Euro NCAP | Mercedes Benz C Class | 1997 | Crash test

[Oregon696969]

Epic fail.

[SSDude100]

Man If Justin Bieber Was There.............

[watzupdawg]

The problem as I see it is that when these cars were built there were barely any SUV on the road and in some countries these cars are repaired and put back on the road several times. Each time more unsound. The sooner we phase out death traps the sooner we move forward.

[Sordetti]

More info about W202 security:

[Sordetti]

In my upload videos



[haantje68]

Back in the 90's Mercedes lost it for a while and thought that only the name Mercedes would do the job. Fortunately Mercedes found its way back to the top.

[taksyi]

try this crash in lada :-)) or Volga:-)))

[MrGoodKatttt]

NOT bad at all, I feel safe in my 202!

[MustangGT500KRFever]

@MrGoodKatttt me too!

[Mieden]

the reason they started doing these 40% tests was to highlight that a change needed to made. Now, manufacturers make cars that can stand up to this test, so a new test is in the works that is even harder, and manufacturers will fail those (like this) and make better cars still.

[AlexDMegara]

very good performance for !her! age!!!

[studiogold]

0:08 Flaps enabled

[cpu1917]

i expect more for a mercedes benz.. especially the frontal isnt very good.

[Toni7859]

@cpu1917 - this is the Euro model... the USA version much safer.

[amgjens]

@Toni7859 Why?

[Toni7859]

@amgjens - the USA versions had to meet more strict crash standards.

[amgjens]

@Toni7859 i find that hard to believe what crash test are you talking about?

[Toni7859]

@amgjens - these particular MB's were not off-set crash tested in the USA. It wasnt until 2001 when MB off-set tested the C-Class which was flying colors. I may be wrong saying the USA version is safer, but I have seen USA/Euro version of the same cars tested and the US models seem to fair better. Also, some 80s-90s cars, the USA versions have airbags, but the same car, same year of the Euro version dont. This leads me to believe the Euro models back then had a lower crash standard??

[BrunostNOR]

Strong doesen't always mean safe! I would rather have two broken legs than broken ribs and fatal internal injuries

[gazdadjok]

its does better result in facelift version! (98-00)

[TheCarManiac18]

Here is the chart of 1997 cars: 1.Volvo S40 -26 p. 2.VW Passat -19 p. 3.Opel Vectra -18 p. 4.Renault Laguna -17 p. 4.Audi A4 -17 p. 4.Ford Mondeo -17 p. 5.Mercedes-Benz C Class -16 p. 6.Peugeot 406 -15 p. 7.Saab 900 -12 p. 8.Rover 600 -11 p. 9. BMW 3 Series -10 p. 10. Citroen Xantia -9 p. I think there's all of them. You do the judge.

[BrunostNOR]

This isn't too bad, it just looks pretty bad because the window cell breakes

[simonas909]

good for 1997 :)

[crzy402]

it didn't do worse than its competitors and it's a small car so

[SMB67T]

Good for 1997.

[piloto88ed]

@SMB67T Are you sure ?? Audi 100 91-95 is a Tank lookin this ... Mercedes 190 and E class old , is more safe ...and First new E class ( 1995 -1998 ) is a poor car ... Half Chrysler / half Mercedes ....

[SMB67T]

@piloto88ed

ok, I know this is poor, but now the new 2010 Mercedes E-Class got a GOOD. :)

[123peeta]

now im afraid to drive my 1994 c class

[alexmeeng]

guys the w202 model is a car produced in the early 90's!

do not forget that!

back then was the best of its class and way better than the bmw e36...

[funkyfondant]

@alexmeeng it scored same as e36 in euro n-cap testing.

[harisdeva]

you guys don't get it, all the cars beck then were just not stif enough in order to witstend this kind of impact. just look at the oter tests, passat, bmw and all other cars had similar results. so for those who say "mercedes is bad", well you should read a lot more about cars before you can say something like that. in the 90's merc had built one of the safest vehicles of its time, but this what you see in the video is best car makers could do at the time.

[g0rk3mm]

@harisdeva then maybe you should check a 1997 volvo s40 crash test: /watch?v=V5ybi9quH2w.

so mercedes is bad.

[SMB67T]

@g0rk3mm

Mercedes is not bad man. Look at the new C-Class and the new E-Class, it's performer much better than Volvo. Volvo have been destroyed by Ford and now sold to Geely which is worser.

[DslStudio]

@SMB67T VOLVO IS THE SAFEST CAR EVER ASSOL!

[SMB67T]

@DslStudio

Yup the safest car. But since when did I say that Mercedes' safety is much better than Volvo's? I just say that the Mercedes performance is better than Volvo. :/

[malthe12321]

@harisdeva Well actually the Volvo S40 from 1997, got 26 points, witch is the same as 4 stars. This Merc got 16 points... So there was one car that did good back then.

I'm not saying a Merc is not a good car or anything, just that the Volvo was really good.. :)

[ef9b16a1]

@harisdeva

check the volvo s40 1997

[TheJoePepper]

@harisdeva I really do wish was true, because I like this C series model so much, but it's not. Check out /watch?v=lGyhTMfuiBg and even the Acura Legend crash test. They are both over 6 years older yet clearly do better.

[amgjens]

@TheJoePepper Those are not Euro NCAP tests. The merc is much better.

[DoctorBohr]

@harisdeva

That's not quite true. This model didnt do nearly as well as the 1980s S-Class, nor the 1980s BMW e30 3 series (check out its vid on Youtube). I suspect that in those days high end brands only installed safety features in order to show off their engineering prowess. Here they didnt seem to be bothered with the C Class.

[amgjens]

@DoctorBohr First mercedes to ever take the euro NCAP crash test. previous cars were never tested by Euro NCAP. tests in the 80s were much more lenient.

[DoctorBohr]

@amgjens

I dont know about 80s tests being more lenient, for shoving a car into a solid barrier (not a collapsible one like NCAP's barrier) at 60km/h is the same now as then, given the laws of physics. Type in e30 crash test to see the Youtube vid of the BMW, and also Fifth Gear did an episode in which they crashed an 80s S Class at 70mph into a bunch of parked cars (type in 5th Gear Freeway Pileup). In these tests both cars' cabins remained fully intact, unlike this 90s Merc.

[amgjens]

@DoctorBohr You can't compare a C class to an S class. Also those tests were based on a full frontal impact and in euro NCAP only 40% of the width of the car gets the impact.

[DoctorBohr]

@amgjens

The offset impact would make the difference. They should put some older cars thru the NCAP test to see how they stack up to later models. I still think the 80s S-Class and e30 would do better than this 97 MB if they were. I reckon they had stiffer chassis full stop.

[amgjens]

@DoctorBohr Maybe but i find it strange that its competetors performed poorly in this test as well: Audi a4: 2.5starts, bmw 3 series: 1.5 stars while their cars designed after Euro NCAP was launched all received at least a 4 star rating.

[Toni7859]

@DoctorBohr - Yes! The 1980s S-Class models performed very well in this test. 

[215alessio]

@harisdeva but mercedes always claimed to be the best the safest and bla bla bla, the Golf MK4 of 1998 did splendid !

[cipmars]

@harisdeva Not 100% right, look for the Opel Omega B crash test. It's true, most of the cars back then were this soft. I've seen worse, too.

[Oregon696969]

@harisdeva

Only problem with that is they are still on the road.

[nijobe1]

All I have to say is that looks can be deceiving. The old E class (1999) did the same with the A pillar bending like that and that car good an acceptable rating from iihs.

[Pantadeusz17]

@nijobe1

You're right. The w210 E-class had the same problem. The w210 before FL got 2 stars.

watch?v=MYbljdIozGo&feature=re­lated

After FL it got 4 stars.

watch?v=uRX-BGmxQN0&feature=re­lated

This video show us the w202 before FL because it's the 1997 model. The question is did they also changed the A pillar in the w202 lifting like they did in the w210? I have never seen a w202 FL crash test.

[Qkwin]

Very bad ...

Mercedes is so bad

[mariatim2000]

TO ALL I NEED SOME HELP.....PLEASE...

I HAD A MERCEDES C280 YEAR 1996. MY WIFE WAS REAR-ENDED...SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH FOR THE CAR TO BE TOTALED. THE CAR WAS IN VERY GOOD CONDITION...THE QUESTION IS WHY NOT REAR END CRASH TESTS WHEN MOST OF THE SIGNIFICANT ACCIDENTS CAUSE WHIPLASH? AND HOW DO THIS CAR C280 COMPARES WITH OTHER CARS IF THE SAME FORCE IS APPLIED? THANKS TO ALL

[SacreDro]

Ever if the cage is not that rigid I think it does its job well and keeps you safe.Other cars from that period were like the acordeon.

[mtregi]

hey chrysler...fuck you very much!

[Sordetti]

The model of the video is from 1993-1996, because in 1997 became the restyling. Therefore, it is very good.

[carloskeim]

thats why this is one of the lowest price merc the 1981 w123 performed beter

[JELH]

If the W202 performed this badly, I don't even want to see how bad the W201 would be...

[betrayergrandma]

@JELH the w201 was one of the safest small sedans of its time! its is alot stronger than the 202, it had the same occupant protection as an s - class depsite its size, check out w201 fascination vid

[0cnpgs0]

Well, tbh I think this is the only Merc that performed like this...others, both older and newer than this, performed much better and were much stronger. The W124 is a case in point; '...youtube...' /watch?v=LQH6MLTSDZ4 shows how it compared to other cars of the same age and '...youtube...'/watch?v=N6F4gr­gsto0 whos how it stands up to a monster truck....also don't forget that the airbag, safety cell, ABS, crumple zones etc found their way on Mercedes first ;)

[betrayergrandma]

@0cnpgs0 good on you for your comment! some people think because this peformed badly all mercs b4 and after are the same! not true. its pretty good for a company spaning 100 years to have 1 or 2 substandard chrash tests.

[BrunostNOR]

@0cnpgs0

1. The speed in this test was 10 km/h (6 mph) faster (that is actually a lot)

2. Old full sized sedans like bmw, mercedes and american sedans were big and strong, but that leads all the energy in a crash to the occupants! I would much rather break a leg in this Mercedes than getting head, chest and internal injuries in an old one! The old merc has poor crash design and no airbags, but it was oustanding for its time, I must say!

[0cnpgs0]

@BrunostNOR 1. Yes, it does make a difference particularly considering that kinetic energy = 0.5*m*v^2; i.e. K.E. is based on the square of the velocity. However, Mercs usually have a tendency of having a strong structure such that a 'slight' increase in speed shouldn't affect crash performance so much.

[0cnpgs0]

@BrunostNOR 2. One of the most imp. principles in car safety is having a rigid safety cell (i.e. the passenger compartment should not deform) and crumple zones to absorb the energy forces (concepts introduced first by Merc) - as you say so that the forces aren't transmitted to occupants but are absorbed by the car. Hence, having a strong structure is good because the car can withstand larger impacts and chances of survival are better. As I said, this test is an anomaly compared to other Mercs ;)

[ilia93]

@0cnpgs0 yes but the w124 was tested i think at a lower speed ... the w210 pretty much performs as badly as this c class ... the facelifted w210 from around about 2000 performs better ... the safest merc before the year 2000 i think is fare to say is the w140 ... ;)

[mcrubar]

@0cnpgs0

The first video youre talking about is made with only 54km/h. This here with 64km/h

[amgjens]

@0cnpgs0 You are wrong. The w124 was never tested in the Euro NCAP crash test because it didn't exist yet. Euro NCAP was established in 1997. if you look at similar cars like the audi a4 or bmw 3 from the 90s you will see that they received a similar rating because all these cars have been designed in the late 80s to early 90s. The newer cars all received better ratings because car manufacturers specifically designed their cars to do well at the euro NCAP.

[0cnpgs0]

@amgjens I didn't say the W124 was tested by EuroNCAP, but the test I was referring to (first link in my comment) was similar to NCAP's tests - hence, they are quite comparable.

Also, not all newer cars are specifically designed to do well in NCAP tests - some, like Mercedes IMO, design cars which the pics and vids clearly show that they also would do well in real-life.

As an aside, it is interesting to note that it is said that EuroNCAP's tests are based on the tests Mercedes did/still do...

[UHF43]

No! This car performed worse that other cars of the same time. In fact the 1997 Renault Laguna offered the same "safety" for half the price. That's why some people find the Mercedes quite deceptive, because it was supposed to be above all cars and failed.

[trolejbusman]

ó my Got

[Sitikkamies93]

And that's the famous Mercedes-safety?

[UHF43]

Mercedes has pioneered some improvements like the airbag, abs and such, but structural stability was a matter that has only been in mind since the EuroNcap stuck around.

[Sitikkamies93]

@UHF43 Well, that's true. And actually I don't always believe these NCAP- results. ; )

[betrayergrandma]

@UHF43 a hell of alot of the main safety features in cars today are thanks to mercedes, and that is a load of shit that they have only cared about structural stability since euroncap, mercs b4 this have always been prob the safest on the road, they were performing offset crashes in the early 70's and rollovers in the 50's so if structural stability wasnt a concern, were they just smashing these cars for fun?? no!

[UHF43]

@betrayergrandma Excuse me, but I didn't deny Mercedes commitmet to safety. In fact, I was aswering another comment that doubted about the "famous Mercedes safety". What I meant was that only since the EuroNCAP started to make PUBLIC crash tests, both the AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY and the GENERAL PUBLIC have a reference for comparison and the awareness of what "structural stability" means has risen to a higher point .

[UHF43]

And there are many other milestones in the history of automobile that don't bear a 3 point star! Almost every european carmaker performs their own crash tests since the half of the past century, but it is easier for a luxury brand to introduce improvements because people is willing to pay that extra fee for a luxury car. A popular brand has to struggle to keep its prices low.

[lvatlenox]

that was kinda shitty....

[franchi123]

mercedes w202 -2 gwiazdki

bmw e36 -1.5 gwiazdki

na amerykanskich testach bmw oraz mercedes dostaly 4 gwiazdki (NHTSA).

[kostekmm]

Uuuu odeszło mi już kupowanie C klasy.

[franchi123]

auto kupujesz do jezdzenia czy do rozbijania?

[kostekmm]

@franchi123  Wiesz, shit happens..

[KannX]

Tak bezpieczny jak moje Seicento kurwa :P

[staszekzgur]

BMW e 36 tak samo ...

[marek1300]

no dokładnie jak na tak markowe auto to lipa straszna w tym teście, przynajmniej w czołowym uderzeniu .

[ArcticIrbis]

ja pierdole nawet Matiz sie tak nie poskladal... shit car

[BlueLightning1]

What, because it performs badly in crash tests compared to new cars it's shit? Have a look at the 1997 BMW 3-series, it does no better...

[AdrianoCROST]

@BlueLightning1 Yeah, have a look at the cheap cars from the early 90s. Lot's of them perform better than this car. This was bad even for that time

[Toni7859]

@AdrianoCROST - yeah, the 1995 Chevy Lumina and 1995 Ford Taurus did better than this Mercedes in this test (and scored good)....  this was when Chrysler was basically making MB's which I think was part of the issue... now Chrysler is making good performers though, but I think seperate from MB now.

[jacx11]

things have changed...