-
Подробнее
![]()
89% -
Подробнее
![]()
76% -
Подробнее
![]()
47% -
Подробнее
![]()
86%
- Хорошая
- Достаточная
- Низкая
- Слабая
- Плохая
Пассажир
Водитель
Переднее сиденье
Автомобиль
Уровень безопасности при столкновении со столбом
- Хорошая
- Достаточная
- Низкая
- Слабая
- Плохая
Пассажир
(снаружи)
Центральное
![]()
Установленных на транспортном средстве в качестве стандартной![]()
Не установленные на испытательном транспортном средстве, но в качестве опции![]()
Не доступно
Не установленные на испытательном транспортном средстве, но в качестве опцииIn 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.
- Хорошая
- Достаточная
- Низкая
- Слабая
- Плохая
Удар по голове 11 Баллы
Удар по тазу 0 Баллы
Удар по ногам 6 Баллы
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.
- Хорошая
- Достаточная
- Низкая
- Слабая
- Плохая
| Название системы | ESP | |
| Результаты | ||
| Применяется к | All seats | ||
| Внимание! | Сиденье водителя | один или несколько передних пассажиров | один или несколько задних пассажиров |
| Визуальное | |
|
|
| На слух | |
|
|
|
|||
Испытание не пройденоThe 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.
- Технические характеристики
- Оборудование обеспечения безопасности
- Видеоролики
- Награды Advanced
- Ежегодные осмотры и косметические ремонты
Технические характеристики
Испытываемая модель Mercedes Benz GLK220 CDI, base grade, LHD
Тип кузова - 5 door SUV
Год сборки 2010
Собственная масса 1845kg
Идентификационный номер автомобиля, по которому определяется рейтинг - WDC204****F450200
Класс Малый паркетник
Оборудование обеспечения безопасности
Примечание. Автомобиль может быть оснащен другим оборудованием, которое не рассматривалось в год испытания.
![]()
Установленных на транспортном средстве в качестве стандартной![]()
Установленных на транспортном средстве в качестве опции![]()
Не установленные на испытательном транспортном средстве, но в качестве опции![]()
Не доступно![]()
Не применимо
Установленных на транспортном средстве в качестве опцииВидеоролики
Награды Advanced
Ежегодные осмотры и косметические ремонты
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.
Поделиться ссылкой
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.