The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class marked a significant year for this luxury sedan, continuing its legacy of blending performance with sophisticated design. For prospective owners and automotive enthusiasts alike, understanding the safety performance of a vehicle is paramount. This article delves into a comprehensive safety analysis of the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, drawing upon rigorous crash testing and safety evaluations to provide a detailed overview of its protective capabilities.
Small Overlap Front Crash Test: Driver-Side Evaluation
The small overlap front crash test simulates a collision where only a small portion of the vehicle’s front end, on the driver’s side, impacts a rigid barrier. This is a particularly challenging test as it concentrates crash forces on a smaller area, bypassing some of the vehicle’s main energy-absorbing structures.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class underwent this demanding test, and the results offer valuable insights into its structural integrity and occupant protection.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | G |
| Driver injury measures – Chest | G |
| Driver injury measures – Hip/thigh | G |
| Driver injury measures – Lower leg/foot | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | A |
The “Rating” column uses the IIHS scale: G is Good, A is Acceptable, M is Marginal, and P is Poor.
The 2016 C-Class achieved a “Good” rating for the structure and safety cage, indicating that the structural design effectively maintained the driver’s survival space during this severe frontal crash. For driver injury measures, encompassing head/neck, chest, hip/thigh, and lower leg/foot, the C-Class also earned “Good” ratings across the board. This demonstrates robust protection against injuries in these critical body regions.
However, the rating for “Driver restraints and dummy kinematics” was “Acceptable”. The test detailed that while the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag, it exhibited excessive movement to the left due to seat belt slack, causing the head to roll partially out of optimal airbag protection. The side curtain airbag deployed effectively, offering sufficient forward coverage.
Action shot illustrating the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class during the small overlap frontal crash test, showcasing vehicle deformation and airbag deployment.
Post-crash dummy position inside the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class after the small overlap frontal test, highlighting the maintained survival space within the vehicle.
Close-up view of the dummy’s head movement during the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class small overlap frontal crash, indicating airbag contact and some lateral head displacement.
Image showing the well-maintained driver’s side space within the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class after the small overlap frontal crash, suggesting low risk of leg and foot injuries.
Technical Measurements – Small Overlap Front Test
Detailed measurements provide a deeper understanding of the vehicle’s performance in the small overlap test.
Occupant Compartment Intrusion (Driver Side)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement (cm) |
|---|---|
| Lower hinge pillar max | 5 |
| Footrest | 10 |
| Left toepan | 5 |
| Brake pedal | 8 |
| Rocker panel lateral average | 2 |
| Steering column | 1 |
| Upper hinge pillar max | 4 |
| Upper dash | 4 |
| Lower instrument panel | 4 |
These intrusion measurements are crucial for assessing how well the vehicle structure resisted deformation and protected the occupant space. Lower numbers generally indicate better performance.
Driver Injury Measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 161 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | no contact |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 1.0 |
| Neck Extension bending moment (Nm) | 5 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.20 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 21 |
| Femur – Left (kN) | 1.2 |
| Femur – Right (kN) | 1.3 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 3 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 5 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) – Left | 0 |
| Knee-thigh-hip injury risk (%) – Right | 0 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 0.50 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 0.43 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 2.8 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 2.4 |
| Foot acceleration – Left (g) | 80 |
| Foot acceleration – Right (g) | 73 |
These measurements quantify the forces and accelerations experienced by the crash test dummy, providing a detailed assessment of potential injury risks. The low values recorded generally align with the “Good” driver injury ratings.
Moderate Overlap Front Crash Test: Original Evaluation
The moderate overlap front crash test involves a larger portion of the vehicle’s front end impacting a deformable barrier at 40 mph. This test is designed to evaluate how well the vehicle protects occupants in a more common type of frontal collision.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class also excelled in the moderate overlap front test, receiving the highest possible rating.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | G |
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | G |
| Driver injury measures – Chest | G |
| Driver injury measures – Leg/foot, left | G |
| Driver injury measures – Leg/foot, right | G |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | G |
The 2016 C-Class achieved “Good” ratings across all categories in the moderate overlap front test, signifying excellent protection in this type of frontal impact. This includes overall evaluation, structural performance, driver injury measures for all body regions, and effectiveness of restraints and dummy kinematics.
Technical Measurements – Moderate Overlap Front Test
Occupant Compartment Intrusion (Driver Side)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement (cm) |
|---|---|
| Footrest | 1 |
| Left Footwell | 1 |
| Center Footwell | 1 |
| Right Footwell | 1 |
| Brake pedal | 2 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Left | 0 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement – Right | 0 |
| Steering column movement – Upward | 3 |
| Steering column movement – Rearward | -7 |
| A-pillar rearward movement | 0 |
Intrusion measurements in the moderate overlap test are minimal, reflecting the robust structural integrity of the 2016 C-Class in this crash scenario.
Driver Injury Measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 148 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | 16 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 1.1 |
| Neck Extension bending moment (Nm) | 11 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.20 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 22 |
| Femur force – Left (kN) | 1.6 |
| Femur force – Right (kN) | 1.3 |
| Knee displacement – Left (mm) | 1 |
| Knee displacement – Right (mm) | 2 |
| Maximum tibia index – Left | 0.40 |
| Maximum tibia index – Right | 0.31 |
| Tibia axial force – Left (kN) | 2.3 |
| Tibia axial force – Right (kN) | 2.5 |
| Foot acceleration – Left (g) | 36 |
| Foot acceleration – Right (g) | 53 |
Similar to the small overlap test, the driver injury measures in the moderate overlap test are low, confirming the “Good” ratings and strong occupant protection.
Side Impact Crash Test: Original Evaluation
Side impact crashes are another significant real-world collision type. The side impact test evaluates how well a vehicle protects occupants in a T-bone style collision.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrated excellent side impact protection.
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | G |
| Structure and safety cage | G |
| Driver injury measures – Head/neck | G |
| Driver injury measures – Torso | G |
| Driver injury measures – Pelvis/leg | G |
| Driver head protection | G |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Head/neck | G |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Torso | G |
| Rear passenger injury measures – Pelvis/leg | G |
| Rear passenger head protection | G |
The 2016 C-Class earned “Good” ratings across all metrics in the side impact test, encompassing both driver and rear passenger protection. This indicates a high level of safety for occupants in side collision scenarios.
Technical Measurements – Side Impact Test
Occupant Compartment Intrusion (Driver Side)
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement (cm) |
|---|---|
| B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver’s seat | -20.5 |
The negative value indicates that the crush stopped short of the driver’s seat centerline, demonstrating effective structural resistance to intrusion.
Driver Injury Measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 228 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 1.0 |
| Neck Compression (kN) | 0.3 |
| Shoulder Lateral deflection (mm) | 40 |
| Shoulder Lateral force (kN) | 1.2 |
| Torso Maximum deflection (mm) | 35 |
| Torso Average deflection (mm) | 32 |
| Torso Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 4.56 |
| Torso Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.51 |
| Pelvis Iliac force (kN) | 2.4 |
| Pelvis Acetabulum force (kN) | 1.2 |
| Pelvis Combined force (kN) | 3.6 |
| Left femur L-M force (kN) | 0.4 |
| Left femur L-M moment (Nm) | 36 |
| Left femur A-P moment (Nm) | 74 |
Passenger Injury Measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 225 |
| Neck Tension (kN) | 0.7 |
| Neck Compression (kN) | 0.1 |
| Shoulder Lateral deflection (mm) | 34 |
| Shoulder Lateral force (kN) | 1.1 |
| Torso Maximum deflection (mm) | 22 |
| Torso Average deflection (mm) | 18 |
| Torso Maximum deflection rate (m/s) | 1.94 |
| Torso Maximum viscous criterion (m/s) | 0.19 |
| Pelvis Iliac force (kN) | 2.4 |
| Pelvis Acetabulum force (kN) | 2.0 |
| Pelvis Combined force (kN) | 4.2 |
| Left femur L-M force (kN) | 0.5 |
| Left femur L-M moment (Nm) | 33 |
| Left femur A-P moment (Nm) | 51 |
The injury measurements for both driver and rear passenger in the side impact test are well within acceptable limits, further supporting the “Good” safety ratings.
Roof Strength Test
Roof strength is a critical factor in rollover accidents. The roof strength test measures the roof’s ability to withstand forces in such events.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class again achieved a “Good” rating in roof strength.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Curb weight (lbs) | 3,522 |
| Peak force (lbs) | 24,642 |
| Strength-to-weight ratio | 7.00 |
The strength-to-weight ratio of 7.00 significantly exceeds the minimum requirement, indicating a strong roof capable of providing ample protection in rollover scenarios.
Head Restraints & Seats Evaluation
Head restraints and seats play a vital role in preventing whiplash and other neck injuries in rear-end collisions.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class received a “Good” rating for head restraints and seats.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Dynamic rating | G |
| Seat/head restraint geometry | G |
Technical Measurements – Head Restraints & Seats
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Backset (mm) | 38 |
| Distance below top of head (mm) | -14 |
| Max T1 acceleration (g) | 16.1 |
| Head contact time (ms) | 57 |
| Force rating | 1 |
| Max neck shear force (N) | 21 |
| Max neck tension (N) | 464 |
The geometry and dynamic test results confirm the effectiveness of the 2016 C-Class’s head restraints and seat design in mitigating whiplash risk.
Headlights Evaluation
Headlight performance is crucial for nighttime driving safety. The IIHS evaluates headlights based on visibility and glare.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class headlight ratings vary depending on the trim level and headlight type. All available headlight options received a “Poor” overall rating.
Headlight Ratings by Trim Level:
Trim level: C 300 trim equipped with Lighting package (LED projector headlights)
| Overall rating | P |
Trim level: C 300 trim equipped with Premium 2 package (LED projector low beams, LED reflector high beams)
| Overall rating | P |
Trim level: C 300 trim (Halogen reflector headlights)
| Overall rating | P |
All three headlight variations available on the 2016 C-Class were rated “Poor” due to inadequate visibility in various driving scenarios, including straightaways and curves. Some configurations also exhibited excessive glare. This is an area where the 2016 C-Class’s safety performance is notably weaker compared to other aspects.
Front Crash Prevention: Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Front crash prevention systems are designed to mitigate or prevent frontal collisions. The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class offers two front crash prevention systems:
Optional Pre-Safe Brake (Superior Rating)
| Overall evaluation | Superior |
With the optional Pre-Safe Brake system, the 2016 C-Class achieves a “Superior” rating. This system meets forward collision warning requirements and successfully avoided collisions in both 12 mph and 25 mph tests.
Standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus (Advanced Rating)
| Overall evaluation | Advanced |
The standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus system is rated “Advanced”. While it avoided a collision in the 12 mph test, it only reduced impact speed by 14 mph in the 25 mph test and does not meet forward collision warning requirements.
Child Seat Anchors (LATCH)
Child seat anchors, also known as LATCH (Lower Anchors and Tethers for Children), are evaluated for their ease of use and effectiveness in securing child seats.
The 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class received a “Good” rating for child seat anchors.
| Overall evaluation | G |
The 2016 C-Class has two rear seating positions with complete LATCH hardware and an additional position with a tether anchor. The lower anchors are generally easy to access and maneuver around.
Conclusion: 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class Safety Performance
Overall, the 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class demonstrates strong safety performance in crash tests, earning “Good” ratings in most categories, including structural integrity, occupant injury measures in frontal and side impacts, roof strength, and head restraints. The vehicle offers “Superior” or “Advanced” front crash prevention systems, depending on the configuration.
The main area for improvement is headlight performance, which received “Poor” ratings across all available headlight types. While the “Driver restraints and dummy kinematics” in the small overlap test were rated “Acceptable”, the injury measures remained “Good,” indicating a need for refinement in restraint system optimization for this specific severe crash scenario.
For those considering a 2016 Mercedes-Benz C-Class, understanding these safety ratings provides valuable insights into its protective capabilities. While headlight performance should be noted, the vehicle’s robust crashworthiness and available front crash prevention systems contribute to a generally safe driving experience. As a specialist at mercedesxentry.store, we understand the intricacies of Mercedes-Benz vehicles and recommend regular maintenance and system checks to ensure the continued effectiveness of all safety features in your 2016 C-Class.
