It appears so:

http://jalopnik.com/how-much-does-th...-one-508262332

However, what that means to anyone could go a couple of different ways ("who gives a sh**" or "unacceptable").

I personally don't like a car of this price/stature to be on older architecture but if it is stiffened, vastly updated in material strength/technology, improved, etc., fact is it won't matter much in the real world, however the question is, can they mate all their new technologies to a 10+ year old chassis during the W222's production run.

Where is DOES certainly validate my beef is in the wheelbase-length proportions. I noticed exceedingly large overhangs trying to be "tricked" into looking smaller by being excessively curved inward toward the ends, when viewed from the side. The W222 rides on the exact same wheelbase length as the W221, but is several inches longer in overall length. What that says is that the W222's extra length is all in the overhangs, i.e functionally artificial (to me, true length is attained by wheelbase length, which allows extra room, usually a nicer ride, and of course better proportions as the wheels get pushed out further to the ends of the car, therefore eliminating excessive overhangs).

 

Talk about speculation...keeping the wheel base is zero indication for the use of an existing platform. Moreover, this would be a first for Mercedes and is highly unlikely, given the advances in manufacturing technology, material science and fuel consumption...

 

This is a quote from a commenter on that thread:

"CJinOBUBrtStlnd1L
Spiegel magazine learned that Mercedes-Benz didn't file a new type approval for the W222 with Germany's Kraftfahrtbundesamt. They revised the old one for the W221. This isn't a matter of conjecture. It is the old car with a facelift."

"Old car with a facelift" can indeed be hyperbole, but it is an apparent fact that Mercedes didn't apply for this new car as a "new car", purportedly to save on having to comply with some new "refrigerant" something or other regulations which have become something of a nuisance to EU car manufacturers (think of the overall cost savings to come with it, therefore increased margins on the product and perhaps being able to pour extra funding into other areas of the car). They simply filed it as an existing W221 with a strong update, therefore being able to skip out on having to comply with newer regulations.

At the same time. I don't see why they wouldn't extend the wheelbase if they developed it from the ground up. Keeping the same wheelbase yet extending the overhangs show that they wanted extra visual length, and usually when newer cars do that, they follow that with larger wheelbases, which improves roominess and proportions.

 

It's hyperbole to be sure, and the registration processes have little relevance to that suggestion.

I don't have any facts either other than I have never seen MB even think about that, especially as this new platform will be the foundation for the sedan, extended long-wheel base Pullmann, a S-class convertible and coupe...

I am certain most will be cleared up between now and the September release

 

I'm genuinely curious as well. Things have been changing for M-B for some time so I wouldn't write it off due to not being done before.

The clearest indication is whether or not this car is on the MFA platform, because that will be the new platform going forward, and if the W222 doesn't have it, then it clearly has the W221's old chassis underpinning it (of course, extensively tweaked to say the least, I'm sure, as M-B stated 50-ish% increase in torsional rigidity).

Personally, considering it's based on fact that M-B did not file/apply for this car as a new model, instead literally filing it as an updated W221, I'm going with updated W221 chassis, but time will tell. Whether or not it matters is another story. If this car doesn't have the MFA platform, then we'll know by the W205 C Class and W213 E Class (which definitely will have the MFA platform) whether or not the W222 got shortchanged based on how it compares with them.

 

OMG here we go with this dumb **** again. Very few cars are redesigned from the ground up every 5-7 years, most of them use the old chassis as a base for the new car, with everything else being revised and/or redesigned.

The W221 was a ground up redesign and this new car most likely uses it as a base with everything improved and updated in order to last another 7-8 years.

The thing is no one here would know either way, its the dumbest waste of time like ever.

Mercedes or any old dog or cat could tell you anything and no one here would know either way. Much ado about nothing, especially looking at the car being shown here, its a winner no question.

The MFA platform is for the A,B,CLA, GLA cars, i.e. all FWD based, not the C, E, S model cars.

M

 

So you countered your own first point right away, "the W221 was a ground up re-design" lol.

I already said that it shouldn't matter, as long as the chassis is improved. It's worth knowing, regardless, considering it very well may be a fact.

The only thing tangible/visual from it I wish more from would be a longer wheelbase since they decided to elongate the car from the W221. Many cars carryover architecture but don't keep exact wheelbase dimensions. Who knows why M-B did this, by choice or due to cost savings thus sacrificing ultimate proportional potential. If it drives better than the W221, it's already a winner in terms of supplying a big, cushy luxury ride.

I obviously meant "MRA" as I confused the two.

 

Agreed, but do you have any figures to go by? Can't be much?

I don't really care about that platform talk, as the car is heavily modified (and the platform itself is still great). But it would be interesting to see the actual figures.

 

I agree. It's a great platform, and improving it significantly I have little to no beef with. I do wish they maximized proportional potential though with extending the wheelbase at least a couple of inches. I don't think the wheelbase to overhang level is ideal, but the car still has a great stance, so I guess you can consider it nitpicking.

As for figures:

The V222 comes in at 206.5" (per the official M-B Ordering Guide).

The V221 comes in at 205" (205.1" for the facelift due to that extra pointy front bumper).

Both cars share an identical wheelbase length at 124.6"

So the extra length is all in the overhangs, though only 1.5" so as you assumed it's practically negligible.... still, ideally I'd like to have seen the extra 1.5" come from the wheelbase, thus shrinking the overhangs.

 

1.5" huh. It's not much, really.

However, I do agree with you sir. The ideal thing to do would be to extend the wheelbase instead of "feeding" the overhangs. Absolutely. But as you pointed out, we're just nitpicking. The S will remain the king, no doubt.

And thanks for the figures btw, much appreciated.

 

I don't know what KA is referring to. The V221 and V222 are the same length, 206.5".

Enough talk about overhangs. http://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/vehicl...specifications

 

Wow, I guess that's why you don't go to Wikipedia for information. I can't believe they have it off by so much there on the "official" W221 page. They're even specific about it with 205" being the pre-facelift and 205.1" being the facelift.

Overhangs are a big pet peeve of mine. Considering the W222 shares the same wheelbase length and now apparently the exact same overall length as the W221 it is assuring considering the W221's overhang-wheelbase ratio never bothered me. Of course this is a larger car so it doesn't get judged in that aspect in the same exact way smaller cars do. On another note, I was really hoping the S wouldn't get any bigger as IMO it's already "too big for me".

 

No prob and 100% agreed my good man. Good news is I seemed to be off the mark, and they in fact may be identically sized in every which length way after all.

 

who cares.

If it rides fine, handles fine, is not flexy, and has good safety characteristics, I don't care if its a new design, an old design, or a chassis from a mitsubishi.

 

The New GL has the same platform as the old GL.... it is much better than before, the difference I feel is not night and day but it is very noticeable, I bet the S-class will be the same.... I drove the 2013 S-class before purchasing my GL to see what all the GL "the S-class of SUV's" was about.... I was not impressed at all with the S-class interior noise or comfort level over uneven ground.

 

I felt similarly about the W221, and I have seen many owners state that interior noise or bump absorbing over rough roads isn't ideal (M-B as a whole has been failing at this during the W221 generation as I felt my W212 E Classes handled bumps horridly). I felt my W212 E Class was almost as quiet as an S Class. I feel my F10 5 Series is even more quiet than the W221 I most recently test drove, and a member here who went from a W221 to an F10 stated that he found his 5-Series to be more quiet as well. To top that off, I believe it was Edmunds who did a comparison which showed the F01 7 Series getting a lower sound DBI level inside than the S Class.

Even considering using the same basic architecture, Mercedes is said to have squeezed out an astounding 50% added torsional rigidity out of the W222 VS W221. I'm gonna assume a large decrease in sound levels inside will/should accompany that.

 

I was more impressed with the 2012 GL550 we drove than I was the 2011 S550 we test drove. Far more impressed, sad to say. I liked driving the BMW 750iL much better, and it seemed quieter than the S550, IMHO... I was disappointed in the S550.

Having said that, I really like the new W222 package. IMHO it looks far better than the W221. And they got rid of those ridiculous 'bulge rings' around the wheels in the bodywork. The new car looks far, FAR better, imho; and the rear styling does too. If it rides and drives like I expect a S550 should, we shall likely buy one.

 

I agree with the comments about long overhangs. That is one of the things I dislike most about the BMW design language. The new 5 series has a ridiculous front overhang. I guess the germans are getting afraid about the resurgence of Buick.

 

Actually the 5 has very small overhangs (though BMW's always prided themselves on small overhangs so anything looking even generally ungainly up there isn't a good look for them) and with a remarkable and industry/class leading (in Sedans, at least) wheelbase to length ratio of 117" (wheelbase) and 193" (length) it absolutely dominates the proportional wheelbase-length ratio of an E Class (113" wheelbase and 191.7" length and S Class (124.6" wheelbase and 206.5 length). The 5 has only 7.6" less wheelbase length than the S-Class yet is a massive 13.5" less long, which signifies the 5's wheels being pushed far further to the edges of the car (IMO what gives it such athletic proportions).

Now, if you notice M-B's front designs, they massively cave their bumper corners inwards toward the wheels, to make it appear like the overhang is less and the length up there is a purposefully designed gigantic "pointed grille". It's a good trick which about every car maker uses, namely FWD cars who have massive overhangs. BMW for whatever reason designed the F10 5-Series' front to be as blunt as a brick wall, therefore it doesn't hide its overhang at all. If BMW followed the same "cave the bumper corners in" approach, they could have made the overhang look tiny as it actually is an extremely small overhang.

Where BMW really lost the overhang plot to me is with the 6-Series. Another car with the same wheelbase as the car it's based on (5 Series) yet is much longer.... all that extra length being in the overhangs, i.e "artificial length" as I personally call it (though does its job giving the cars a more sprawled out look). The 6 family has HUGE overhangs, and they even try and hide by curving the bumper corners in a bit, i.e it isn't nearly as blunt as the 5's front.

 

I'm convinced no one here knows what an overhang is. The 5-Series has a long overhang?

Unbelievable the comments on this site.


Germans are worried about Buick? OMG.


M

 

To my eye, the new 5 has a noticeably longer front overhang than prior generations. The rear is not too bad, but the new 5 (F10) just doesn't do it for me. Audi has always had long overhangs due to how far forward the engine sits in Audi designs. That said, the W221 chassis is one of the most solid on the road today. I think it makes a perfect starting point for the W222. MB has obviusly modified it extensively to achieve the 50% increase in stiffness. Amazing feat considering the W221 also served as the underpinnings for the Maybach.

 

They Maybach was based on the W220 and W140 in parts and chassis, it had nothing to do with the W221.

M

 

GermanCar1: Thank you for the clarification. I guess they did not survive long enough to be upgraded to the W221 chassis. But, consider that the S-Class chassis from two generations ago was underpinning the Maybach, the new S must feel like it is carved out of granite. I am lookin g forward to the stretched and Pullman variants to be released.

 

IMO Maybach was never needed. This new S-Class proves at least at first glance that Mercedes can compete with entry-level Bentleys and Rollers, as they did in the past, actually beating them for years. Now a spin off like a 600/Grosser or something based on the new S-Class would be something to chase the Phantom and the Mulsanne. If the new S550 looks this good, the S600 and S65 AMG models should easily be able to route the Ghost and Flying Spur.

M

 

Yes it is..
.. as many other new cars use the platform of their predecessors..

Like the Jags XJ and XF are based on XJ & S-Type and the BMW 5 Series (E60)has a lot in common with the E39. Alike the Ferrari F430 is a heavily modified 360 Modena.

The reason indeed would be cost-savings as well as the story about the aircon refrigerant mentioned above.

Who cares, as long as its a better car alltogether.

Same goes for the the S-dashes thought the ages ;-) please see the below :

http://www.spiegel.de/auto/fahrkultu...-a-899951.html