- 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
-
See More
![]()
96% -
See More
![]()
90% -
See More
![]()
75% -
See More
![]()
75%
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Passenger
Driver
Rear Passenger
Driver
Car
Pole
Rear Seat
Front Seat
-
Approaching a stationary car: Left Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: No Offset
-
Approaching a stationary car: Right Offset
- 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
Difficult
Safety critical| 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 FIT 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, protection of all critical body regions was good for both child dummies, with the exception of the neck of the ten-year dummy where readings of neck tension indicated marginal protection. In the side barrier test, protection was good for all critical body areas for both dummies and the EQC scored maximum points in this part of the assessment. The front passenger airbag is automatically disabled when a rearward-facing child restraint is put in that seating position. Tests showed that the system worked robustly and the system was rewarded. All of the child restraint types for which the B-Class is designed could be properly installed and accommodated.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
Head Impact 17.4 Pts
Pelvis Impact 1.6 Pts
Leg Impact 5.9 Pts
| System Name | Active Brake Assist | ||
| Type | Auto-Brake with Forward Collision Warning | ||
| Operational From | 7 km/h | ||
| PERFORMANCE | | |||
- Day time
- Night time
Day time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Child running from behind parked vehicles
-
Adult along the roadside
Night time
-
Adult crossing the road
-
Adult along the roadside
-
Approaching a crossing cyclist
-
Cyclist along the roadside
The protection provided by the bonnet to the head of a struck pedestrian was good or adequate at almost all test locations. Protection of pedestrians' legs by the bumper was good or adequate. However, protection of the pelvis was predominantly poor. The AEB system can detect vulnerable road users like pedestrians and cyclists, as well other cars. Tests of its functionality demonstrated good performance.
- Good
- Adequate
- Marginal
- Weak
- Poor
| System Name | Traffic Sign Assist |
| Speed Limit Information Function | Camera & Map |
| Speed Control Function | System advised (accurate to 5km/h) |
| Applies To | All Seats | ||
| Warning | Driver Seat | Front Passenger(s) | Rear Passenger(s) |
| Visual | |
|
|
| Audible | |
|
|
| Occupant Detection | |
|
|
|
|||
| System Name | Active Lane Keeping Assist |
| Type | ELK + LKA (including LDW) |
| Operational From | 60 km/h |
| Performance | |
| Emergency Lane Keeping | |
| Lane Keep Assist | |
| Human Machine Interface | |
| System Name | Active Brake Assist | |||
| Type | Autonomous Emergency Braking and Forward Collision Warning | |||
| Operational From | 7 km/h | |||
- Autobrake function only
- Driver reacts to warning
Autobrake function only
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
Driver reacts to warning
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a stationary car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a slower moving car
-
Approaching a braking car
The AEB system performed well in tests of its response to other vehicles at highway speeds. The EQC has a seatbelt reminder system for the front and rear seats. A speed limit recognition system uses a camera and digital mapping to advise the driver of the local limit, and allows easy activation of the speed limiter. A lane support system helps the driver to avoid inadvertent drifting out of lane and also intervenes more aggressively in some certain critical situations.
- Specifications
- Safety Equipment
- Videos
- Advanced Rewards
- Rating Validity
Specifications
Tested Model Mercedes-EQ EQC 400 4MATIC - AMG Line
Body Type - 5 door SUV
Year Of Publication 2019
Kerb Weight 2495kg
VIN From Which Rating Applies - all EQCs
Class Small 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
Fitted to the vehicle as part of the safety packVideos
Advanced Rewards
Rating Validity
Variants of Model Range
| Body Type | Engine & Transmission | Model Name/Code | Drivetrain | Rating Applies | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LHD | RHD | ||||
| 5 door SUV | 400 electric | EQC 400 4MATIC* | 4 x 4 |  |
|
* Tested variant
Find more information in the General Comments section of the assessment
Share
The passenger compartment of the EQC remained stable in the offset frontal test. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both the 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. For the passenger, protection of all critical body areas was good. Likewise, in the full-width rigid barrier test, protection of the driver was good for all critical body parts. For the rear passenger, dummy readings of chest compression indicated a marginal level of protection for this part of the body, with good or adequate protection elsewhere. In the side barrier impact, the EQC scored maximum points with good protection all-round. Dummy readings indicated good protection for all critical body areas in the more severe side pole test, too. However, a post-test inspection revealed that the upper hinge of the rear impacted-side door had broken, and the car was penalised. Tests on the front seats and head restraints demonstrated good protection against whiplash injuries 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 at which many whiplash injuries occur, with collisions against another vehicle avoided or mitigated in all test scenarios.