News:

The ORG - No back-slapping boys club!

Main Menu

Discuss amongst yourselves: w116 safety vs. new cars

Started by michaeld, 20 November 2006, 11:38 PM

Mforcer

Quote from: michaeld on 22 November 2006, 11:39 PM
The other night on the news they were providing the results of the latest insurance industry crash tests, and showing the obvious footage of cars crashing into blocks and blocks into cars.  It occurred to me then to wonder whether any tests involved BIGGER blocks.  Mforcer's point is a good one: a lighter-weight car can perform well in the industry crash test, but quite poorly when a larger vehicle smites it.  This might well lead to the phenomenon of "building a car to pass the crash test" rather than building the safest car (analogous to studying to pass the multiple choice test rather than studying to truly learn).

I think the car makers have head in the right direction by tending to lower mass cars. A car needs a certain mass to operate (mass of engine etc.) which allows for a fairly even mass distribution amongst vehicles on the road. It wouldn't make sense for cars to be built with a larger mass just for the 'safety'. If mass equated safety, all the car compaies would be adding mass to vehicles and we would all be driving trucks.

The only thing that people will always need to remember is that small, lighter cars need to drive with more caution when larger and heavier vehicles are around.
Michael
1977 450SE [Brilliant Red]
2006 B200

michaeld

Quote from: Mforcer on 25 November 2006, 05:07 PM
I think the car makers have head in the right direction by tending to lower mass cars. A car needs a certain mass to operate (mass of engine etc.) which allows for a fairly even mass distribution amongst vehicles on the road. It wouldn't make sense for cars to be built with a larger mass just for the 'safety'. If mass equated safety, all the car compaies would be adding mass to vehicles and we would all be driving trucks.

The only thing that people will always need to remember is that small, lighter cars need to drive with more caution when larger and heavier vehicles are around.[/quote]

Quote from: michaeld on 21 November 2006, 05:23 PMHere's my version of "conspiracy theory": the government wants to have more fuel-efficent cars, so it definitely would not want to pitch the wisdom of "greater weight equals greater safety."  The insurance industry does not want to back the claim that "heavier = safer" because it would create a "weight war" that would ultimately create MORE danger and BIGGER collisions - and therefore BIGGER payouts.  The auto industry does not want to build bigger cars because metal is expensive and would undercut their profits.  And there you have it: a perfect storm behind the notion of creating underweight cars and claiming they are safer than ever.  [Remember, just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean that they aren't really out to get me! :P].

I inserted both quotes together (gosh, I sure do love quoting myself! (if I don't say so myself) 8)) simply to point out that "consensus" thing I was referring to; namely, weight wins.  And that makes our 4500 lb w116s winners if we get in an accident.

Mforcer is right, of course.  The auto/insurance industries don't want to acknowledge that "heavier is safer" because then (one would at least assume) everyone would want to buy heavier vehicles, and the "gain" by having a bigger car would be overcome by the fact that the other guy has one, also.  Modern vehicles are safer than ever relative to the weight of other cars on the road.  But the well-made older car is conspicuously left out of the modern safety equation.

But when it comes to the fact that most new cars (and even many trucks) are lighter, their loss is our gain.  Their being lighter and me being heavier makes me safer.  As the gamblers say, I'll take them odds.

And mind you, w116s are not safer simply because they are heavier.  They are, in fact, safer than other heavy cars of the 1970s.  They were the safest car in the world in the 1970s.  I once wrote a post that tried to argue that our w116s in many ways optimized the best of the new with the best of the old.  One of the ways the w116 was optimal was safety.

It also occurs that if one really wanted a driver airbag, one could probably have one (side bags and passenger bags would of course be another matter) simply by installing an airbag-equipped steering wheel.  I believe all the hardware (other than the diagnostic stuff) is in the steering wheel itself.  I wouldn't go to that length, mind you, partly because I like my w116 steering wheel too darned much to part with it.

We have to practice a little more good driving to stay safe, because we don't have ABS, Electronic Stability Control, Active Body Control (although the w116s pioneered ABS beginning in 1978 models).  But I'll tell you what: those new car owners that do have them better use them around our w116s, because they DO NOT want to get into a fender-bender with our cars.
Mike

s class

Guys,

I've only just climbed on this thread now, but I want to respectfully challenge the apparent concensus that newer cars are lighter.

First, lets look at S-class cars.  My 280SE weighs 1650kg.  My 1992 W140 500SEL weighs 2150kg.  That's right, I kid you not.  Before we speculate about weight of cars, can anyone provide us with the weights of W220 and W221?.  OK if you think W220 and W221 are too big and expensive to be a fair comparison, what about the current E class?  I don't know what it weighs, but heres 50 bucks its heavier than the W116. 

OK then in the lightweight class, I have a 1983 Ford XR3, completely restored.  In its day, it was a hot performance compact competing with Mk1 VW GTi.  It weighs 895kg.  My wife previously had a 1997 Opel corsa.  I think it weighed about 900kg.  Now she drives the latest shape 2005 Opel Corsa sport, and it weighs 1250kg.

I think that if we compare any old car with a current model in the same size and performance class, you will always find that the old car will be "tougher", and deform less than the new model.  As a corollary to that, I think it may be fair to say that in exchange the newer car will protect the occupants better, but suffer more grievous and expensive damage itself. 

The Getz is the car we all love to mock.  True they are built like sardine tins trimmed with tupperware, and they look pretty horrible after an accident.  So I will compare them not to our W116's, but rather to an old car of the same size and performance class, say a Ford Escort and a Mk1 Golf.  Those were probably two of the best small cars in the early 1980's.  Have you seen one of them after a big accident?  I have seen many in scrapyards in my younger days when I was a Ford nut, and I assure you they are pretty horrible - steering columns through chests etc.  I would rather have an accident in a Getz than a 1980 Escort any day.  But that's like saying I'd rather loose my left hand than my right hand, so to bring this back on topic, certainly I'd rather be in a W116 than a Getz or an Escort during a big accident.  But a W116 vs a W221?  Tough call.  I think either would be "good enough" for me. 

Ryan


[color=blue]'76 6.9 Euro[/color], [color=red]'78 6.9 AMG[/color], '80 280SE, [color=brown]'74 350SE[/color], [color=black]'82 500SEL euro full hydro, '83 500SEL euro full hydro [/color], '81 500SL

Andrew116

Quote from: s class on 28 November 2006, 02:36 AM
OK if you think W220 and W221 are too big and expensive to be a fair comparison, what about the current E class?  I don't know what it weighs, but heres 50 bucks its heavier than the W116. 

Ryan

And you'd win the bet because
- at this page>>> http://www.carfolio.com/specifications/models/car/?car=140162&Mercedes-Benz
it is stated the

Technical specifications of 2006 Mercedes-Benz E 500 Estate 4MATIC
Type   4/5S EST
Number of doors   5
dimensions & weight

Length   4888 mm   192.4 in   
Width   1822 mm   71.7 in   
Height   1500 mm   59.1 in   
      
Kerb weight   1990 kg   4387 lb   

So are other cars from Mercedes. You can find almost all the models from Benz on the site.
Hope that sustains your call Ryan.  ;)

See ya,
Andrew

michaeld

This is all very much news to me.  Sorry for contributing to any fallacies. :'(

I am educable, however.

I looked up my vehicles weight.  My owner's manual told me to consult the door pillar, so I did so.  According to it, my vehicle's "GVWR" is 5120 lbs.  That figure may or may not include the 930 lbs found on another label which is described as the "vehicle weight capacity" (the same sticker also lists the rec'd tire pressures).  The only figure that the door pillar yields that could possibly be the vehicle weight is that "5120 lb" figure. 

This is not necessarily the same thing as the "kerb weight" as listed on the e500 model above.

We must first of all make certain that we are talking about apples to apples.  I'd like to know what the "curb weight" of my 77 450SEL actually is, if it is different from the door pillar tag.  Regardless, that weight figure for the e500 is pretty impressive mass for a modern auto, and I did not realize they were making the things that heavy today.

I DO know that, beginning in the 1980s, car builders were forced to lower their weights in order to conform to federal fuel mileage reqmts.  That was when builders began to shift to aluminum blocks, and the major reason was weight-savings.  It certainly IS possible that, with more fuel efficient engines, carmakers are beginning to increase the weight to get that better "cruise" feeling.  And, of course, there are a lot of heavy pickups and truck-platformed SUVs on the road.

Regardless, however, I would still argue that our w116s are considerably heavier than most cars on the road, and therefore the same arguments would apply - just not universally.

s class

michaeld,

Yes the W116's were the heavyweights of the day, but I think they only rank as middleweights now. 

Yes, alloys are used in all nature of things - engines, suspensions etc and the do save weight.  BUT, now cars include so much extra stuff that they didn't need before - airbags, computers, catalytic converters, side impact beams, sound deadening, lots of speakers, cup holders (they gotta be a few oz each?) - these items each don't weigh much, but it all adds up. 

Ryan


[color=blue]'76 6.9 Euro[/color], [color=red]'78 6.9 AMG[/color], '80 280SE, [color=brown]'74 350SE[/color], [color=black]'82 500SEL euro full hydro, '83 500SEL euro full hydro [/color], '81 500SL