WEBSRFR

I have a Volvo S80 in the household and part of the reason for getting that vehicle is how well it has done in actual crash tests. We are talking about a car here, not some religion based on faith! The side impact test is not some random fluke. It simulates a very common type of side impact in a scientific way. I expect any car I drive to do well on that test. If all these other cars can do so well on the side test why not MB? Shame on them for the poor test results. I'd still like to know technically why the rating is so bad.

As for performing in the real world, the test simulates something like an SUV crashing into the side of the car. I wouldn't want my family to be in a car with a poor side crash test rating that has been scientifically proven. As for the numerous studies you mention, the study I'm concerned with at the moment is the scientific crash test that in my opinion the '07 W211 has failed.

And yes, I know the Volvos are designed with real world safety in mind. The S80 did well on the side crash test and I find that reassuring compared to the results of the 07 W211.

Alan Smithee

The test IS a random fluke. Unless your car is stationary and being hit at exactly 90 degrees by a 3100lb battering ram of exactly the same size at 31mph, which would be pretty random, you won't get the same results. Period.

If you want specific reasons for the grade, the specific test results are on the IIHS website.

WEBSRFR

If this is a random fluke, it is some random fluke alright, as it somehow did not affect the crash ratings for The A6, GS, Infiniti M, 3-series, IS, A4, ES, TL, and Passat as mentioned by BW.

By the specific reason, I meant the actual CAUSE of the results. I can see the results on the IIHS Web site and they are very unimpressive. I'd like to know what gave for the results to be so bad.

MB Fanatic

Whats interesting is that the tests are done with a non deforming barrier hitting cars at 40mph. In the real world you would most likely except the car hitting the side of E to deform and absorb the engery through its crumple zones. This would lessen the intrusion into the E's side as well since it too would deform and absorb the impact.

GDawgC220

WEBSRFR has a point though, as well as MB Fanatic.

While a car in the real world scenario would probably deform and absorb some of the energy when hitting the E and would lessen the impact to the E, you have to think why all the other cars, A6, GS, Infinity M, 3-Series, A4, etc did better than the E in the same test. If they can take the battering ram that doesn't deform, shouldn't the E be able to handle it as well?

Not saying that the E is unsafe in anyway, they're all great and safe cars to be in during accidents. Just interesting test results compared to previous years.

jdr1000

Is there any chance the Test people had a "Bad" E-Class?

J

Alan Smithee

Which is to my point above. Also try to fathom a situation where you would be stationary in front of an SUV traveling at high speed. Throw your frontal deformation in with the dynamics of both cars in motion, and you have a completely different scenario with potentially different results between vehicles. The IIHS test does not simulate a typical 't-bone' accident.

GDawgC220

True. However, if the other vehicles that are in the same class as the w211 can take the hit during the test and receive a "Good" mark, the E should be able to as well.

WEBSRFR

This is PRECISELY my point!

And this is also why the test results are of grave concern to me. The point about a deforming vehicle hitting the 07 W211 on the side is a moot point to me to a certain extent because honestly I'm not as concerned about a vehicle that has more of a propensity to deform hitting the side of the E class. For one thing the deforming vehicle will absorb some of the impact and I'm sure the side impact protection of the W211 will do whatever it can.

What I am honestly concerned about is an SUV or a truck hitting the side of the vehicle, which is actually more common and this is precisely why the crash test they do uses a non-deformable barrier. It is specifically designed to simulate a more of a worse case scenario side impact where you are hit on the side by a larger vehicle.

So all these other vehicles (Japanese as well as European) actually did well on this test except for the 07 W211. That is completely and utterly unacceptable I know for a fact that unless a retest is done, and the side impact crash receives a better rating, there is no way I'd trust my family's safety to the side impact crashworthiness of the 07 W211.

It's not like when you have a side impact you get to pick and choose how deformable the car that hits you is going to be! I'd want to be able to handle an SUV or truck hitting the side as best as current technology allows.

I realize our cars are special. They offer comfort, luxury, prestige, performance, etc., I would put up with a lot to experience all these including electronic gremlins, reliability issues, service visits/recalls as needed, etc., But where I draw the line is safety. I see no excuse for these safety results given other compmarable cars handled this test well. I'd like to know structurally what in the 07 W211 was responsible for the bad crash test rating and what will be done to address this. And no, making sure that you only get hit by vehicles that deform will is not the answer!

Alan Smithee

I think you and WEBSRFR are being unrealistic as to what a 'safe' car should be. As I've tried to explain, just because other cars perform better in that specific test, doesn't mean they are inherently more safe in a side impact or overall. Shift the impact a foot to the rear, and perhaps the Mercedes' gas tank is better protected. Shift the impact a foot to the front, and perhaps the Mercedes will enable you to keep your legs in a serious accident. Shift the impact lower by three inches and perhaps the Mercedes is the only car that wouldn't roll. Or maybe not. We just don't know for sure unless every scenario can be tested, which is obviously not possible, so IMO this is not an issue of "grave concern". After all, it's not as if the W211 was unsafe in this "worst case scenario", it's just that other cars had better results.

Also, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, if people overreact to specific tests like this, cars will be primarily designed to pass specific tests...not necessarily protect occupants optimally in as many situations as possible.

That cars of newer design (the facelifted 2007 W211 is still the same structure going back to 2002-2003) fared better tells me that they were designed to pass a test that didn't exist during W211 development at the turn of the century...not that the W211 is an unsafe car.

jimbo1mcm

I thought this was a Benz forum. Why do we have to look at photos of Audi's from someone whose bio doesn't presently include a Benz? Leave and go to an Audi forum.

GDawgC220

Excuse me? I've been here longer than you, have had a benz, family currently owns benzes. Why don't you leave if you have nothing constructive to say.

I thought this was a car forum, where car enthusiasts can hang out. This place has changed certainly from when I first joined...

GDawgC220

I'm not saying that the w211 is an unsafe car, just pointing out what I read. I know that Benz is a safe car and their philosophy is about safety first.

Whatever, I don't think anyone will win an argument here, everyone has their points. Moving on...

Germancar1

Like I said before, Mercedes' cars unlike many others are designed for real-world crashes some of them not even covered by any government. Volvo and Mercedes are the only ones that actually get cars back from the field that have been in accidents in order to learn how they can make them better based on real crashes, not some lab test. I think this thread has really gotten ridiculous, we're talking acceptable here...sure Mercedes could/should do better, but heck they still passed the test. No car is perfect, including Volvo, which get beat regularly by Renaults in Euro testing as far as that is concerned. I'd rather be in a acceptable Mercedes than some other lame car (some American and Korean brands come to mind) that was specificially engineered to pass a specific test while it crumples up like a tin can in the real world. The E-Class isn't unsafe is the bottom line. All this about it failing and this about being in an unsafe car is just BS and hype, nothing factual. You can have the highest test scores possible and get hit by the right size vehicle and the right angle at the right speed and still get killed. People put too much into all these ratings and surveys nowadays, its silly. Now because a Hyundai gets a better side impact rating (in its class) it is safer than a Benz to some? That is just plain dumb as all getout.

M

WEBSRFR

Who said anything about a Hyundai being safer? You should look into a career in politics or producing political ads. Plain as dumb because some people on this forum decided to talk about recent side crash test results? That's a very impressively intelligent argument right there. You are beginning to sound like the same car manufacturers you deride when their models received poor ratings.

Nothing factual? This whole thread is about factual results. The crash test is scientific and factual as far as I'm concerned. There is also no reason for you to deride other cars based on where they are made. Plenty of American, Asian, and European cars have managed this test much better, scientifically speaking.

It is your opinion that the crash test ratings are silly. I certainly don't think scientific tests are silly.

Yes, you can die in anything. That's not the point of discussion here.

Germancar1

You missed the point. My point was that people are hooked on surveys and studies nowadays and they take them as gospel no matter what they say. Also that because MB didn't pass this test with flying colors the E-Class is no somehow unsafe when the reality of it is that an E-Class is as safe or safer in many repsects than most other cars. I didn't say anyone mentioned a Korean car here, I said that to make a point as to how people read surveys and run with the results like they've had some type of revelation. I at no point said that crash test rating were silly, I said that all the carrying on here is. Big difference.

Scientifically speaking, that in itself is the problem. This is a controlled, lab test, not the real world. Mercedes' do better, excel in real world crash tests. If you don't believe me check the death rates for a car like the E-Class. Just over a year ago the E placed like in the top 2 cars on the market as far as deaths were concerned. Like you (and I) have stated before many cars pass the goverment's test today, in short it isn't that hard and Mercedes not passing them with flying colors is an abnormality, not the norm. I'll take a MB, Volvo, or Audi (or even a pre-GM Saab) over any Johnny come lately to safety car company. You say that you can die in anything isn't the point here, yet all this ado about the E implies that it is somehow an unsafe car.

M

mbbodytech

Anyone here that thinks a Civic is a better car than any Benz can go and buy one. However, whenever I see one of those beer can cars I'll think if my good friend's father who was killed and his mother who is still in critical condition after taking a head on one of the freeways here in Detroit. I had the unfortunate experience to be caught in the traffic and pass right by thier car, a brand new Civic sedan with the front end removed and the rest of the car immaculate.

Honda is interested in building a cheap car, and that's it. That type of accident wouldn't happen in any Benz because of the though put into the design.

1. Longitudinal engine - in a crash the engine goes down and under the car, not into the occupants

2. Two lower control arms rather than one - whenever the wheel is hit it will move directly back into the rocker panel, thereby passing the energy to the rear of the vehicle, not the occupants. A single lower control arm will pivot and end up in the footwell of the vehicle

And that's just the start of what Mercedes does. By the way, does anyone remember who invented the offset crash test? MB! As was stated they realize that no two accidents are the same, and the controlled environment for looking good in crash tests wasn't saving people's lives. I will put my family's lives in the good hands of the MB engineers, and sleep just fine at night.

I'm sorry if too much emotion is evident, but I have always had that opinion of garbage cars, and seeing this accident and resulting death has confirmed my conviction about the subject.