The Mercedes-Benz E-Class, a hallmark of luxury and engineering, underwent a significant redesign in 1996. For those considering a 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, understanding its safety features is paramount. Specifically, models manufactured between January 1997 and February 2000 incorporated structural enhancements aimed at bolstering frontal crash protection. This article delves into the crash test results of a 1997 Mercedes-Benz E 420, which serves as a representative model for the 1998 E-Class range with these crucial safety upgrades.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) rigorously evaluated a 1997 Mercedes-Benz E 420 in a 40 mph frontal offset crash test against a deformable barrier. This test is designed to simulate a real-world collision and assess the vehicle’s ability to protect its occupants. The results offer valuable insights into the safety performance you can expect from a 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class within the specified production dates.
Decoding the Crash Test Ratings
The IIHS employs a rating system ranging from “Good” (G), “Acceptable” (A), “Marginal” (M), to “Poor” (P). Let’s break down how the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class (represented by the 1997 E 420 test) performed across key evaluation criteria:
| Evaluation criteria | Rating |
|---|---|
| Overall evaluation | Acceptable (A) |
| Structure and safety cage | Good (G) |
| Driver injury measures | |
| Head/neck | Good (G) |
| Chest | Good (G) |
| Leg/foot, left | Good (G) |
| Leg/foot, right | Good (G) |
| Driver restraints and dummy kinematics | Poor (P) |
As the table indicates, the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class demonstrated commendable performance in several critical areas. The “Good” rating for “Structure and safety cage” is particularly noteworthy. This signifies that the vehicle’s structural integrity held up well during the crash, maintaining the survival space for the driver. Furthermore, the “Good” ratings for driver injury measures – head/neck, chest, and legs/feet – suggest a low risk of significant injuries in these body regions in a frontal offset crash of this severity.
However, the “Poor” rating for “Driver restraints and dummy kinematics” raises a point of concern. This evaluation considers how well the seatbelts and airbags control the dummy’s movement during the crash. The report highlights that the dummy’s movement was not adequately controlled.
Issues with Dummy Kinematics and Door Opening
Specifically, during the rebound phase of the crash, the dummy’s head struck the window sill. This indicates a potential for head injury due to insufficient restraint. Additionally, excessive upward movement of the steering wheel was observed, which could also contribute to driver injury.
A more serious issue identified in the test was that the driver door opened during the crash. While the report mentions that this particular door opening didn’t significantly alter dummy movement in this specific test, it emphasizes that this is a critical safety flaw. In real-world crashes, a door opening can lead to partial or complete ejection of occupants, dramatically increasing the risk of severe injury or fatality.
Energy-Absorbing Design and Occupant Intrusion
Despite the concerning door opening and dummy kinematics, the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class exhibited positive design features aimed at mitigating injury. The presence of energy-absorbing padding between the footwell and floor carpet is specifically designed to reduce forces on the driver’s legs in frontal crashes. This proactive approach to safety is a testament to Mercedes-Benz’s engineering philosophy.
Looking at the technical measurements, we can further analyze the occupant compartment intrusion. The footwell intrusion measurements range from 13 to 19 cm across different points, indicating a moderate level of deformation in this area. Instrument panel rearward movement was 5 cm on the left and 3 cm on the right, while steering column movement was 10 cm upward and 3 cm rearward. A-pillar rearward movement measured 9 cm. These measurements provide a detailed picture of the structural deformation and how it impacted the driver’s space.
Measures of occupant compartment intrusion on driver side
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| 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 in Detail
The driver injury measures provide quantifiable data on the forces experienced by the crash test dummy. A Head Injury Criterion (HIC-15) of 305 is recorded, along with peak gs at hard contact of 29. Neck tension was measured at 2.0 kN, with an extension bending moment of 19 Nm and a maximum Nij of 0.37. Chest maximum compression was 35 mm. Leg femur forces were 5.5 kN (left) and 3.2 kN (right). These detailed measurements are crucial for engineers to understand injury risks and further refine vehicle safety design.
Driver injury measures
| Evaluation criteria | Measurement |
|---|---|
| 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 |
Conclusion: Safety Considerations for a 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class
Overall, the 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, as represented by the tested 1997 model, demonstrates a mixed safety performance in this frontal offset crash test. It excels in structural integrity and basic driver injury protection for the head, chest, and legs. However, the poor performance in dummy kinematics and the concerning driver door opening are significant drawbacks.
For prospective buyers of a 1998 Mercedes-Benz E-Class, it’s essential to be aware of these findings. While the vehicle offers robust structural protection, the issues identified with occupant restraint and door integrity should be considered alongside other factors when evaluating the overall safety of this model. Remember to always ensure your vehicle is properly maintained and that safety features like seatbelts are correctly used. This information is based on a specific frontal offset crash test and should be viewed as one component of a comprehensive vehicle safety assessment.
