Mercedes-Benz Forum banner

Crash Tests

5K views 19 replies 10 participants last post by  NewMB 
#1 ·
Anyone have any crash test info or safety data on the SLK? I never see anything with the Insurance Institute or the NHTSA? Just wondering how well all those airbags and rollover bars work.
 
#3 ·
The SLK is not manufactured in large quantities, so I doubt that the government would do many crash tests on the car. Plus, it'd be pretty darn expensive to purchase a bunch of SLKs only to destroy them in the process. I think they concentrate on more mainstream cars like the Honda and Camry because the results of the tests will benefit more overall consumers. Just MHO. With the front/side airbags and the roll bars, I feel pretty safe. I know, however, that if I have to go up against a large SUV or a truck, I'm probably not going to make out too well. Just the law of physics.
 
#4 ·
Usually the manufacturers provide the cars for the crash testing, because it is required to have them approved to be able to sell them in the US. i'd bet the SLK has 5 stars in every category for a sportscars, just because it would be big news if it wasn't. Unlike the Hondas and toyotas and fords who are lucky to be able to get 5 stars (which is why they advertise it so much).
 
#5 ·
cyberdrakon said:
Usually the manufacturers provide the cars for the crash testing, because it is required to have them approved to be able to sell them in the US. i'd bet the SLK has 5 stars in every category for a sportscars, just because it would be big news if it wasn't. Unlike the Hondas and toyotas and fords who are lucky to be able to get 5 stars (which is why they advertise it so much).
Nope, on all 3 points :D

The 2 major US crash testing and ratings services are IIHS and NHTSA.

Both of these purchase the cars off of the open market. There is no requirement (nor collusion) with the Manufacturers.

There is no requirement that cars HAVE to be crash tested by independent agencies. A common misconception.

Car manufacturers DO need to do their own safety testing and submit results showing they meet the geographies (like US or Japan, etc.) laws, however.

Both IIHS and NHTSA purchase cars to test based on sales volume. The majority of all of the MB models are NOT rated, due to their lower volume compared to other brands.

So the SLK doesn't have any stars :)

Closest think I could find is the European Crash Testing Agency: EuroNCAP.

They tested the SLK170 (not the current SLK171). It rated 4 stars (out of 5), the front rating was 69%, the side was 83% (also they test pedestrian impact, which was low 22%, but I don't believe that is used in the overal rating).

Anyway, I do NOT believe the SLK170 had side airbags (nor the knee airbags), is that correct?

So I would think the SLK171 would score better IF if were tested.
 
#7 ·
Duo-Art said:
Maybe I'm stupid but I've never considered crash safety when buying a car. Accident avoidance ability matters far more.
Do (did) you have kids? By that I don't mean children, I meant kids getting ready to drive. Their "accident avoidance ability" is not even on the scale! ;) So for those vehicles I look for ALL the airbags I can find, anti-lock brakes, and a form of ESP/VSC.

But, I do agree, on my car (the SLK) crash safety was not a consideration.
 
#8 ·
Duo-Art said:
Maybe I'm stupid but I've never considered crash safety when buying a car. Accident avoidance ability matters far more.
Ever since my wife totaled our BMW (and survived relatively unscathed), the more air bags, the better. She hit an "invisible" patch of black ice, something that couldn't be avoided unless she knew it was there. Safety features like bi-xenons, multiple airbags, etc., are now a major consideration in my car purchases. I'm just glad that the SLK passed my safety test. Would have been a shame to pass on such a great car...
 
#9 ·
I aggree completely with avoidance, but it is really a combination of the two that make the difference when it comes to life and death. I was in an accident about 6 months ago. I was going about 50Mph and there was a car stopped in my lane. I could not swerve around it so I slammed on the breaks. ABS kicked in and I went from 50Mph to 15Mph in under 50 feet (AMG brakes). I did hit the guy, but it could have been so much worse. The crumple zone kicked in and the front of the car absorbed the entire impact with out the airbags going off. Now repair did run about $12K, but that's what insurance is for. If I had been driving my Jeep (with the worst brakes ever) I would be in the hospital or dead right now.
 
#10 ·
bloflin said:
Nope, on all 3 points :D

The 2 major US crash testing and ratings services are IIHS and NHTSA.

Both of these purchase the cars off of the open market. There is no requirement (nor collusion) with the Manufacturers.

There is no requirement that cars HAVE to be crash tested by independent agencies. A common misconception.

Car manufacturers DO need to do their own safety testing and submit results showing they meet the geographies (like US or Japan, etc.) laws, however.

Both IIHS and NHTSA purchase cars to test based on sales volume. The majority of all of the MB models are NOT rated, due to their lower volume compared to other brands.

So the SLK doesn't have any stars :)

Closest think I could find is the European Crash Testing Agency: EuroNCAP.

They tested the SLK170 (not the current SLK171). It rated 4 stars (out of 5), the front rating was 69%, the side was 83% (also they test pedestrian impact, which was low 22%, but I don't believe that is used in the overal rating).

Anyway, I do NOT believe the SLK170 had side airbags (nor the knee airbags), is that correct?

So I would think the SLK171 would score better IF if were tested.

Thanks for the clarification blofin, but i didn't say that the manufacturers provided the cars to an independant agency for testing, i only said they covered the costs of the crashed cars and testing was required. http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story...t=crash&story=crashKnow&referer=&aff=national

Regardless of how many stars the SLK WOULD get, i still stand by my statement that mercedes holds a higher standard when it comes to safety which is why the Star system isn't advertised on their cars. If they felt it was important, i'm sure they could pay or provide the cars to some other agency to encourage them to be tested.
 
#11 ·
FlyByNite said:
I aggree completely with avoidance, but it is really a combination of the two that make the difference when it comes to life and death. I was in an accident about 6 months ago. I was going about 50Mph and there was a car stopped in my lane. I could not swerve around it so I slammed on the breaks. ABS kicked in and I went from 50Mph to 15Mph in under 50 feet (AMG brakes). I did hit the guy, but it could have been so much worse. The crumple zone kicked in and the front of the car absorbed the entire impact with out the airbags going off. Now repair did run about $12K, but that's what insurance is for. If I had been driving my Jeep (with the worst brakes ever) I would be in the hospital or dead right now.
After I had my wife's car towed to the bodyshop to see if it could be repaired, the owner told me "There are only two cars that you want to be in if you are in a serious accident - a BMW or a MB." He's been in business over thirty years and has probably seen every make/model of car, so I figured he knew what he was talking about. The car didn't survive, but I'm glad my wife did.
 
#12 ·
cyberdrakon said:
Thanks for the clarification blofin, but i didn't say that the manufacturers provided the cars to an independant agency for testing, i only said they covered the costs of the crashed cars and testing was required. http://www.cars.com/go/advice/Story...t=crash&story=crashKnow&referer=&aff=national

Regardless of how many stars the SLK WOULD get, i still stand by my statement that mercedes holds a higher standard when it comes to safety which is why the Star system isn't advertised on their cars. If they felt it was important, i'm sure they could pay or provide the cars to some other agency to encourage them to be tested.
Cyberdrakon, I don't want to pick on wording, as I think we are saying the same thing, but I don't want to leave people confused either.

So to clarify:

Both IIHS and NHTSA are INDEPENDENT Testing Agencies.

They buy the cars on the open market. The manufacturers are NOT involved NOR do they cover any of the cost.

Additionaly, there is absolutely NO requirement for any car model to be tested by either IIHS or NHTSA.

The "marketable" STAR ratings come from these Independent agencies.

There ARE requirements (and these vary by country and their laws) that Manufacturers perform certain safety tests (which they perform "in house") and they then submit paperwork to the country government for approval. These tests are DIFFERENT then what the IIHS or NHTSA does.
 
#13 ·
thanks brooks, we are saying the same thing, but you are being much clearer. i didn't know that nhtsa is independant from government, that's interesting. i did know about IIHS.
 
#15 ·
Duo-Art said:
Maybe I'm stupid but I've never considered crash safety when buying a car. Accident avoidance ability matters far more.
Have you seen the VW commercials were they are cheerily driving down the road and then are involved in an accident. They have no time to react and avoid. In those cases you want to have the car protect you as much as it can.

(admittedly in the commercials all the passengers including the driver aren't paying as much attention as they should, but the situations they are in really could not have been avoided even if they were more alert)

As someone once told me, "If someone said they would deliberately try to crash into me somewhere within the next 5 miles, I would be putting on a double seat belt harness and a crash helmet." But of course you can never tell when it is going to happen.
 
#16 ·
mtiede said:
Have you seen the VW commercials were they are cheerily driving down the road and then are involved in an accident. They have no time to react and avoid. In those cases you want to have the car protect you as much as it can.
Amen. You can never tell when a drunk driver or some other idiot will decide to choose you for target practice. Best thing to do is drive defensively and enjoy the ride. For those of us who drive SLKs, that's easy.
 
#17 ·
To sum up what you friends just said,

the SAFETY of a car is the correlation of 2 points:

1. Active, where the driver (we together with the car) have the upper hand and controls the situation, avoid, accelarate, brake or go down the hill...

and

2. Passive, where the A**hole from the other lane has 'locked the target' :eek: and comes straight upon us. Then, we look for the crash test results of the car, to check in case we meet the A$$hole, if we will survive...

Hope that this moment will NEVER come for everyone!!
 
#18 ·
GregoryGR said:
To sum up what you friends just said,

the SAFETY of a car is the correlation of 2 points:

1. Active, where the driver (we together with the car) have the upper hand and controls the situation, avoid, accelarate, brake or go down the hill...

and

2. Passive, where the A**hole from the other lane has 'locked the target' :eek: and comes straight upon us. Then, we look for the crash test results of the car, to check in case we meet the A$$hole, if we will survive...

Hope that this moment will NEVER come for everyone!!

Hmm - need to be careful worrying too much about point 2. Not because it doesn't happen but because the only real way to protect ourselves from that is for us all to buy the biggest, heaviest tank we can find. That is hardly the spirit of having a sports car like the SLK is it?

Lifes short - get on with it.
 
#19 ·
Astin said:
Hmm - need to be careful worrying too much about point 2. Not because it doesn't happen but because the only real way to protect ourselves from that is for us all to buy the biggest, heaviest tank we can find. That is hardly the spirit of having a sports car like the SLK is it?

Lifes short - get on with it.
No tank is needed (in fact I hate SUVs because they endanger others). The SLK seems to do well in crashes.
 
#20 ·
Astin said:
Hmm - need to be careful worrying too much about point 2. Not because it doesn't happen but because the only real way to protect ourselves from that is for us all to buy the biggest, heaviest tank we can find.
That would probably mean all of us would have to drive Hummers or something comparable. Not a pretty thought. Even if you bought a Hummer, though, you'd still probably lose out if you went head-to-head with a semi. Just the law of physics.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top