The 2013 Mercedes-benz C-Class, a luxury vehicle popular for its blend of performance and sophistication, underwent rigorous testing by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This article delves into the critical small overlap front crash test results for the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C, providing a comprehensive analysis for potential buyers and automotive enthusiasts. Understanding these safety ratings is crucial for making informed decisions about vehicle safety.
Decoding the Small Overlap Front Test: 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Performance
The small overlap front crash test represents a challenging scenario where only 25% of the vehicle’s front width on the driver’s side strikes a rigid barrier at 40 mph. This test is particularly demanding as it bypasses the main energy-absorbing structures of the vehicle, concentrating crash forces on the outer edges of the car’s structure. For the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C, performance in this test is especially noteworthy due to updates implemented during the model year.
Initial Small Overlap Test: Pre-December 2012 Models
The IIHS initially tested a 2012 model, representative of 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class vehicles manufactured before December 2012. This initial test revealed significant challenges in occupant protection during a small overlap frontal crash.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | P |
| 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 | M |
Action shot during the first small overlap frontal crash test of a 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (models built before December 2012).
Post-crash dummy position in the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (pre-December 2012 test), showing footwell intrusion and compromised survival space.
Non-deployment of the side curtain airbag in the initial 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap test, increasing head injury risk.
Footwell intrusion observed in the initial 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap test, indicating a high risk of lower leg injuries.
Key Findings from the Initial Test:
- Poor Structure and Safety Cage: The structural performance of the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C in this test was rated as “Poor,” indicating that the safety cage did not adequately maintain its integrity.
- Lower Leg/Foot Injury Risk: Measurements indicated a “Poor” rating for lower leg/foot injury measures, signaling a significant risk in this area. Extensive footwell intrusion was a major contributing factor.
- Marginal Driver Restraints and Dummy Kinematics: The driver restraints and dummy kinematics were rated “Marginal.” Notably, the side curtain airbag did not deploy, and the seat belt allowed excessive forward movement of the dummy’s head, increasing the risk of head injury by contacting the intruding A-pillar.
- Good Head/Neck, Chest, and Hip/Thigh Protection: Despite the challenges, injury measures for the head/neck, chest, and hip/thigh regions were rated “Good,” indicating adequate protection in these areas.
Technical Measurements – Initial Test (CEN1211):
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 |
| Footrest (cm) | 32 |
| Left toepan (cm) | 24 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 21 |
| Parking brake (cm) | 14 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 0 |
| Steering column | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 9 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 11 |
| Lower instrument panel (cm) | 11 |
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| HIC-15 | 98 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | 17 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 1.1 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 6 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.21 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 19 |
| Femur – Left (kN) | 3.1 |
| Femur – Right (kN) | 2.6 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 3 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 6 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 2.01 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 1.87 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 5.2 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 4.4 |
| Foot acceleration – Left (g) | 113 |
| Foot acceleration – Right (g) | 112 |
Improved Small Overlap Performance: Post-December 2012 Models
Recognizing the initial test results, Mercedes-Benz implemented a crucial update for 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class models built after December 2012. This update involved reprogramming the side curtain airbags to deploy in small overlap frontal crashes. The IIHS conducted a second test on a 2013 model manufactured after this change to evaluate the effectiveness of the modification.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | 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 during the improved small overlap frontal crash test of a 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (models built after December 2012).
Post-crash dummy position in the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class (post-December 2012 test), still indicating footwell intrusion despite improvements.
Successful deployment of frontal and side curtain airbags in the improved 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap test, enhancing head protection.
Persistent footwell intrusion in the improved 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap test, maintaining a significant risk of lower leg injuries.
Key Improvements and Findings in the Updated Test:
- Marginal Overall Rating: With the airbag reprogramming, the overall rating improved to “Marginal” from “Poor”.
- Good Driver Restraints and Dummy Kinematics: A significant improvement was observed in driver restraints and dummy kinematics, now rated “Good.” The side curtain airbag deployed as intended, effectively protecting the dummy’s head from hitting hard structures.
- Structure and Safety Cage Remains “Poor”: Despite the airbag improvement, the structural rating remained “Poor,” indicating that the fundamental structural issues in small overlap crashes were not addressed.
- Lower Leg/Foot Injury Risk Persists: The “Poor” rating for lower leg/foot injury measures also remained unchanged, primarily due to continued extensive footwell intrusion.
- Good Head/Neck, Chest, and Hip/Thigh Protection Maintained: Similar to the initial test, protection for the head/neck, chest, and hip/thigh remained “Good.”
Technical Measurements – Updated Test (CEN1327):
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Lower hinge pillar max (cm) | 12 |
| Footrest (cm) | 50 |
| Left toepan (cm) | 29 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 22 |
| Parking brake (cm) | 20 |
| Rocker panel lateral average (cm) | 1 |
| Steering column | 4 |
| Upper hinge pillar max (cm) | 11 |
| Upper dash (cm) | 10 |
| Lower instrument panel (cm) | 11 |
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| HIC-15 | 248 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 0.8 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 9 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.15 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 20 |
| Femur – Left (kN) | 4.9 |
| Femur – Right (kN) | 3.2 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 3 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk – Left (%) | 3 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk – Right (%) | 1 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 2.14 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 1.13 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 10.6 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 4.1 |
| Foot acceleration – Left (g) | 147 |
| Foot acceleration – Right (g) | 98 |
Moderate Overlap Frontal Test: 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
In contrast to the challenging small overlap test, the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrated excellent performance in the moderate overlap frontal test. This test involves 40% of the vehicle’s front width striking a deformable barrier at 40 mph, a more traditional frontal crash scenario.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | G |
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Chest | G |
| Leg/foot, left | G |
| Leg/foot, right | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
Key Strengths in Moderate Overlap Test:
- “Good” Overall Rating: The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class achieved a “Good” overall rating in the moderate overlap test, the highest possible.
- “Good” Structure and Safety Cage: The structure and safety cage were rated “Good,” indicating robust performance in maintaining occupant space.
- “Good” for All Driver Injury Measures: All driver injury measures, including head/neck, chest, and leg/foot (both left and right), received “Good” ratings, signifying a low risk of significant injuries in this type of crash.
- “Good” Driver Restraints and Dummy Kinematics: Driver restraints and dummy kinematics were also rated “Good,” confirming effective occupant control during the crash.
Technical Measurements – Moderate Overlap Test (VTF0905):
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Footrest (cm) | 1 |
| Left footwell (cm) | 1 |
| Center footwell (cm) | 2 |
| Right footwell (cm) | 1 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 3 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Left (cm) | 1 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Right (cm) | 3 |
| Steering column movement – Upward (cm) | -4 |
| Steering column movement – Rearward (cm) | -6 |
| A-pillar rearward movement (cm) | 1 |
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| HIC-15 | 173 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | 23 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 1.3 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 8 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.30 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 32 |
| Femur force – Left (kN) | 1.6 |
| Femur force – Right (kN) | 2.3 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 2 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 2 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 0.36 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 0.50 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 3.1 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 3.6 |
| Foot acceleration – Left (g) | 57 |
| Foot acceleration – Right (g) | 75 |
Side Impact, Roof Strength, and Head Restraints: 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class
Beyond frontal crash tests, the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class also excelled in side impact and roof strength evaluations, and provided good head restraint and seat safety.
Side Impact Test
The side impact test simulates a vehicle being struck by another vehicle in a typical intersection crash. The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, equipped with standard side airbags, achieved a “Good” overall rating.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | G |
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Torso | G |
| Pelvis/leg | G |
| Driver head protection | G |
| Rear passenger injury measures | |
| Head/neck | G |
| Torso | G |
| Pelvis/leg | G |
| Rear passenger head protection | G |
Vehicle and barrier just after the side impact crash test for the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class.
Post-crash view of the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class side impact test, showcasing side airbag deployment and damage.
Greasepaint on the side airbag indicating driver dummy head protection during the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class side impact test.
Greasepaint on the side airbag demonstrating rear passenger head protection in the 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class side impact test.
Key Highlights of Side Impact Performance:
- “Good” Overall and Structural Ratings: The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class earned a “Good” rating for both overall side impact protection and structural integrity.
- “Good” for All Injury Measures: All driver and rear passenger injury measures (head/neck, torso, pelvis/leg) were rated “Good,” indicating comprehensive side impact protection.
- Effective Head Protection: Both driver and rear passenger head protection were rated “Good,” thanks to the standard side curtain airbags.
Technical Measurements – Side Impact Test (CES0842):
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver’s seat (cm) | -20.5 |
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 165 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 0.8 |
| Compression (kN) | 0.4 |
| Shoulder Lateral deflection (mm) | 44 |
| Lateral force (kN) | 1.6 |
| Torso Maximum deflection (mm) | 35 |
| Average deflection (mm) | 30 |
| Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 2.97 |
| Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.45 |
| Pelvis Iliac force (kN) | 2.0 |
| Acetabulum force (kN) | 2.2 |
| Combined force (kN) | 3.8 |
| Left femur L-M force (kN) | 0.1 |
| L-M moment (Nm) | 74 |
| A-P moment (Nm) | 40 |
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 155 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 0.5 |
| Compression (kN) | 0.5 |
| Shoulder Lateral deflection (mm) | 15 |
| Lateral force (kN) | 0.9 |
| Torso Maximum deflection (mm) | 17 |
| Average deflection (mm) | 13 |
| Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 2.17 |
| Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.19 |
| Pelvis Iliac force (kN) | 1.6 |
| Acetabulum force (kN) | 1.0 |
| Combined force (kN) | 2.6 |
| Left femur L-M force (kN) | 0.6 |
| L-M moment (Nm) | 89 |
| A-P moment (Nm) | -48 |
Roof Strength Test
The roof strength test evaluates a vehicle’s ability to withstand forces in a rollover crash. The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class again achieved a “Good” rating.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Curb weight | 3,510 lbs |
| Peak force | 18,826 lbs |
| Strength-to-weight ratio | 5.36 |
Roof Strength Performance:
- “Good” Overall Rating: The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class roof demonstrated “Good” strength, with a strength-to-weight ratio of 5.36. This signifies that the roof can withstand over five times the vehicle’s weight before significant crush.
Head Restraints & Seats
Head restraints and seats are crucial in preventing whiplash injuries in rear-end collisions. The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class with power leather seats and active head restraints received a “Good” rating in this category.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Dynamic rating | G |
| Seat/head restraint geometry | G |
Head Restraint and Seat Performance:
- “Good” Overall, Dynamic, and Geometry Ratings: The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class head restraints and seats were rated “Good” across all evaluations, indicating effective design and performance in preventing neck injuries in rear impacts.
Technical Measurements – Head Restraints & Seats:
| Seat type | Power leather seats AHR |
|---|---|
| Backset (mm) | 40 |
| Distance below top of head (mm) | 36 |
| Max T1 acceleration (g) | 11.7 |
| Head contact time (ms) | 52 |
| Force rating | 1 |
| Max neck shear force (N) | 34 |
| Max neck tension (N) | 453 |
Front Crash Prevention: Vehicle-to-Vehicle for 2013-14 Models
The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class offered an optional front crash prevention system, “Pre-Safe Brake,” as part of the Driver Assistance Package. When equipped, this system earned a “Superior” rating for vehicle-to-vehicle front crash prevention.
| Overall evaluation | Superior |
|---|
Front Crash Prevention System Performance:
- “Superior” Rating with Optional System: Models equipped with the optional Pre-Safe Brake system achieved a “Superior” rating, demonstrating significant crash avoidance capabilities.
- Forward Collision Warning: The system met requirements for forward collision warning.
- Speed Reduction in Tests: In IIHS tests, the system reduced impact speed by 10 mph in a 12 mph test and by 13 mph in a 25 mph test, showcasing its effectiveness in mitigating and preventing frontal collisions.
Conclusion: 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Safety Assessment
The 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class presents a mixed but largely positive safety profile. It excels in moderate overlap frontal, side impact, roof strength, and head restraint tests, achieving “Good” ratings across the board in these crucial areas. Furthermore, models equipped with the optional Pre-Safe Brake system offer “Superior” front crash prevention.
However, the small overlap front crash test reveals a significant weakness, particularly in models manufactured before December 2012. While the reprogramming of side curtain airbags for later models improved occupant kinematics and raised the overall rating to “Marginal,” the structural issues leading to footwell intrusion and lower leg injury risk remained.
For prospective buyers of a 2013 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, it is essential to be aware of the manufacturing date, especially concerning small overlap front crash protection. While the vehicle offers robust protection in many crash scenarios and superior crash prevention technology is available, the “Poor” structural rating in the small overlap test for earlier models is a critical factor to consider. Always prioritize vehicles manufactured after December 2012 for enhanced safety in small overlap frontal crashes, and consider models equipped with the optional Driver Assistance Package for superior front crash prevention capabilities.
