C-Class doesn't fare well in the new IIHS crash test
 

Many cars flunk new type of crash test

When a car's front corner hits something, what happens? The driver often gets seriously injured, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's new crash test finds.

By Jerry Hirsch, Los Angeles Times
August 13, 2012, 9:00 p.m.

Results of a new crash test that focused on luxury cars are raising worries that most vehicles may not be able to provide protection from serious injuries in a common accident.

Such fancy nameplates as BMW, Mercedes and Lexus all earned "poor" ratings in a test that simulated what happens when the front corner of a sedan hits another vehicle or an object such as a tree or pole, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety.

Just three of 11 luxury cars from the 2012 model year passed the new crash test, which looked at front-corner impacts, which are not well protected by vehicles' crush-zone structures.

In the insurance group's test, 25% of a car's front end on the driver's side is rammed into a 5-foot-high rigid barrier at 40 mph. The insurance institute plans to incorporate the same kind of crash in tests of other vehicles.

"Nearly every new car performs well in other frontal crash tests conducted by the institute and the federal government, but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year," said Adrian Lund, the institute's president. "Small overlap crashes," which include the type of accident examined by the new test, "are a major source of these fatalities."

The Acura TL and Volvo S60 earned "good" ratings, while the Infiniti G was rated "acceptable." The Acura TSX, BMW 3 Series, Lincoln MKZ and Volkswagen CC all received "marginal" ratings. The Audi A4, Lexus ES 350, Lexus IS 250/350 and Mercedes-Benz C-Class were rated "poor."

The crash forces in such an accident are transmitted to the front wheel, suspension system and firewall, according to the trade group. In many instances, the front wheel pushes into the cabin, causing serious leg and foot injuries.

Very informative. So none really perform well is what I gather from this crash test? My Father was a victim to a crash from the front, right side and the car (VW New Beetle) at the time did very well considering the damage and impact.

As much as I hate to bring this up (I believe it was a member of the site), a few years ago, on River road in Maryland (I think that was the road, was definitely MD though), a vehicle crossed the center solid lane line and hit the members C63 head on, the C63 driver survived with what I believe were very minor injuries, the occupants of the other vehicle were not so lucky, I think there was 1 or 2 fatalities..

Like I said, it was a long time ago, so I may have some of the details off, however, the primary one is that our vehicle appears to do rather well in a frontal crash. I suspect the crash was similar to the test being performed here, as I doubt that the vehicle in the above crash crossed the lane to the point that is was a direct head on crash.

Smash the b!tch head on then is what I gather...

LOL:rolf:

The link below shows the C class during the new crash test.

you have to take these with a grain of salt.. Euro NCAP which does 40mph rated the C class highly... You have to understand the stupid deductions that are made, such as your grade might change from an A to a B if you lack a seatbelt chime.

Understood...I believe the C class has great structural integrity, just wanted to post the video so people get a sense about the new IIHS crash test.

It's a new test (which they do say in the article, but that's not the headline grabber of course), for when you hit an immovable object with the corner of your car. First, when you hit another car like that, it means that the other car will not be hitting you head on, so you'll both be at a similar disadvantage, and because the other car is not anchored to the ground, a certain amount of that energy will then go to spinning the car around, not all of it transmitted to the passenger cabin. So this is specifically for when you hit a pole or tree or wall and you don't do it head on, and you're traveling at 40MPH (or more I guess).

It's great that they are devising new tests for less common accident circumstances, but these testing agencies should work with the car companies in advance of the tests to allow them to engineer it for those tests.

And the Volvo solution doesn't seem like rocket science--they reinforce with steel bars over the front fenders. Ok, got it. I think MB can handle this amazing new safety innovation.

I'm sure the manufacturers knew about the new test well in advance. The Institute is a non regulatory body, so the manufacturers don't have to pass their tests. Thus the poor showing. If Feds adopt this test, all manufacturers will pass it.

The fact that Volvo (and perhaps a few others) engineered those reinforcements in suggests there was ample time for all manufacturers to do so. Certainly, Volvo's brand identity could have been fatally compromised had they not appeared to be ahead of the curve with respect to safety. Kudos to the companies that bit the bullet and implemented changes ahead of any regulatory requirements.

I heard Honda, along with MB, complaint about the new test, even though one of Honda's car did well.

Anyway, it's good to have these type of tests since it will force manufacturers to improve even more on the safety.

I got hit by an Denali and rolled on the freeway in a M3 and walk away from it, I got hit stopped at a light in an AMG55 by a guy in a Lexus doing 35. Walked that one too. I got more proof than I need...buy German.

I agree. Volvo has shown that they don't necessarily build cars to "meet the test." They went the extra mile to protect the driver.

This is not some trivial test by the way. Apparently 25% of traffic fatalities are a result of offset crashes like the one in this test.

NBC did a segment on this that you should watch as it covers luxury cars in general. What I found really despicable after watching this is while other manufacturers who failed this test (Audi and Lexus) pledged to improve their designs and make them safer, Mercedes stuck their head in their ass and dragged out a statement saying they “disagree with the crash test design.” What BS. There is nothing to disagree with. Their design did poorly if hit from the front in an offset situation. I wonder if they will continue to disagree with the design after one of their family members gets seriously hurt or dies…

NBC Segment:
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/nightly-news/48667462

Good thing you were never involved in a small-overlap front crash in a C class :rolleyes:

We've gotten spoiled by the high percentage numbers of cars that pass the current frontal crash test with passenger cabins maintaining near-total structural integrity upon impact. Looking at the Lexus in question however, is scary. That seems to have major, life-changing injuries stamped all over it.

I would still much rather drive my C63 daily than any other cars mainly because mercedes has some of the best engineers working for them. Just look at the S class and the amount of safety they put into that car. Of course, it takes time to trickle down but the C class is still overall a very solidly built car that I would trust to do well and protect me in an accident. Also crash test worthiness ratings have to be taken with a grain of salt as they do not paint a complete pictures of the car's safety and crash worthiness.

I agree. The Lexus did so horribly that the driver's side is pretty much demolished... I actually posted some photos of what happened to the Lexus on a different thread. Mercedes dropped the ball twice with the C class. The designed the car poorly to handle an offset crash and did further harm by not programming the side-airbags to deploy is such a massive collision. Look at the following thread and the photos i posted at the end. The driver's head in the C class actually comes into contact with the deformed A pillar of the car due to the side airbag not deploying. Then compare that to what happens in the Acura where the driver is kept safe with the deployment of the side and torso airbags. The other car that did well in this test is the Volvo S60 and it too deployed its side airbags to protect the driver.

https://mbworld.org/forums/e-class-w...rash-test.html

All those great engineers at Mercedes have a few things to learn and do differently it seems...

Volvo has been doing their own small offset (small overlap) frontal tests for quite a while now. They designed the first attempt at a safety cage in 1944 with the PV444. It's been one of their areas of concentration for a long time. Their $81 million dollar Volvo Safety Center (completed in 2000) is supposedly the most technologically advanced crash-test facility in the world.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1Wy4...yer_embedded#!

Perhaps they can be reprogrammed (recalled?) as a stopgap solution. My guess is it would require more crash testing for DOT approvals though.

Well I decided to email MB of Canada and ask how it is the W204 failed this test when the company prides itself on safe vehicles. Here's their response:

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.

The IIHS disagrees:

In a 2009 Institute study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants. Another 24 percent of the frontal crashes were moderate overlap crashes, although they likely occurred at much higher speeds than the Institute's moderate overlap test.

These claims have been going back and forth and have been for over a decade now. There is a 2010 study that claims small offset frontal accidents have a 6% likelihood of occurring based on three different categories of frontal accidents. And out of that 6%, there was a 3% severe injury rate. You can go to Google's Scholar web search and pull up all the studies done over the last decade (and there's a lot.) They often tend to contradict each other (like most studies do.) http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=...0%2C5&as_vis=1

But even if it truly is only a 6% occurrence and a 3% severe injury, it doesn't mean auto manufacturers should ignore it. That % could include any one of us. Volvo didn't ignore it and they have been doing their own small offset testing for many years.

What MB is implying is that the IIHS test is a rigid barrier test and not a test involving another car (which would mean absorbing a lot of that energy.) When Volvo does their offset tests, they use other cars. Their test facility involves two tunnels that can fire two cars into each other at any precise angle. It's the most sophisticated test center in the world.

But despite what Mercedes says publicly today, you can bet that they will correct this and make it pass the next time. This test is all about negative publicity and Mercedes knows it. Internally, they are cringing over this. And that's what the IIHS testing is all about: publicity to make the manufacturers do better.

Something of note: If you really watch the video's, you'll see the cars all hit at different points, making it hard to say which one is even safer in this exact crash. For example, the TL fares so well because it DOESN'T contact head on into the safety cage. The car pretty much does a major sideswipe. Therefore, no direct head on into the A-Pillar, like on the other cars.

Also, the Volvo's wheel indeed does fly off, which is probably a huge reason as to why it scored so well, considering wheel intrusion is what hurt the C-Classes floorpan so badly.

It's no coincidence that the 3 and C track very straightly and solidly into the barrier, which in a test where it's a non-movable barrier, it works against them. However, in real life, against another moving car, it wouldn't be far fetched to assume that the C Class standing its ground so well might be a benefit instead of the Lincoln or Acura, who pretty much flail to the side right away, not to mention the Volvo's suspension unable to even keep the wheel on the car (by design to protect from a crash like this, or weakly mounted suspension, that's the question?).

Good points. But MB seems to go way over the top for safety improvements that are much more difficult to develop, design and build than steel bars--ESP, ABS, the insane new wipers that remove dirt and grime on the first swipe, and dozens of other developments over the decades. If they knew about this, and if this could help in 25% of crashes, why wouldn't they do it?