- With standard equipment
- With safety pack
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Find more information in the Rating Validity tab of the assessment
-
Adult Occupant
See More
90% -
Child Occupant
See More
83% -
Vulnerable Road Users
See More
78% -
Safety Assist
See More
72%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
- 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
-
i-Size CRS
-
ISOFIX CRS
-
Universal Belted CRS
- Easy
Difficult
Safety critical- Not allowed
| Seat Position | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Front | 2nd row | |||
| Passenger | Left | center | Right | |
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (rearward) (iSize) |  |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi 2way Pearl & 2wayFix (forward) (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X2 i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Flex FIX i-Size (iSize) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & FamilyFix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| BeSafe iZi Kid X4 ISOfix (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer Duo Plus (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (ISOFIX) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Maxi Cosi Cabriofix & EasyBase2 (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer King II LS (Belt) | |
|
|
|
| Britax Römer KidFix XP (Belt) | |
|
|
|
- Easy
- Difficult
- Safety critical
- Not allowed
In the frontal offset test, dummy readings of neck tension in the 10-year dummy indicated poor protection of this body area. Otherwise, protection was good. For the 6-year dummy, protection of the neck was marginal. In the side barrier test, protection of both child dummies was good. The front passenger airbag can be disabled to allow a rearward-facing child restraint to be used in this seating position. Clear information is provided to the driver regarding the status of the airbag and the system was rewarded. All of the restraint types for which the G-Class is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 15.1 Pts
Pelvis Impact 5.9 Pts
Leg Impact 6.0 Pts
| System Name | Active Brake Assist | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 10 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was marginal or adequate over most of its surface, with areas of good and poor performance. Protection of pedestrian's legs was good or adequate, as was the protection offered to the pelvis. The AEB system can detect pedestrians and cyclists, as well as other vehicles. The system performed well when tested for its reaction to vulnerable road users such as these.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Speed Limit Assist |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | Not available | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Active Lane Keeping Assist |
| Type | LKA (including LDW) and ELK |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping |
Adequate
|
| Lane Keep Assist |
Marginal
|
| Human Machine Interface |
Adequate
|
| System Name | Active Brake Assist | |||
| Type | Autonomous Emergency Braking and Forward Collision Warning | |||
| Operational From | 7 km/h | |||
| Additional Information | Restraint activation | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
Driver reacts to warning
The AEB system gave generally good results in tests of its functionality at highway speeds. The car has a lane assistance system which helps prevent inadvertent drifting out of lane but can also intervene in some more critical situations. The speed control system uses digital mapping combined with a camera to identify what the local speed limit is and to inform the driver, who can then set the limiter to the appropriate speed. A seatbelt reminder is standard for front and rear seats.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Mercedes-Benz G350d, LHD
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2019
Kerb Weight 2451kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all G-Class
Class Large SUV
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 part of the safety pack- Not fitted to the test vehicle but available as option or as part of the safety pack
- Not available
- Not applicable
Videos
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | 3.0 diesel | G350d* | 4 x 4 |  |
|
| 5 door SUV | 4.0 petrol | G500 | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | 4.0 petrol | G63 | 4 x 4 | |
|
| 5 door SUV | Electric | G580 with EQ Technology ** | 4 x 4 | |
|
* Tested variant
** Additional tests 2024
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the G-Class remained stable in the frontal offset test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of the driver and passenger. Mercedes-Benz showed that a similar level of protection would be provided to occupants of different sizes and to those sitting in different positions. Chest compression in the driver dummy indicated weak protection of this body region. In the full-width rigid barrier test, chest protection was marginal for the driver's chest but was good for all other critical body areas. For the rear dummy, dummy readings of chest compression indicated marginal protection. However, a high load in the shoulder belt pointed to a risk of injury which the dummy is not able to measure, and protection of the chest was penalised and downrated to 'weak'. In both the side barrier test and the side pole impact, protection of all critical body areas was good and the G-Class scored maximum points. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injury in the event of a rear-end collision. A geometric assessment of the rear seats indicated marginal whiplash protection. The standard-fit autonomous emergency braking (AEB) system performed well in tests at the low speeds, typical of city driving, at which many whiplash injuries are caused.