Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
See More
![]()
74% -
See More
![]()
69% -
See More
![]()
56% -
See More
![]()
33%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Front Seat
Car
Pole
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
outboard
center
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option-
Infants up to 13 kg
-
Infants and toddlers up to 18 kg
-
Toddlers from 9 to 18 kg
-
Toddlers over 18 kg
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King Plus (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
 |
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (Belt) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X3 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Pearl & Familyfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
![]()
Easy![]()
Difficult![]()
Safety critical![]()
Not allowed
Based on dummy readings in the dynamic tests, the Citan scored maximum points for its protection of both the 3 year and the 1½ year dummy. In the frontal test, forward movement of the 3 year old dummy, sat in a forward facing restraint, was not excessive and, in the side impact, both dummies were properly contained within the protective shells of their restraints, minimising the likelihood of head contact with parts of the car interior. The passenger airbag cannot be disabled, so a rearward-facing child restraint cannot be used in that seating position. Most of the child restraints for which the car is designed could be installed without a problem. However, the group II/III seat could not be properly accommodated and care was needed to ensure the ISOFIX anchorages were properly engaged with the Britax Römer Duo Plus. Cars before VIN WDF4157031U119604 had an earlier version of the user manual with less detailed information about the fitment of child restraints. However, the overall star rating of these cars would be the same as the vehicles tested. An updated user manual is available for all customer at the Mercedes-Benz webpage (www.mercedes-benz.com).
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 14.0 Pts
Pelvis Impact 0.5 Pts
Leg Impact 5.9 Pts
The bumper was predominantly good but the front edge of the bonnet provided poor protection in most of the areas tested. Adequate protection was provided by the bonnet over much of its surface but protection in those areas where an adult's head might strike was mostly poor.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| Speed Limitation Function | Manually Set |
| System Name | ESP 9i | |
| Performance | ||
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.00 s | 2.68% | meets ECE requirements |
| Vehicle Yaw Rate @ COS + 1.75 s | 1.651% | meets ECE requirements |
| Lateral Displacement @ BOS + 1.07 s | 2.66 m | meets ECE requirements |
--safetyAssistCommentEN--
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Mercedes-Benz CITAN Kombi, 109 Blue Efficiency 'High' grade, RHD
Body Type - Small MPV
Year Of Publication 2013
Kerb Weight 1460kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - WDF4157031U119604
Class Small MPV
Safety Equipment
Note: Other equipment may be available on the vehicle but was not considered in the test year.
![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as standard![]()
Fitted to the vehicle as option![]()
Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option![]()
Not Available![]()
Not Applicable
Videos
Rating Validity
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger dummies. Inspection of the vehicle showed that some structures in the dashboard presented a hazard to the knees and femurs of occupants of different sizes and to those sat in different positions. Dummy readings of chest compression indicated marginal protection of the driver's chest. In the side barrier test, dummy readings indicated good protection of the head. However, the side curtain airbag did not deploy as intended, getting caught on the upper seat belt anchorage point, and the car was penalised. The same thing happened with the curtain airbag in the side pole test. Mercedes have indicated that they will improve the performance of the curtain airbag. Dummy readings of rib compression in the pole test indicated weak protection of the chest area. Moreover, after the test, there was a noticeable gap between the B-pillar and the front edge of the sliding door. The car was penalised as such a gap might jeopardise the protection of occupants' limbs. The front seats and head restraints provided marginal protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision.