The 1997 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, a model from the esteemed German automaker, underwent rigorous crash testing to evaluate its safety performance. This analysis delves into the frontal offset crash test results for models manufactured between January 1997 and February 2000, providing crucial insights for those considering this vehicle, particularly within the context of the C Class 1997 Mercedes Benz lineup which shares similar safety design philosophies of the era.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted a 40 mph frontal offset crash test on a 1997 Mercedes-Benz E 420 4-door model. This test aimed to assess the vehicle’s crashworthiness and occupant protection capabilities. The E-Class models from 1997 to 2000, specifically those built within the specified timeframe, incorporated structural enhancements to improve frontal crash protection.
The evaluation criteria and resulting ratings are detailed below:
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | A |
| 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 | P |
The overall evaluation for the 1997 Mercedes-Benz E-Class in this frontal offset crash test was rated as “Acceptable” (A). The structural integrity of the safety cage received a “Good” (G) rating, indicating that the vehicle effectively maintained the occupant survival space during the crash. Furthermore, the driver injury measures for head/neck, chest, and legs/feet were all rated as “Good” (G), signifying a low risk of significant injuries in these areas in a similar frontal crash scenario.
Action shot capturing the 1997 Mercedes Benz E-Class during the frontal offset crash test, highlighting vehicle deformation and safety system engagement.
However, the evaluation for “Driver restraints and dummy kinematics” received a “Poor” (P) rating. This was primarily due to issues observed with dummy movement during the crash. Specifically, the dummy’s head struck the window sill upon rebound, and there was excessive upward movement of the steering wheel. Adding to these concerns, the driver door opened late in the crash sequence. While this door opening did not significantly alter dummy movement in this specific test, it is considered a safety concern as it could lead to partial or complete occupant ejection in certain real-world crash scenarios.
Image showing the 1997 Mercedes Benz E-Class after the crash test, demonstrating roof rail buckling but also highlighting the maintained survival space for the occupant.
Despite the roof rail buckling observed, the occupant survival space was largely maintained, which is a positive aspect of the vehicle’s structural design. However, the door opening issue detracted from the otherwise good structural performance.
Close-up of the 1997 Mercedes Benz E-Class footwell, showcasing the energy-absorbing padding designed to mitigate leg injuries in frontal impacts.
Energy-absorbing padding was incorporated into the footwell design to reduce forces on the driver’s legs during severe frontal impacts, demonstrating attention to detail in occupant protection.
Post-crash image emphasizing the opened driver door of the 1997 Mercedes Benz E-Class, illustrating a potential risk of occupant ejection during certain accidents.
Detailed technical measurements from the crash test provide further insight into the vehicle’s performance:
Technical measurements for this test
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CF97005 |
| Footwell intrusion | |
| Footrest (cm) | 14 |
| Left (cm) | 19 |
| Center (cm) | 17 |
| Right (cm) | 13 |
| Brake pedal (cm) | 15 |
| Instrument panel rearward movement | |
| Left (cm) | 5 |
| Right (cm) | 3 |
| Steering column movement | |
| Upward (cm) | 10 |
| Rearward (cm) | 3 |
| A-pillar rearward movement (cm) | 9 |
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Test ID | CF97005 |
| Head | |
| HIC-15 | 305 |
| Peak gs at hard contact | 29 |
| Neck | |
| Tension (kN) | 2.0 |
| Extension bending moment (Nm) | 19 |
| Maximum Nij | 0.37 |
| Chest maximum compression (mm) | 35 |
| Legs | |
| Femur force – left (kN) | 5.5 |
| Femur force – right (kN) | 3.2 |
| Knee displacement – left (mm) | 5 |
| Knee displacement – right (mm) | 2 |
| Maximum tibia index – left | 0.33 |
| Maximum tibia index – right | 0.43 |
| Tibia axial force – left (kN) | 0.6 |
| Tibia axial force – right (kN) | 0.6 |
| Foot acceleration (g) | |
| Left | 76 |
| Right | 68 |
These measurements quantify the extent of occupant compartment intrusion and potential injury metrics, offering a deeper understanding of the crash test outcomes.
In conclusion, the 1997 Mercedes-Benz E-Class demonstrated robust structural performance and good occupant protection for critical body regions in the frontal offset crash test. However, the poor rating for driver restraints and dummy kinematics, primarily due to head contact with the window sill and the driver door opening, indicates a notable area for potential safety improvement. When considering a c class 1997 mercedes benz or similar vehicles from this era, it is essential to weigh these safety findings alongside other factors to make an informed decision.
