Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie bitte dem Abschnitt „Allgemeine Kommentare“ der Bewertung
Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie bitte der Registerkarte „Bewertungsgültigkeit“ der Bewertung
-
Mehr lesen
![]()
89% -
Mehr lesen
![]()
76% -
Mehr lesen
![]()
47% -
Mehr lesen
![]()
86%
- Gut
- Angemessen
- Gering
- Schwach
- Schlecht
Beifahrer
Fahrer
Vordersitz
Fahrzeug
Pfeiler
- Gut
- Angemessen
- Gering
- Schwach
- Schlecht
Beifahrer
außen
Mitte
![]()
Ausgestattet mit dem Fahrzeug serienmäßig![]()
Nicht mit dem das Testfahrzeug, sondern als Option erhältlich![]()
Nicht verfügbar
Nicht mit dem das Testfahrzeug, sondern als Option erhältlichIn the frontal impact, forward movement of the head of the 3 year dummy was not excessive. In the side barrier impact, the head of the 3 year and 18 month infant were properly contained within the protective shell of the CRS. Neither dummy recorded values in the test which would reflect poor protection. Rearward facing child restraints sold by Mercedes Benz are automatically detected by the front passenger seat and the airbag for that seating position is disabled. However, other rearward facing child restraints would not be recognised by the system and the airbag remains active. The car contains a permanent label, clearly warning of the potential dangers of using a rearward facing CRS without disabling the passenger airbag.
- Gut
- Angemessen
- Gering
- Schwach
- Schlecht
Kopfaufprall 11,0 Punkte
Beckenaufprall 0,0 Punkte
Beinaufprall 6,0 Punkte
New pedestrian tests have been done to upgrade the rating of the GLK from 2009 to 2010. In the new tests, the bumper scored maximum points for the protection it offered to pedestrians' legs. However, the front edge of the bonnet was rated as poor. In most areas likely to be struck by the head of a child, the protection offered by the bonnet was poor. In those areas likely to be struck by an adult's head, the protection was predominantly good.
- Gut
- Angemessen
- Gering
- Schwach
- Schlecht
| Systembezeichnung | ESP | |
| Leistung | ||
| Gilt für | All seats | ||
| Warnung | Fahrersitz | Beifahrer | Rücksitzinsassen |
| Visuell | |
|
|
| Akustisch | |
|
|
|
|||
Nicht bestandenThe GLK is equipped with Electronic Safety Control (ESC) as standard equipment on all variants. A seatbelt reminder system, covering both front and rear seats, is also standard equipment. A driver-set speed limitation device is standard but Mercedes did not ask for the system to be assessed by Euro NCAP.
- Technische Daten
- Sicherheitsausrüstung
- Videos
- Sonderauszeichnungen
- Bewertungsgültigkeit
Technische Daten
Getestete Modelle Mercedes Benz GLK220 CDI, base grade, LHD
Karosserietyp - 5 door SUV
Baujahr 2010
Leergewicht 1845kg
VIN (Fahrgestellnr.), ab der Bewertung gilt - WDC204****F450200
Klasse Kompakt-SUV
Sicherheitsausrüstung
Hinweis: Andere Ausrüstungen werden zwar für das Fahrzeug evtl. angeboten, wurden jedoch im Testjahr nicht berücksichtigt.
![]()
Ausgestattet mit dem Fahrzeug serienmäßig![]()
Ausgestattet mit dem Fahrzeug als Option![]()
Nicht mit dem das Testfahrzeug, sondern als Option erhältlich![]()
Nicht verfügbar![]()
Nicht anwendbar
Ausgestattet mit dem Fahrzeug als OptionVideos
Sonderauszeichnungen
Bewertungsgültigkeit
Weitere Informationen entnehmen Sie bitte dem Abschnitt „Allgemeine Kommentare“ der Bewertung
The rating of the GLK has been upgraded from 2009 to 2010. The car is unchanged and, apart from the pedestrian tests which have been repeated, test results have been carried over from the previous year. However, the thresholds for the different star ratings have been increased and this assessment shows how the car rates against the more demanding 2010 requirements.
Weiterleiten
Mercedes Benz’s ‘PRE-SAFE’ system is available as an option on the GLK. The system senses when an accident is about to occur and primes the restraint and protection systems in readiness for the collision. The system was not fitted to the test cars in Euro NCAP’s assessments. The passenger compartment remained stable in the frontal impact, the windscreen pillar moving rearwards by only 3mm. Dummy readings indicated good protection of the knees and femurs of both driver and passenger. Mercedes were able to demonstrate that occupants of different sizes, and those sat in different seating positions, would have a similar level of protection against upper leg injuries. Maximum points were scored in the side barrier test. In the more severe side pole test, protection offered by the chest was rated as marginal. Protection against whiplash injuries in a rear impact was also rated as marginal.