Top Pick. We had one, and only changed to an E350 (my wife's car) because she just does not like driving an SUV. I recall when parents used to call us and ask what is the safest car for their new young driver, we used to say, "The newest (for technology), heaviest (mass wins), and tallest (you want to be as tall/taller as the bullet vehicle which hits you, if possible, to lift your head/chest out of the incoming grille strike area) vehicle you can afford."

Blind spot system is a great idea. We had the first prototypes back in the 90s, when the suppliers were trying to decide between radar and sonar, each with its own limitations. This system does help with the occasional chance occurrence of a vehicle positioned just right so as not to be easily seen.

I am less enthralled with automated braking systems, as I worry this tends to reduce the proper vigilance of the driver by encouraging reliance on a system which, by definition, will never achieve 100% reliability. The automated braking idea has also been around for a while, and I recall driving the adaptive cruise control which would brake the vehicle to maintain a set distance. The problem, at least around Michigan, was that other drivers continued to pull into the gap, causing the vehicle to brake even more, inviting in more vehicles to pull in ahead...on a few test drives, I became disenchanted, realizing the further I drove, the more behind I fell! Generally, I like systems which provide more information to the driver, but do not take over driving functions from the driver. Read the theories behind why the pilots of Air France 447 could not successfully fly their plane through the mid-Atlantic storm, and the human factor issue of replacing the human mind with a supposedly well thought out automated system shows its flaws.

 

I agree 100% with everything Sportstick has said, as should you. The other cars you are referring to (which I don't even know if any did much better as you suggest, I am just going along with it) could be that they are newly released models instead of facelifts. Did it perform better on a crash test against a barrier yes. BUT, the mercedes will perform MUCH better in real life than probably 90% of all other vehicles. I am so confident that it really shouldn't be considered an opinion.

When you consider that a mercedes has advanced systems that help prevent accidents (not even talking about fancy features like blindspot assist or the one that brakes for you). But brake priming which anticipates braking (which all mercedes come with standard), provides full braking pressure while moving pads as close to the rotors as possible without braking until you press the brake pedal. No Hyundai or Ford or the likes will do that. This is just one of the many "behind the scenes" features that a mercedes has within its arsenal.

Some others include steering wheel sensitivity that changes based on emergency situations so that you don't lose control of your car as easily versus cars that don't have this feature. Advanced transmission braking (other cars do this, but not NEARLY as well as a mercedes-benz). The list goes on.

So yes, a mercedes might do worse than other cars (even cheaper cars) in tests like the front barrier. Some might even consider them "poor performers" by the test's standards. The higher-grade metals/alloys in a mercedes make the cars signifigantly heavier, so when you slam head on into a barrier it is a CONSIDERABLEY higher amount of force that needs to be absorbed by the cars frame. Lighter cars (which usually coincides with cheaper cars, as only more expensive ones use heavier alloys in frames) fair better in these tests (since they have to absorb less force).

But how often do people crash head on into a barrier. If you ask me, rarely, if ever, I'm sure someone will probably chime in with statistics as I know they are out there. But I know for a FACT there are MANY more accidents involving two vehicles and head on collisions.

Most crash tests with deformable barriers simulate crashes with vehicles of similar caliber (lets just say c-class into c-class for simplicty). But crash tests between two different vehicles show a MUCH different story. Occupants in the lighter vehicle experience greater force than those in the other vehicle, which translates to a greater chance of injury.

In those situations a Ford Fiesta will be dominated if it came into a head-on collision with a mercedes. So I ask you, now having all the facts. Would you rather be in the Ford Fiesta (which scored a 4/5 for the same front barrier test that the c-class recieved a 2/5 for) or the 2012 c-class...

I think (hope) I have proved my point. And if not, it is this: The fact that the 2012 C-class recieved 2/5 stars for the frontal barrier crash should NOT make you believe that the car is not safe or any less safe than other cars which did perform well. In real-world crashes, the c-class will be safer than a Ford Fiesta which did better on that specific crash test.

And even when you look at other types of crash tests, such as the frontal offset. A c-class which recieves 4-stars (which, remember, simulates c-class against c-class) and a Ford Fiesta recieving 4-starts (which, simulates fiesta against fiesta) doesn't mean the cars are equally safe. As stated above, the c-class will fair better in a crash involving a fiesta and a c-class.

 

I think a much better way than looking at just one test from one group is to use something like http://www.informedforlife.org/getscore.php where they do a metanalysis of all available test data and give you an overall score that translates in your likelihood in getting killed in a vehicle. I think the site would be even more complete if it included foreign testing like the European NCAP testing.

 

I really value Informed For Life. Under that formula the 2012 C is unacceptable due to the two star rating for the front seat passenger in the frontal crash. Even with all the explanations I think MB should have done better.

 

There is a concept called cognitive dissonance which ecplains that if you ask a bunch of folks who already spent money on this car to talk about the questionable crash performance we are more likely to defend the car than to talk about areas mercedes should have improved. Now once we are all in new mercedes cars in the future that are all 5 stars we'll be more likely to talk about the things mercedes did to get the car up to snuff. In the mean time you may here things like "I just know my car is safer because it's a mercedes" or "Look at this news story where the person walked away after being hit in their mercedes". The bottom line is that I agree. They should have done better and I was dissappointed as well. Yes there are other cars much cheaper that may perform better in certain accident sitiations. The mercedes is still a good and relatively safe vehicle and all of the safety features shouldn't be ignored but if your absolute primary shopping goal is top safety performance this car is not a top performer.

 

I'm sure the Euro NCAP standards are somewhat different from those of the NHTSA, but still, here are their results for comparison.

http://www.euroncap.com/results/merc.../2011/466.aspx

Results are for a Coupe, though.

 

You are absolutely correct about the effect of dissonance reduction, which also just came up on the Sprint Booster thread, and explained why American Motors Pacer owners thought they had the best car in the world!

"Should have done better": There is no absolute "correct" performance in the standard. It is an evolving, relative measure and NHTSA will continue to raise the bar every time results start to cluster again. The goal of NCAP is not to substitute for FMVSS requirements, but to be able to discriminate among models to inform consumers. When everyone does well on the most recent test, the NCAP mission fails, so the star standards face ad infinitum revision. Which car company happens to know the new standard at the right time in a new vehicle program will vary by timing chance. Imagine if, after studying, your previously A+ student learns on the morning of the exam that A+ is now 99-100, and not a 97-100...and gets a 98. He/she will know differently for next time, but it's not "should have done better".

"Top safety performance": The NCAP test does not measure "top safety performance". It measures performance on that particular test which (without correlating data) regulators propose is reflective of actual safety for one of the most infrequent historical crashes...full frontal unyielding barrier. The design used to perform well on a flat frontal barrier is not the same as for an offset barrier. To which one should the car be designed, or how does one compromise? The issue is, given the impossibility of predicting all the various crash scenarios, what is the best, even if imperfect, predictor? Based on my experience, I think it is more likely iihs.org Top Pick ratings than NHTSA's NCAP program.

http://iihs.org/ratings/ratingsbyseries.aspx?id=464

There is no Sherman tank to which another armor plate could not be attached, making it "safer"(?) Achieving "safety" is not a bright line one can cross, but is actually simply risk reduction, balancing various attributes of protection, while still attempting to create a vehicle which has dynamic performance ("active" safety from handling/braking hasn't been discussed here so far, versus "passive" safety of impact performance), is affordable, offers reasonable fuel economy, etc. When selecting a car, simply counting stars is potentially misleading, as one must consider the purpose and value of that specific test. The issue is to review all the vehicle systems and try to decide which one reduces the overall risk. To some degree, the old adage of "follow the money" applies. The Insurance Institute has, among its motivations, a monetary reduction in benefits paid, and has created a very comprehensive range of vehicle assessments to persuade manufacturers and consumers. If their Top Pick requirement has been met, I think one can feel reasonably confident that a good choice has been made.

 

Thinking more about your situation in particular, you might be more reassured in a Volvo S80. For about the same money as a C Class, you can move up to an E segment vehicle in size and mass, with another iihs.org Top Pick. All of our comments on this thread have been based on assumptions of a C segment (although C Class is oddly sized like a D segment) vehicle, and no matter what, laws of physics still rule!

According to truecar.com, S80 average out the door price is about $37,000.

 

I'm not going to repeat what Sportstick has most capably expressed.

Let me give you some input from one of the worlds great crash centers where we have once again suffered more than 1000 fatalities on our roads since the beginning of the festive season with a population of about 50 million with many not owning cars.

The German big 3 consistently outperform the rest in damage limitation in real world accidents on our roads. Our insurance industry recognises this.

If you look at the progression from W202 to today. Benz has always reacted to the latest safety criteria even though they disagree with some of them & it usually means weight addition or stronger steels. The W204 is at the end of it's production life & W205 will address perceived safety shortfalls. I have yet to see any Toyota car come out of a real accident in better shape than a Benz & Toyota is no 1 seller on this market.

In safety testing you just change static barrier angles by a couple of degrees & outcomes change substantially. NCAP etc. is interesting but correlation is suspect.

 

Sportstick thanks for the clear and thorough explanation!

 

Interesting. Where in the world are you? I see now that you are in South Africa. Thank you for your post but in the end it amounts to a belief that MB is just better no matter what the crash tests say. IIHS 5 star ratings are not a very elite group any more. For 2012 115 cars met this standard including, for example, the Ford Fiesta.

 

This is the answer that makes the most sense to me. My 2009 C class was among the best 1% under the Informed for Life formula. Now it is not. The car isn't less safe than it was (at least so I assume) but the standard is now higher and MB hasn't redesigned the car for understandable reasons.

But standards keep changing. I am old enough to remember when a padded dashboard was an option. In 1991 I bought an Acura with a driver's side air bag. The passenger side air bag was optional and I didn't spring for it. Our standards change over time. If I am to buy what to me is a small car (or perhaps a mid-sized car) with an MSRP above $40K there ought to be clear objective evidence that it is among the safest cars in its class. I'm just not seeing it. Is it a reasonably safe car? Sure.

 

I'm in South Africa. Indeed I believe that at the very minimum the crash tests can be misleading. Is the W204 state of the art - No. But I'd bet on one in a head-on with a Ford Fiesta any day. In fact I saw a front three quarter between a Fiesta & a pre 2011 204 wagon the other day. The Fiesta was destroyed & occupants alive but hurt. The Merc was repairable & no occupants hurt.

Strange you should mention the Fiesta.

 

I don't mean to take more than my fair share of posts, but some clarification is warranted. IIHS does not rank by stars...it is a binary Top Pick, or not. There are 609 different models now sold in the U.S., so 115 is only the top 19% of the class, but is the largest size group of Top Picks, as more manufacturers design to this set of tests. But, this is not about exclusivity. Having more vehicles meet the criteria is a good thing for everyone, and IIHS may raise their bar as well as more cars do better. However, they are currently the most comprehensive American source for such information. Lastly, keep in mind the Fiesta you mentioned meets the criteria as compared to other cars within 500lbs of its weight, such as Fit, which was also picked, and Accent, which was not. It should not be interpreted that a Fiesta performs similarly to Top Pick vehicles with more mass, because it does not. If a Fiesta and a C Class had an unfortunate encounter, there would be a clear winner.

 

I sense I have failed in leading you from NCAP to IIHS as your primary source, and that you are locked in on the thought that good performance on a full frontal unyielding barrier test is a reliable predictor of safety. I wish you well in your future choices, and am confident that whatever passes muster for you and your family will provide a high level of safety. Good conversation and Happy New Year from one ol' timer to another!

 

Sportstick: You actually have helped me and I appreciate it. I actually am convinced that the head on barrier test isn't a common scenario. And I haven't decided against the 2012 C Class. The truth is like others here I like MB. At the same time I think that the Informed For Life methodology is very useful for two main reasons. First, it factors in weight. In other words, a heavier car scores better than a lighter car assuming other factors are equal. So the 2011 Ford Fiesta is rated there as a Medium Risk car even though it is an IIHS best pick and did well on the government crash test. In my mind this validates the site's usefulness. To take another example I would not be comfortable from a safety perspective in a Smart Car no matter what the manufacturer says about safety. The reality is that we are on the road with Escalades etc like it or not. And second, Informed For Life considers both US crash tests. It has been suggested that it should also consider the European test but I think it is right not to do so as the cars are not the same as the cars sold here but that's a matter of interpretation.

 

+1 Sportstick and some Brand faith & Benz consideration of so many safety items on a car that Euro NCAP or your equivalent does not assess. The Benz stance on door lock design & release in the case of an accident is but one example.

I remember the W202/Ford Modeo argument so well. The W202 performed well for the time in the full frontal impact but then Euro NCAP introduced the 40% of frontal area impact with a deformable barrier test. All of a sudden a Modeo looked the better car. The poor w202 looked miserable.

Did not stop me buying a new 202 over a Mondeo & time has proven that that was a wise decision. 203 addressed the perceived problem.

If one wants to go to extremes then buy a MB Unimog. That will take on most US Leisure trucks or a military Hummer. You might suffer some whiplash while you drive over the obstacle in your way.

All mirth aside it's good that we consider safety. One should seriously consider Distronic etc.

Have a Happy New Year all.

 

W204 definitely won this contest:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKSPxQjPOm0

Regards,
Don