Topic: Similarities between today's hot cars and 116's?

[oscar]

...My lip is still quivering from the savaging of my comparison of the 116 to the Chrysler 300.  At least the involuntary crying sessions are coming further apart now...

  Now, Now michaeld.  I wouldn't have called it a savaging, just a slight drubbing   . 
I actually did see some similarities, and the last one I mentioned in my previous post was that I thought the top half of the car resembled a w126.  But as you rightly suggest, though not quoting you directly, we're looking for design aspects that have been copied, not replicas or noting that two different brands each have 4 wheels. I think you've raised an interesting topic.

Having said that, as far as John's post, HOLY COW!  It's one thing for us to see a resemblance in design but for Ford to virtually advertise they made a cheaper version of another brand astounds me.  And what about copyright of the slc photo.  Perhaps Ford took their coupe to the exact same spot in (presumably) Germany and waited for the right light conditions to take their photo. Maybe it was a coincidence that both companies chose the same colour from Dulux and the same locale to shoot some photos.

Re: the Granada's, Aussies would recognise the UK Granda Mk2 (posted by alabassi)
as an '82 Ford Falcon



And the US 4 door Granada posted by John looks very much like an Aussie 70's Ford LTD, except for a Rolls Royce inspired grill and a nice curve below the windows between the A and C pillars.

[michaeld]

Denis and MB350,
Well, I have to admit I was only kidding about crawling into the fetal position and sucking my thumb or whatever it was I said I did.  Actually, if I really HAD had my feelings hurt by anybody, I probably would have stayed away from the forum and pouted for a week or two.  I like this site because it has quite a few truly class-act people on it (btw, both of you are in that catefory as far as I'm concerned!), and no apparent jerks who attack other people.  There are all too many forums out there where people chew each other's heads off as a general rule.  Thank God, this is NOT one of those forums.  The fact that you guys thought I MIGHT have had my feathers ruffled and spoke kindly is proof of that.  Thank you. 
I'm thinking of giving my library card a little exercise and checking out some books on MBz and automotive design.  Imitatation IS the sincerest form of flattery, and these w116 cars are simply too classic NOT to have influenced other car designs.  Maybe I can find a design expert who has done the legwork to trace design influences.
A few years ago I had a Cadillac Fleetwood.  I'd never really been "into" Cadillacs until I got that car, but I began to really appreciate Cadillacs and bought a book on the history of the car.  I started looking for other Cadillacs on the road and admiring them.  That's the way I am now with Mercedes-Benz.  No Benz car goes by without my noticing it.  They are truly beautiful automobiles.  And as far as I'm concerned, the older cars are MUCH more beautiful than the newer ones.
As for your pics, yeah: both those cars have lines that really do remind me of a 116 car.  The Lincoln pic that Denis referenced even talks about the European cars.

[alabbasi]

Switching back to the Chrysler 300C , I think that the 300C is an awesome car! First of all, its about the only interesting looking modern car today. Like it or hate it, it's different. With the SRT-8 this car is going to be a huge classic. Make no mistake, this is a modern day muscle car and will be a classic for the fact that it kicked started the new muscle car era.

For any thinking that it looks like a Mercedes, this is because it is a Mercedes. The Chrysler 300C, Dodge Magnum and Charger are all built on the 96-02 E Class (W210) platform. They share platform, suspension and transmission with the Mercedes Benz cars (the 6 liter Hemi is pure American muscle though).

Love it 

[michaeld]

Alabbasi,
You magnificent fellow!  You made my day with your post.  I just KNEW there was something familiar about those cars; now you've given me the proof.  Thanks a bundle!
I saw the Chrysler 300s and Dodge Magnum wagons well before I bought my Mbz (or even thought about buying one),  and I liked the look of the cars.  After I got my 450 SEL, I started to look at these things driving down the road and saw something familiar - but wondered if it was just because I was looking at the world through Mercedes-colored glasses.  Now I know.  I've known that Mbz owns Chrysler, but really had no idea that Chrysler was receiving either design or platform influence from MBz.

[hokman]

Non,non,non 

That thing... there... that Crazyler 300 is exactly what is WRONG with today's cars: ridiculously big wheels that glitter, lack of visibility due to absence of measurable windows, "fattened flabby" look all around, gaping silly grille and ninja rice kitchy headlights. Take them all quickly to crusher please 

I dont think that the W116 has anything to do with it : the W116 is much, much better.

My opinion


Denis

Paris, France

Yep, I agree 100% with Denis.  Even though chrysler has the fortune to share e-class's chassis.  It would only be a sin to compare the best benz with that ugly thing.  The chrysler 300 might be a bargain, and also Dodge's 300HP FF Caliber, but that's it.

Good eye for finding the granada as a copy of 116.  The back is 90% w116 but smoothened.  Which actually made the Ford look pretty nice, they even copied the rear headrest.  I don't think that ugly as hell american granada look like benz at all.

I don't think the first C-class is a good car at all, it might even be the worst mercedes.  My friend had a C220, the car is very slow and not quiet.  The style is cheap.  My aunt had a C36 AMG and although could have been quite fast, it's not smooth nor quiet.  And look what I've found: http://automobilesdeluxe.blogspot.com/2006/02/so-much-for-benzs-heyday.html
it's not really safe too.  So I think the Chrysler crossfire can't be any good, it's just that they can't get their hands on anything better.

[michaeld]

Does anybody out there have a similar pic of an 116 in a 40 mph crash?  Goodness gracious, one of the reasons I like old cars is because they DON'T crumple up.  Granted, it is more important to keep the passenger compartment pristine than the engine or rear compartments, but to design a car to be totallydestroyed in a relatively minor wreck?  Keep your aluminum cans and give me METAL!!!

Now, I had a thought (I know: thank you, thank you... it does happen every now and again even for me) that relates to why I started this post in the first place.  I noticed John Hubertz posted a pic of a 77 Lincoln on another post, and what a ... friggin' metal box the thing was.  60's and 70's cars appear to have been influenced by Pablo Picasso and the whole impressionist school of art thingy, don't they?  And Japanese cars similarly have severe angular, almost harsh lines to them.  BMW's likewise had a boxy structure that seemed to be one of their distinctives even into the early 90's.

Now contrast the "smooth as a baby's butt" lines of the w116s.  They have such smooth, graceful, aerodynamic lines that (correct me if I'm wrong) were unique in the auto industry of the 70's.  Now, if modern cars did not copy the 116 contoured lines, then it at least seems clearly obvious that 70's Mercedes cars were years ahead of their time.  Almost every car from every manufacturer in the world today builds cars that feature the contoured, aerodynamic lines that seem very much to have been pioneered by Mercedes cars.

Mike

[oscar]

Does anybody out there have a similar pic of an 116 in a 40 mph crash? 

How about a W114, click here.

[hokman]

Does anybody out there have a similar pic of an 116 in a 40 mph crash? 

How about a W114, click here.

what a big difference:



60km/h is approx. 40mph right?  So benz didn't use safety cells in the 90s or what?