dclawyer

Thanks for posting this. Would love to see a C vs S.

MDMercedesGuy

Size is going to win out in any case. Your average S550 has 1,000LB on a RWD C, and your average S600 has 1,500LB on that same C. I don't think the difference would be that dramatic, but the C is going to be worse for wear.

The other 2 components to the IIHS smear against small cars that was linked were the Fit versus the Accord, and the Yaris versus the Camry. They both did poor as well according to those tests, yet the weight ratios between the 2 cars in those crashes were significantly smaller than the smart versus C300.

I've owned a smart for 3.5 years and live right up the road from you. I live right by Euromotorcars' body shop, and I see from there on occasion how they perform in real world crashes. I've been rear ended twice in mine, the last time totaling a late model Taurus, and I'm still here and fine. Of the wrecked Cs I have seen there, they either appear to have held up really well or are obliterated - not a lot of middle ground but not something I would think you could blame on the car.

Point being - ratings and videos are only one part of the equation.

jctevere

^ Exactly, it seems most people have skipped over my post in all the action (probably because it was extremely lengthy and overbearing). But to sum it up, most of the ratings and tests simulate crashes with vehicles of similar (exact) size/weight. As such, in real-world, a c-class will fair better in crashes when compared to vehicles of smaller size (like the Ford Fiesta) who fared much better in the tests (getting 4 stars on front barrier versus c-class' 2 stars).

This isn't even mentioning the increased capabilities and manueverability you have in a c-class from more advanced braking, to better control at highway speeds. The list goes on and on. Extra features/options such as brake assist and blind spot, etc, are simply icing on the cake.

Glyn M Ruck

+1

dclawyer

Good points. One of the things Informed for Life attempts to do is to allow safety comparisons among weight classes. The owner of the site, an automative engineer, has devised a formula which he discloses that expressly factors in weight. Heavier vehicles with low roll over probability score better independent of crash test results which are then factored in. He leaves to each reader to decide if the formula makes sense. It makes sense to me. It isn't perfect but I know of nothing better. I understand that MB is a long storied automobile manufacturer and I like their cars too and may well end up with another one. But other companies have good engineers who care about safety too. Toyota is no slouch. Also I have never bought the notion that Volvos are safer than other cars. I think most of that is marketing. I appreciate this discussion and still haven't decided what to do.

Glyn M Ruck

I think that one has to embrace the concept that safety includes the prevention of an accident plus onboard systems and components that are not considered/evaluated in Euro NCAP & similar testing.

dclawyer

I agree completely and MB in my opinion is the winner there. At the same time some accidents can't be avoided and the crash testing is all we have to measure safety in those instances.

Glyn M Ruck

Agreed! - but if as an example you have intrusion into the passenger footwell that the testing chiefs consider poor due to a predetermined measure but the shin bags on a Benz save the passenger's legs then who is correct. Benz will say they are. The same can be said for Benz sticking to their guns that in a bad accident that door locks must ultimately be released for access.

Sportstick

I've never been accused of being too brief either! That may be why this earlier comment seems to have been missed by some as well!

Sportstick

There is no "smear"...just physics of mass and the design's ability to dissipate energy before it reaches the occupant compartment, plus the kinematics of the occupants. The smaller cars in each of the pairing you cite did poorly because the difference was enough, regardless of how the ratios compared to the smart. Further, if you look at the platform architecture, you can see from the principal locating points, such as the A pillar touchdown, for example, that the Fit is not just a small Accord, and Yaris is not a small Camry...they are different. So, beyond mass, different designs necessitated by the smaller size are another variable.

Sportstick

Actually, they pioneered several features now more widely in use, such as high boron steel for more a crush resistant roof, for one significant, but low awareness example.

JaCe88

Great discussion guys. GOod read!