Good in front and rear crash protection. I was disappointed to see that it is rated only acceptable in side impact protection and there is a significant risk of injury to the driver (rib fracture). I would have expected no less than a perfect score in a vehicle of this size and price range.
As a comparison, Acura MDX is rated good in all three. Sienna has better side impact rating (but worse in rear impact).
I am never quite sure what to make of these results; the IIHS is not regarded by the car industry as an independent, objective organization -- they are funded by the insurance industry, which has its own priorities, which may or may not match the drivers'. From what I've read, crash results in general are highly dependent on the test protocol -- i.e., the angle,position, and speed of the impact. If you were to test the vehicle differently: different angle, speed, and position of impact, you will probably get a totally different result; the rankings of vehicles (best to worst) might also change. Some manufacturers engineer their vehicles to do very well on these particular tests (which are unique to the US), while others (BMW and Mercedes) focus more on the European tests (which test totally different crash modes), with the objective of doing well on their protocols. At the end of the day, I'm not sure you can really say any of these vehicles is truly safer than another -- vehicles that might provide you excellent performance in one type of crash might be less desirable in another. To me the best solution for the driver is to stay out of collisions altogether! If you've watched videos of these crash tests, they're absolutely horrific. I think it's far better to drive a vehicle with excellent handling/braking, and avoid driving while distracted. This won't protect you from the incompetent jerk who plows into you, but it should serve you well in avoiding many accidents.
I am never quite sure what to make of these results; the IIHS is not regarded by the car industry as an independent, objective organization -- they are funded by the insurance industry, which has its own priorities, which may or may not match the drivers'. From what I've read, crash results in general are highly dependent on the test protocol -- i.e., the angle,position, and speed of the impact. If you were to test the vehicle differently: different angle, speed, and position of impact, you will probably get a totally different result; the rankings of vehicles (best to worst) might also change. Some manufacturers engineer their vehicles to do very well on these particular tests (which are unique to the US), while others (BMW and Mercedes) focus more on the European tests (which test totally different crash modes), with the objective of doing well on their protocols. At the end of the day, I'm not sure you can really say any of these vehicles is truly safer than another -- vehicles that might provide you excellent performance in one type of crash might be less desirable in another. To me the best solution for the driver is to stay out of collisions altogether! If you've watched videos of these crash tests, they're absolutely horrific. I think it's far better to drive a vehicle with excellent handling/braking, and avoid driving while distracted. This won't protect you from the incompetent jerk who plows into you, but it should serve you well in avoiding many accidents.
Actually IIHS tests are pretty standardized and the insurance industry relies on them to set the premium rates. My personal injury protection premium for R350 is less than that of my 2004 Camry and this is directly correlated to the crash test data. And car makers DO take IIHS seriously enough to make their designs better (BMW and Mercedes have both modified the designs of some models as they fared very poorly earlier).
Even if you read European NCAP crash test ratings, you will find that Mercedes/BMW do not rank highest all the time.
Handling/braking are important as you mention - you will find pretty good coverage of braking distances on dry/wet surfaces and avoidance manouvers in Consumer Reports - they have one of the best real world test tracks (I have visited the facility). In this arena too, our European models are not necessarily better than the Japanese.
IIHS tests are not standardized. Yes, they run them consistently every time, but that's not the definition of a "standardized" test. A standardized test would be globally accepted and used. As you mention in your post, the European tests are different.
IIHS tests are not standardized. Yes, they run them consistently every time, but that's not the definition of a "standardized" test. A standardized test would be globally accepted and used. As you mention in your post, the European tests are different.
"Standardized" does not mean something is "globally accepted and used". Every country has standardized procedures and tests (New Jersey's state level standard math test does not imply it is a standard in China). FDA's standardized procedure for drug approval is not globally accepted and used
In any case, the main point was that the R scored low in crash tests and even in European tests, MB does not score well in all areas.
I'm not thrilled to say this, but some Hyundai crash test results are better than MB.
Maybe that's one of the reasons for the end of the R-class.
__________________
S.
2008 Mercedes C300 Sport mars red/black
2007 Lexus IS350 Sport granite metallic/gray
2004 Porsche 986S seal gray metallic/black/black
2002 Jeep KJ Sport white/gray
Linear Mode
