Here's a response I got after contacting MB Canada:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has run a series of tests called "small overlap crash tests", in which vehicles are driven at 64 km/h, with an overlap of 25%, against specially formed rigid barriers.

We would like to make the following statement on the matter:

Our safety philosophy rests on attaining exact knowledge of the conditions of real accident situations that have been tested over several decades, the results of which have helped formed our vehicle production practices for years. This happens independently of ratings. The requirements we place on our vehicles regarding crash performance are considerably higher than those that are currently legally required worldwide.

The test configuration in question is well-known to us from real accident situations. As a general rule, collisions of this type are rare. In the event that two vehicles collide frontally with this small overlap, a completely different deformation pattern occurs. Deformations like those shown in the IIHS test only occur in collisions with rigid structures.

Our aim is, as it has always been, to orient our safety design toward real accident situations.

We would welcome initiatives from ratings agencies that are, themselves, committed to this philosophy.

 

A better response.

 

Agreed...

 

So basically...

Don't crash into a pole with small frontal offset, hit it bang on or not at all

 

No matter how they dismiss it now as unrealistic, you can bet that the W205 will ace the test. This is always how it goes, dating back to the early 2000s with side curtain airbags. Automakers who didn't provide them and who failed the new side impact crashes all said the same thing "we pass all safety standards" blah blah blah. A short time later, though, they all implemented them. Getting high marks in these tests is important to automakers.

 

Absolutely Matt!

 

You've got the idea spot on, but I would change your order of preference!

 

Since the W205 is now a year away. I'll bet that the structure was finalized long ago.

 

Depending on when Daimler first got wind of the new IIHS test, the capability may already be incorporated in the Plan of Record. Otherwise, the engineers' most hated document, the Change Notice, may have appeared in their inboxes more recently.

 

IIHS has a new offset test for cars, uses only 25% of the front structure of the car. surprisingly, all the german cars being tested (MB C-class, BMW 3, Audi A4) are rated poor in this test.

http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr081412.html


What does everyone think about this?

 

Umm.. isn't this what we've been discussing in this thread for the past month?

It's easy to engineer a car to pass a certain test once you know what that test is. Now that the Europeans know this is the type of test that needs passing, they'll re-engineer their products accordingly, but this will come at an extra cost to the customer, of course.


MODERATOR EDIT: The prior post was merged from a new thread tomasty was starting. He may not have seen the prior discussion. Thank you.

 

To prove your point, give the MB engineers a target and they will hit it.

Just reading about there bus of the year and saw this:

"New safety features included a fresh crash element that is designed to keep the driver safe in the event of a collision. As a whole, the new Citaro bus was also designed in order to meet ECE R 66/01 safety standards that will take effect sometime in 2017, showing just how future-proof this bus model is."

http://www.benzinsider.com/2012/09/m...ar-2013-award/

 

This is a cut & paste of my post a few hours ago on a similar thread in the C63 forum...


Hi folks. I have been a M-B dealer tech since 2000 and as such know these cars very well inside & out. Regardless of how the car performed or what the official response from M-B was, don't think for second you are driving an unsafe car...it's just as safe as it was before the IIHS released the test results. On several occasions, customers shared their own stories with us of how well a Benz protected them and their loved ones when the other parties didn't fare as well.

There were several posts earlier suggesting that M-B add a crossmember between the A-pillars & an upper structural member behind the fender like Volvo has. Guess what folks...the W204 has both. In fact, the upper fender structural member was first introduced in late '97 on the w163...every new chassis since has been built with this structural member. I can also confirm that every M-B since the W201 has a beefy crossmember behind the dash that's secured with several bolts to the A-pillars & trans tunnel. Honestly, I think had the wheel seperated from the vehicle, intrusion would have been minimal.

For many many years, M-B has dispatched it's own investiagtion teams to the sites of accidents in Germany to study the scene, vehicle deformation behavior, injuries to occupants & enviromental factors that may have contributed to the accident. One of the first things they learned was, the more you optimize vehicle structure to excel in one particular impact scenerio, the less effective it may be in another. Example, a very stiff front structure will provide good protection in a small overlap crash but can result in very high G-forces & internal injuries for the occupants in a more full frontal crash. This is balancing act they have spent years refining to build a car that provides the best all around protection possible be it front, angle, side, rear or rollover impacts.

Many of you are concerned as to why that the side & curtain bags did not deploy. I suspect they worked as designed as M-B takes a very conservitive approach to airbag deployment stratagies. M-B's accident investigation team learned that in multi car accidents, occupant injuries offen occured durring the second or third impact event. Example, an oncoming car crosses the center line on a rain slick road and hits you in an offset frontal impact...your car is sitting stopped in the middle of the road at a 45* angle. Your front airbags & seatbelt tensioners deployed...your shaken up but OK. Then, a second later, you are T-boned in the drivers side by a vehicle that was following you too closely & could not stop or never even made the attempt as their eyes were not on the road ahead of them. The side bags then deploy providing you protection you would not have had if they had deployed in the frontal crash...one more example of providing the best all around protection possible.

Something else to keep in mind is the w204 design dates four years prior to the S60...this means teh Volvo benifits from four years of structural safety advancments that have taken place in that time. Example, IIHS mentioned the large steel strut joining the upper & lower structural members together as being part of the reason for good performance. The new for 2012 w166 incorporates the same design & I think it's safe to assume all new M-B chassis from here on will as well. Mercedes has a long history of building a very safe vehicles & that won't change.

Below are links to a video & comercial that showcase M-B safety fron the 1980's that many other automakers still have not matched.

Forward to 2:04 if you prefer not to watch the entire video.







Last edited by amcguru; Yesterday at 11:38 PM. Reason: youtube link