vinceC

CE750 - Yes, the W210 is heavier, and SBC contributed to that.

The longest distance R & T got in several tests of the W210 was 120 feet from 60 and 211 feet from 80. But consider this - the 300 pound heavier Maserati Quattroporte tested at 107 feet from 60!

You are correct that SBC isn't about straight line braking, per se, but if it doesn't do as well under those conditions, which are over 90%, that is to the negative side. For the other 10%, is does have the potential to be superior. Optimizing the interface, however, can offset that advantage. Keep in mind that any braking that can lock a wheel is too much. Design that increases grip under all conditions, straight line, turning, turning and braking, simutaneously increases the threshold where a wheel will lock up, and may potentially achieve the same thing. Maserati optimized their car by designing to a resting rear weight bias, through optimal suspension design and by careful tire/wheel selection. They took a different, lighter, less complex approach than M-B. I should point out that initially, I thought SBC was a great idea, but I think other manufacturers have achieved even better results without a similar system.

CE750

I think you meant to say the 211 us heavier but I catch your point.. I must say however, and I could be wrong, but I'm told the SBC system is a good bit lighter than the older system... also the W211 has a lot of Aluminum body panels which makes it a lighter car (all else being equal), so the size of the W211 is also likely larger, and vehicle length plays into braking distance (how I can't explain, as I'm not an engineer).. but I'm told wheel base is a player in that equation.

lig

I love the *****storm that happens every time someone brings up SBC.

Just for fun I looked up the 60-0 stopping distances of the E500 and S4 in Motor Trend. Both cars weigh almost exactly the same. The E500 comes with tires 245/45s vs. 235/40s on the Audi.

E500 - 127 feet

S4 - 117 feet

Again - while I never had a problem with the car stopping - I did have issues with the feel and the way the MFD screamed "Visit Workshop" at every little thing. I got tired of driving all those "lesser" loaner vehicles while another gremlin was being chased down by my helpful but overworked dealer.

As John and others have suggested earlier - vote with your dollars. I made the switch and the Audi suits me better. I don't need the extra space the W211 offers (the rear of the Audi is tight) nor do I care about the hood ornament (or lack thereof) on my car.

Some will question why I continue to post here - there are two main reasons.

1. It's fun here.

2. Many folks like to gather information via forums of this nature. I think that having all sides of the ownership experience might add value to someone trying to figure out what car will best satisfy their needs.

Cheers!

Update: the hood, front fenders and trunklid are aluminum. Cool!

In the past you have repeatedly said that heavier was somehow better and I never really understood that.

CE750

to be fair, the S4 is a highly tuned and spec'd out sports car/sedan.. the E500 is a sedan with a powerful V8... How does the AMG E55 do? (mind you, that weighs about 4200lbs.. or about 400 more than the E500).

lig

According to MT - 118 feet for the SBC equipped, $35,000 more costly (but brutally fast!!! ) E55

I chose the S4 and E500 becuase they were close to the same weight and roughly the same price.

vinceC

CE750 - Right - I did mean W211. Also, you are correct that M-B initially advertised the SBC system as being lighter. As time has passed, they are admitting that it adds weight. Certainly not hundreds of pounds, but. Without a scale to weigh the various components, who knows which statement is more correct. It is also common for manufacturers to tout their latest as this or that, sometimes in spite of the facts. A rather humorous press release from Porsche on the new Turbo states that Porsche engineers conceived the "brilliant" idea of turbocharging in the 1970's, but that subject is OT.

The W211 is a much more advanced structure that the W210 and uses a lot of aluminum. It is only fractionally larger in overall size and wheelbase compared to the W210. However, some versions weigh nearly 400 pounds more than an early, comparably powered (V-6/V-8) W210. That comes from all the extra equipment, and to a certain degree, the SBC probably contributed. All the manufacturers seem to be losing the "battle of the bulge", trying to fight back with exotic materials, but losing as they add content.

Lost in this discussion is the fact that, in my opinion, the new S-Class is a stunning car. Now that I have had a little time with one I am impressed. The styling really works, in spite of some contrived areas like the wheel arches. I prefer simple designs like the Quattroporte and even the W211, but overall, the car is beautiful on the road.

CE750

I'm sure the stopping distance is more of a function of rotor size/caliper design than the hydraulic system behind them.... eitherway..

mleskovar

Never said they couldn't stop. The issue is the backup system is inadequate and if the conditions are correct, car moving and something in front of it , the results are dangerous. People have posted taking evasive maneuvers, running over obstacles, and hitting other cars in panic situations while in sbc backup mode. Search the forum and read their experience when this happened. Some say the perceived performance advantage of sbc is worth this risk despite the ongoing failures. I disagree and think taking risks with brakes is foolish and the brake performance increase is questionable. Yes, it is a pissing contest.

CE750

So then MB should have made the back up system better in the 2007, instead of removing the SBC, which while working is a superior braking system.. this way you fix the shortfall, rather than throwing out the baby with the bath water.

The addition of a vacuum assisted back up to the two front brakes would not have been an engineering hurdle.. which once again leads me to think the dumping of SBC is a cost cutting cop out.

mleskovar

Actually, they should have added the sbc functions to the 'traditional' system instead of creating a whole new system that is questionable to surpass it's replacement in reliability....and that's what they're doing. I think eventually sbc would have the cost advantage over the 'traditional' system when you factor in all the build and update costs. Sbc is typical teutonic car engineering 'go complex' thinking. I like the all electric individual wheel wedge braking technology currently in development...simple (from a hardware perspective), light, inexpensive, and the default when absolutely everything fails is the pads force themselves into the disk without assistance for maximum braking. But whatever the next gen is it must surpass the current technology in performance <and> reliability or it's not worth it.

Barry45RPM

If you have to make the back-up system as good as brakes, you might as well make them the brakes and only need 1 system. They'll be back, the technology just isnt there yet. Thats all.

Germancar1

I think you are confusing several unrelated things here. The suspension design on the W211 has nothing to do with whether or not SBC is effective or not. What W210 E-Class stopped shorter than the W211 E-Class? Which model of each series are you talking about? I agree that SBC didn't live up to the hype on the AMG cars, but on the regular cars like the SL500 and E350 it has, but it depends on who's test numbers you believe. People driving a Benz are still luxury car customers and I doubt they want that much feel (as in a Porsche) coming through the pedal. Mercedes would never, ever gain any ground in JDP and Consumer Reports if they dialed in that much feel in their brake pedals. The complaints would stack up higher than MB's world headquarters. If anything SBC resulted in longer stopping distance, not the suspension design. The W210 had a rather lame hold on the road for a Mercedes IMO and it certainly didn't drive as good as the W211.

M

Germancar1

Oh, that sounds like they expected a miracle and/or couldn't drive.

M

Germancar1

This is what they're doing isn't it? I could have sworn I'd read this for the S and FL E.

M

glojo

Beats me why we keep responding. I am still waiting to hear about what happens on a conventional car when it has a complete hydraulic failure? It MIGHT crash.

If we worry about the what if and this MIGHT happen scenario, then go into the countryside, dig a big hole, jump in and put a very sturdy roof over your head. No electric, you MIGHT get electrocuted. No water, it MIGHT be contaminated, No food, it MIGHT contain additives.


John

A nice sunny morning inTorquay

vinceC

Germancar1 - Suspension design has everything to do with whether or not any braking system works. The most important piece of the equation is grip at the tire/road interface. I am saying that M-B could have taken the path that some other manufacturers have taken and optimized that interface. The result would not only be better braking, which SBC was trying to achieve, but better cornering, acceleration and so forth. And I am also saying that they likely have recognized that fact in their decision to drop the system. I don't believe they would have dropped it if they truly believed it achieved its intended goals, regardless of any of the "ambient noise" from the customer base.

I was using data from 1998 and 1999 road tests by Road and Track (E430) against 2004 data from the same source (E320). The '04 E320 should have had an advantage in the test since it is the lightest of the W211 chassis and the E430 was the heaviest of the W210 chassis. Not exactly apples vs. apples - but pretty darn close. As far as your "rather lame hold on the road for a Mercedes IMO and it certainly didn't drive as good as the W211" comment, the same source achieved virtually the same skidpad and slalom data for the W210 and W211. I have driven both extensively and find that the W210 must be driven much harder than a W211 for the M-B DNA to come through. But that is OT.

As far as feel, the W124 brakes had a lot of feel and I never heard any complaints about it, so I doubt it would have been an issue today.

Germancar1

I just don't get what you're saying here about the W211 suspension design. I've driven the W210 and the W211 more than a few times too and the W210 was an aloof car IMO, especially the E320 version. The W210 even had a tendeny to wonder at high speeds, something that is simply a shame in a Benz considering Mercedes wrote the book on high-speed stability with cars like the W124, R129 and W140. The new W221 is more buttoned down and stable and has none of that rocking motion that the W210 sometimes suffered from. Do you think Mercedes would have designed the W211's suspension in a way that doesn't put as much tire on the road as possible. That is part of the design brief of every Mercedes-Benz product. I'm betting you'll see much better braking results with this facelifted E anyway.

I'm sure Mercedes does feel that SBC did meet most of their objectives, but the system's cost in $$$ (repairs/recalls) and the damage it caused to their quality reputation dictated that SBC must go. They will be better for it in the long run. Maybe once they get a hold on quality again like in the old days they can come back with some gee-whiz braking technology, but right now no.

Just because R&T got the same numbers for the W210 and W211 in the their slalom and skidpad tests doesn't mean the two cars drive the same. The W211 easily has the better roll control and steering feel. The W211 feels more connected to the road, granted neither of them are duplicates of the W124, but the W211 is much closer to that standard than the W210.

True the W124 did have a better feel at the brake pedal, but it wasn't like a Porsche either. A lot of Mercedes customers would complain if their Benz had the brake pedal feel of a 911, IMO. It doesn't need to be that good and direct or firm. Then you have to remember the W124 was from another era.

M

CE750

A "normal" braking system with the functionality of an SBC would require... 4 separate brake master cylinders, 4-seperate hydraulic reservoirs, 4-seperate vacuum pumps, and a computer to control all of them (Which if failed) would leave you with 4 separate braking systems that may or may not work in unison..

I can't see that being light.. or cheap.

vinceC

Germancar1 - Read my posts carefully. I'm saying they did NOT optimize the tire/road interface. Otherwise the W211 would generate better numbers than a W210. The W211 is a great car, but for all the lightweight materials and sophisticated systems, it should be a better performer. It ended up with only a slight gain in performance (cornering, braking, etc.) and significantly poorer fuel mileage (primarily with the V-8). But they sure are pretty!! Much more athletic and agressive than the W210.

I have never experienced the "wonder" (wander?) you speak of. I drove my E430 2,000 miles at speeds up to 125 mph on a 4 day trip this January and at speed mine is micormeter precise. Maybe that is a result of the tires I run.

Taking the W210 out of the discussion, since you are not fond of the car, consider one of my other examples, the Maserati Quattroporte. It weighs 300+ pounds more than a E500, yet stops from 60 in 15 feet less, and from 80 in 28 feet less. Those are significant numbers - from 80 it is nearly two cars lengths! The skidpad and slalom numbers are quicker by similar margins. How did they do it? By careful engineering that optimized the entire vehicle, which allows them to get the most out of the tires. I like that. Enough that I don't mind spending an extra $50K over an E500 to replace my E430.

CE750

Vince, it's kinda odd that we're debating the merits of the W211 suspension, as it is by far my favorite part of this car.... it's the perfect balance of luxury ride, and responsive handling.. I've owned sports cars, and land-yachts.. and this car can walk that thin line well... it's got a .83 skd pad.. better than many "sports" cars, and an anti-dive geometry front suspension THAT ACTUALLY WORKS! The 5-arm multi-link rear is also amazing at grip and lateral hold... I don't fishtail when I gun my 400 ft/lb torque CDI in a turn, like I used to do with my 300 ft/lb torque Mustang GT (1995)... and my list goes on...

vinceC

CE750 - And I agree it has a nice ride. However, it didn't meet my expectations. I've owned every "middle" size M-B sedan since the 114/115 chassis of the 60's. Each has been a big jump. In my view, the W211 didn't deliver the same gain. It is still a great car, and the suspension tuning is definitely a bit more refined "across" the car, which tames the "rocking" Germancar1 mentioned in the W210, which was very stiff in roll.

Keep in mind what I am saying. I am saying that more effort there would have produced results that 1) eliminated the need for a system like SBC or
2) made SBC truly effective.

CE750

I think engineers with far more training and experience that us can only know if this is true... after all (as shown in my diagram above) the SBC really shines in the hard braking inside a turn scenario, which no suspension design can have an effect on, since it's more of a function of the brake modulation and less a function of nose dive, and body roll.

I can only say, and I know it's anecdotal, but I've had one instance where I applied hard brakes doing 80 around a curve in the freeway, and the car maintained incredible control thru out the maneuver.. that is enough for me.

VBlaster_W211

What's so bad about SBC? I love mine. You can quote me as a happy user.

And yes, I use SBC hold, since traffic lights stopping is way too common in city driving...

I'll be sad if there's no more SBC in future E Class that I may buy.

Bring it back.

mleskovar

That's my understanding as well.

glojo

It is extremely rare to find any non US owner that complains about this excellent system.

We will quote you as happy

You must be happy anyway living in such a beautiful country.

Take care,
Regards
John