The Mercedes-Benz M-Class, a luxury SUV, was first introduced in 1998, quickly becoming a popular choice for families and individuals seeking both comfort and performance. For those considering a pre-owned SUV, the 2004 Mercedes Ml Class represents a compelling option, blending luxury with a focus on safety. This article delves into the safety performance of the 2004 Mercedes ML Class, drawing insights from rigorous crash testing conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Specifically, we will examine the frontal offset crash test results for a 1999 ML 320 model, which is representative of the 1999-2005 models built after March 1999, and directly applicable to the 2004 Mercedes ML Class.
The IIHS conducted a 40 mph frontal offset crash test on a 1999 Mercedes-Benz ML 320, evaluating the vehicle’s crashworthiness. It’s important to note that Mercedes-Benz implemented structural improvements to the M-Class starting in March 1999 to enhance occupant protection in frontal collisions. These enhancements are relevant for all models manufactured from that point through 2005, including the 2004 Mercedes ML Class. The test results provide a valuable assessment of how well this generation of the ML Class protects its occupants in a significant frontal impact.
The overall evaluation for the Mercedes ML Class in the frontal offset crash test was rated as Good, the highest rating possible. This “Good” rating extends to critical aspects of vehicle safety, including the structure and safety cage. A robust safety cage is fundamental in maintaining occupant survival space during a crash, and the ML Class demonstrated its effectiveness in this area.
In terms of driver injury measures, the 2004 Mercedes ML Class also performed strongly. For head and neck protection, the rating was Acceptable, indicating a good level of safety in this critical area. Chest protection was rated as Good, signifying that the restraint systems effectively minimized chest injury risk. Furthermore, the protection for legs and feet on both the left and right sides was also rated Good. These individual injury assessments contribute to the overall “Good” rating and demonstrate a comprehensive approach to occupant safety in the 2004 Mercedes ML Class. The evaluation also considered driver restraints and dummy kinematics, which were rated as Good. This means the airbags and seatbelts worked effectively together to control the driver dummy’s movement during the crash, reducing the risk of injury.
The technical measurements from the crash test provide further details about the vehicle’s performance. Footwell intrusion measurements were minimal, with intrusions ranging from 6 to 12 cm across different footwell points. Instrument panel rearward movement was also minimal, measuring only 1 to 2 cm. Similarly, steering column movement was limited to 3 cm upward and 1 cm rearward, and A-pillar rearward movement was just 2 cm. These low intrusion measurements reinforce the “Good” rating for structure and safety cage, demonstrating the 2004 Mercedes ML Class’s ability to maintain crucial space for the driver in a frontal crash.
It’s interesting to note that in the tested vehicle, the passenger airbag did not deploy as the sensor detected an unoccupied front passenger seat. This is a safety feature designed to prevent unnecessary airbag deployment and potential injury in cases where the passenger seat is empty or occupied by a child in a specially designed car seat.
Detailed driver injury measurements were also recorded. The Head Injury Criterion (HIC-15) was measured at 308, and peak g-force at hard head contact was 66g. Neck tension was 2.4 kN, and the maximum Nij (neck injury criterion) was 0.42. Chest maximum compression was 42 mm. Femur forces for the left and right legs were 3.5 kN and 1.8 kN, respectively, with knee displacements of 7 mm and 8 mm. Maximum tibia indices were 0.48 and 0.40, and tibia axial forces were 2.7 kN and 1.5 kN for the left and right legs. Foot acceleration was 69g on the left and 62g on the right. These measurements are within acceptable safety limits and support the overall “Good” and “Acceptable” injury ratings.
In conclusion, the 2004 Mercedes ML Class demonstrates robust frontal crash protection, earning an overall “Good” rating from the IIHS for models manufactured after March 1999. Key strengths include its strong structure and safety cage, good driver restraint system, and effective protection against chest and leg/foot injuries. While head/neck protection was rated “Acceptable,” the overall safety performance of the 2004 Mercedes ML Class makes it a safe and reliable choice in the used luxury SUV market, especially for buyers prioritizing safety and occupant protection.
