The Mercedes-Benz C-Class has long been synonymous with luxury and performance, but for discerning buyers, safety is just as crucial. If you’re considering a 2018 Mercedes C-Class, understanding its safety ratings is a vital part of your research. As an auto repair expert at xentryportal.store, I’ve delved into the crash test reports to bring you a comprehensive overview of how well this vehicle protects its occupants.
This article breaks down the safety performance of the 2018 Mercedes C-Class based on rigorous testing, providing insights into its strengths and weaknesses in various crash scenarios. We’ll explore the results of small overlap, moderate overlap, side impact, roof strength, and head restraint tests, alongside an analysis of headlight performance and front crash prevention systems. Equipped with this knowledge, you can make a more informed decision about the safety of the 2018 Mercedes C-Class for you and your family.
Small Overlap Front Crash Test: Driver-Side Assessment
The small overlap front crash test is designed to simulate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with another vehicle or a stationary object like a tree or pole. Let’s examine how the 2018 Mercedes C-Class performed in this challenging scenario.
| 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 |
Rating: Good Overall, Acceptable for Restraints
The 2018 Mercedes C-Class earned a “Good” rating for structural integrity and safety cage, indicating that the vehicle maintained its shape well during the impact, providing a solid protective shell for the driver. Crucially, driver injury measures for the head/neck, chest, hip/thigh, and lower leg/foot were all rated “Good,” signifying a low risk of significant injuries in these areas.
However, the rating for “Driver restraints and dummy kinematics” was “Acceptable.” The test report noted that while the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag, it rolled to the left due to excessive forward movement allowed by the seat belt. The side curtain airbag did deploy effectively, offering good forward coverage to protect the head from side impacts.
Action shot depicting the 2018 Mercedes C-Class undergoing a small overlap frontal crash test.
Image showing the driver’s dummy position relative to the car’s interior after the small overlap crash, indicating good survival space.
Detailed view of the dummy’s head interaction with airbags during the 2018 Mercedes C-Class small overlap test, showing head roll.
Assessment of driver’s leg and foot injury risk in the 2018 Mercedes C-Class small overlap test, demonstrating a low risk level.
Technical Measurements – Small Overlap Test
Detailed measurements from the small overlap test provide further insights into the vehicle’s performance:
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 measurements indicate moderate intrusion into the occupant compartment, particularly in the footrest area (10cm). However, the upper occupant compartment areas showed less intrusion, suggesting good protection of the upper body.
Driver Injury Measures:
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| Head HIC-15 | 161 |
| 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 injury measures are generally low, reinforcing the “Good” ratings for driver injury protection in the small overlap test.
Moderate Overlap Front Crash Test: Original Assessment
The moderate overlap front crash test involves 40% of the vehicle’s front width impacting a deformable barrier at 40 mph. This test is representative of a significant portion of frontal collisions. The 2018 Mercedes C-Class also underwent this test.
| 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 |
Rating: Good Across the Board
In the moderate overlap front test, the 2018 Mercedes C-Class achieved a “Good” rating in all categories. This includes overall evaluation, structural integrity, and all driver injury measures. This excellent performance indicates strong frontal crash protection in a more common collision scenario.
Technical Measurements – Moderate Overlap 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, indicating excellent structural performance and maintenance of occupant space.
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 |
Driver injury measures are also very low in this test, further confirming the “Good” ratings and robust protection offered by the 2018 Mercedes C-Class in moderate frontal impacts.
Side Impact Crash Test: Original Assessment
Side impact crashes are particularly dangerous, as there is less vehicle structure to absorb the crash energy and protect occupants. The 2018 Mercedes C-Class was evaluated in a side impact test representing a typical intersection collision.
| 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 |
Rating: Good for Both Front and Rear Occupants
The 2018 Mercedes C-Class excelled in the side impact test, achieving “Good” ratings across all categories for both driver and rear passenger injury measures, as well as structural performance and head protection. This demonstrates a high level of side impact safety for all occupants.
Technical Measurements – Side Impact Test
Occupant Compartment Intrusion (Driver Side):
| Test ID | VTS1417 |
|---|---|
| B-pillar to longitudinal centerline of driver’s seat (cm) | -20.5 |
The negative measurement indicates that the intrusion stopped well short of the driver’s seat centerline, highlighting excellent structural resistance in a side impact.
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 are low in the side impact test, corroborating the “Good” ratings and demonstrating effective occupant protection.
Roof Strength Test
Roof strength is crucial in rollover accidents. The roof strength test measures how much force a vehicle roof can withstand before collapsing.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Curb weight | 3,522 lbs |
| Peak force | 24,642 lbs |
| Strength-to-weight ratio | 7.00 |
Rating: Good Roof Strength
The 2018 Mercedes C-Class achieved a “Good” rating in roof strength. With a strength-to-weight ratio of 7.00, the roof can withstand over 7 times the vehicle’s weight, indicating excellent protection in rollover scenarios.
Head Restraints & Seats
Head restraints and seats play a vital role in preventing whiplash injuries in rear-end collisions.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Dynamic rating | G |
| Seat/head restraint geometry | G |
Rating: Good Head Restraints and Seats
The 2018 Mercedes C-Class received a “Good” rating for head restraints and seats, both for dynamic performance and geometry. This indicates effective design in minimizing whiplash risk in rear impacts.
Technical Measurements – Head Restraints & Seats
| Geometry Backset (mm) | 38 |
|---|---|
| Geometry 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 |
These measurements support the “Good” rating, showing effective head restraint positioning and low neck forces during simulated rear-end impact.
Headlights
Headlight performance is a critical safety feature, especially for nighttime driving. The 2018 Mercedes C-Class was tested with two different headlight options: LED and Halogen.
LED Headlamps Package:
| Overall rating | P |
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | LED projector |
| High-beam headlight type | LED reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
Rating: Poor for LED Headlights
Despite being LED headlights, this option received a “Poor” overall rating. Low beam visibility was fair on the right side straightaway and sharp right curve, but inadequate in other scenarios. High beam visibility was generally inadequate across all test conditions. Glare was not an issue with these headlights.
Halogen Reflector Headlights:
| Overall rating | P |
|---|---|
| Low-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| High-beam headlight type | Halogen reflector |
| Curve-adaptive? | No |
| High-beam assist? | No |
Rating: Poor for Halogen Headlights
The standard Halogen headlights also received a “Poor” rating. Low beam visibility was inadequate in most situations. High beam visibility was better on straightaways but still inadequate on curves. Glare was not an issue.
Headlight Performance Summary: Both LED and Halogen headlight options for the 2018 Mercedes C-Class were rated “Poor,” indicating a significant area for potential improvement in nighttime visibility.
Front Crash Prevention: Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Front crash prevention systems can significantly reduce or prevent frontal collisions. The 2018 Mercedes C-Class offered two front crash prevention system configurations.
Optional Pre-Safe Brake with Pedestrian Recognition (Superior Rating):
- Rating: Superior (for 2017-18 models with optional Premium 4 Package)
- Forward Collision Warning: Yes (meets requirements)
- 12 mph test: Collision Avoided
- 25 mph test: Collision Avoided
Standard Collision Prevention Assist Plus (Basic Rating):
- Rating: Basic (for 2017-18 models with standard system)
- Forward Collision Warning: No (does not meet requirements)
- Autobrake: Not tested
Front Crash Prevention Summary: The 2018 Mercedes C-Class offered an optional “Superior” rated front crash prevention system (Pre-Safe Brake), which successfully avoided collisions in testing. The standard system was rated “Basic” and did not include forward collision warning or autobrake testing. If considering a 2018 Mercedes C-Class, checking for the optional Pre-Safe Brake system is advisable for enhanced frontal collision safety.
Child Seat Anchors (LATCH)
Child seat anchors (LATCH) make it easier to install child safety seats correctly.
| Overall evaluation | G |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | G |
| Vehicle trim | C 300 |
| Seat type | leather |
Rating: Good for Child Seat Anchors
The 2018 Mercedes C-Class received a “Good” rating for child seat anchors (LATCH). It has two rear seating positions with complete LATCH hardware and an additional position with a tether anchor. The lower anchors were found to be easy to access and maneuver around.
Child Seat Anchor Details:
- Seating Positions with Complete LATCH: 2
- Seating Positions with Tether Anchor Only: 1
- Lower Anchor Ease of Use: Good
Conclusion: 2018 Mercedes C-Class Safety Performance
Overall, the 2018 Mercedes C-Class demonstrates robust crash protection across most evaluated areas. It achieved “Good” ratings in moderate overlap front, side impact, roof strength, and head restraints tests. Small overlap front crash protection was also good, though the driver restraints received an “Acceptable” rating. Headlights were a noted weak point, with “Poor” ratings for both LED and Halogen options. The optional front crash prevention system (Pre-Safe Brake) offered “Superior” performance.
For those prioritizing safety in a luxury sedan, the 2018 Mercedes C-Class offers strong protection in most crash scenarios. However, potential buyers should be aware of the “Poor” headlight ratings and consider seeking models equipped with the optional Pre-Safe Brake system for enhanced safety features. Always prioritize checking the specific features and options of any used 2018 Mercedes C-Class you are considering to ensure it meets your safety expectations.
