SecPole14

Top story on the IIHS website…

This is beyond embarrassing. In AMG form, the E-Klasse wagon sells for nearly $90K and cannot provide the type of protection found in $25K cars like the Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, Ford Five Hundred, and Subaru Legacy (to say nothing of its actual competition, the GS).

This type of inferior passenger protection is not only limited to the E-Klasse; the C-Klasse is also inferior to its competitors in regard to side-impact safety (IS, Saab 9-3).

I’m absolutely shocked. I thought the C-Klasse's performance was a fluke, that surely the expensive redesign the E-Klasse went through would be flawless. Silly me. With all the trucks/SUVs, careless drivers, and crowded roads, MB owes their customers more. Other companies seem to get it, why don’t they? There’s not much more I can say.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=703

RX_330

Pre-facelift E-Class was rated the safest car in the world by some agency at one point, I believe.

ff_

They can't even get the basics right anymore? What on earth are you talking about?

lobuxracer

iTrader: (2)

Sad day. MB invented crumple zone technology in the 60's.

The first car I drove legally was a '68 MB 250. It was an absolutley solid feeling car.

SecPole14

Safety. Everybody expects it, and if you're paying $50K+ for the new E-Klasse, you certainly DESERVE it. As it stands, its side-impact performance is inferior to many "lesser" cars. Same goes for the C-Klasse.

Like I said in my original post, the C-Klasse's performance might have seemed like a fluke at first. But now that the E-Klasse has turned in a relatively poor performance (especially in driver torso protection), it seems to indicate that there are serious problems within Mercedes that start with the fundamental DESIGN of the car.

Did that answer your question?

RX_330

Well you're comparing a car that's using a 5+ year old chassis design with newer cars. 5 years is a long time in the automotive world.

newr

G=Good; A=Acceptable; M=Marginal; P=Poor

from the same source
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=10

You are barking at the 07 E for getting (A) acceptable rating for side impact when the 07 GS get (M) marginal rating for rear impact. The differrence between A & M can be life and death

SecPole14

That doesn't hold water. The design is current, and therefore should be compared with other current designs on the market. But since you brought it up, the previous Camry also scored higher than the E-Klasse in the side-impact test.

I'll see your and raise you a , mostly because you did an excellent job comparing apples to oranges. Besides, their "rear" tests are kind of a joke. Sure the higher the rating the better, but it doesn't test the actual crash structure like the front and side impact tests. Research next time, mkay?

RX_330

Every car design has it's own strengths and weaknesses. You can't expect everything to be perfect.

Have you ever ventured off onto the MB forums? Take a look at the Safety forums and look at the pics and read the stories.

Every crash is different, in the way the car was hit, the speed the car was hit, etc... The IIHS ratings are too general to be applied to everyday accidents. Sure they make a big impact (no pun intended) on people's decisions, but they only tell one story.

newr

G=Good; A=Acceptable; M=Marginal; P=Poor
Can't edit my original post for some reasons.
---------------

from the same source
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/summary.aspx?class=10

You are barking at the 07 E for getting (A) acceptable rating for side impact when the 07 GS get (M) marginal rating for rear impact. The differrence between A & M can be life and death

Rating for rear impact of the GS is beyond embarrassing. A GS sells for close to $60K and cannot provide the type of protection found in $20K cars like the Hyundai sonata, Kia Optima or the Chevy Malibu..

This type of inferior passenger protection is not only limited to the GS, but ES as well. The GX and RX both get (P) Poor rating.. OMG I am shocked.. Lexus owes their customers more. Other companies seem to get it, why don’t they? There’s not much more I can say.

newr

Are you kidding me? Rear test is a joke? Do you know how many rear end accidents compare to side accidents? Why don't you do some researh and get back to me.

I sure don't want to be in the the GX or RX with the rating of POOR when something like this happen.
http://www.guzer.com/videos/car_pile_up.php

SecPole14

I'm not interested in the anecdotal evidence found on a forum because, in terms of objective tests and fact, it's practically useless. Yes, every incident is different. And that's precisely why we need an objective, scientific set of standards to truly evaluate a product and compare it to other products. The IIHS ratings are not too general to be applied to real-world incidents. In fact, the opposite is true. In the case of the E-Klasse, based on the latest ratings, we can conclude that it will be less survivable than, say, the GS, regardless of what type of collision it is involved in (given equal conditions, of course).

They do not conduct a rear "impact" battery that tests structure like the front and side tests. They basically just evaluate seat and headrest geometry. It's not a big deal, and is by far one of the more inconsequential tests that can be conducted. Trust me, I expect a lot from Toyota and their products, so I would be critical of them if this was a truly important area. It's not. The truth is, there's a reason why companies and consumers care more about front and side impact tests than they care about seat and headrest geometry evals.

RX_330

You'd think they care about whiplash protection from a rearend collision......

SecPole14

Well, they probably do and I would as well, but I don't think you can rely on the evaluation results. Why? Well, when was the last time you saw a person in a seat flying down the road? Because that's pretty much what they're evaulating. They're looking at the seat and headrest in isolation, not as part of a crash. I'm sure their ratings for the rear are somewhat useful, but not nearly as useful or accurate as the ratings for front and side impact. If they actually want to give a "true" representation of the rear-impact safety, they should conduct rear-impact tests.

Ramon

Yes, becusae comparing the Camery to the E Class is apples to apples right?

So basically what you're saying is, who cares if it gets good ratings in other tests, and lets just focus on the test you're bent about? Then claiming they can't get it right and it is an unsafe car even though it got an overall acceptable rating??? Your post seems to defy logic.