Crash Test Video 2009 C Class vs 2009 Smart Car LOL
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 55
From: Naperville, IL/Chicago
2008 CLK63 Black Series 2012 C63 Black Series 2014 SLS Black Series
Crash Test Video 2009 C Class vs 2009 Smart Car LOL
I just saw this on my MSN home page
....so much for all those smart car drivers/owners who rave about how well they do in crashes LOL
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...aspx?GT1=33009
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/landi..._859>1=22010
The C Class is not even a very big car, what would an S Class or and Escalade do to that thing?
....so much for all those smart car drivers/owners who rave about how well they do in crashes LOL
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com...aspx?GT1=33009
http://editorial.autos.msn.com/landi..._859>1=22010
The C Class is not even a very big car, what would an S Class or and Escalade do to that thing?
Last edited by jrcart; Apr 14, 2009 at 05:08 PM.
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
CL65
Wow, that C-class knocked it into next week. Can you imagine what a larger car or SUV would do to it?
BTW, there is nothing "Smart" about paying $20,000+ for a go cart because it has an affiliation with Mercedes Benz.
BTW, there is nothing "Smart" about paying $20,000+ for a go cart because it has an affiliation with Mercedes Benz.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
From: Chicago, IL
Real Cars
It is kind of a stupid arguement... if I took a C-Class, Camry, or Accord and plowed into it with a tractor trailer at 40-50mph... I'm fairly sure the c-class wouldn't do so well either. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately concludes that we all need to cocoon ourselves in large cars cause we are less likely to die if hit head on at 40mph.
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 6,649
Likes: 207
'03 E55, Range Rover Sport Supercharged, Ducati 748R
It is kind of a stupid arguement... if I took a C-Class, Camry, or Accord and plowed into it with a tractor trailer at 40-50mph... I'm fairly sure the c-class wouldn't do so well either. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately concludes that we all need to cocoon ourselves in large cars cause we are less likely to die if hit head on at 40mph.
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 2,123
Likes: 3
From: Chicago, IL
Real Cars
I see a lot of Smart cars around here in Chicago. I'm sure most people who drive them rarely see 40mph much less are just buying the car for fuel economy. I think the Smart is a cool car and think that if people want to buy it, it should be up to them... not what some "influential safety organization" tells them to do.
-m
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,978
Likes: 1
From: NYC/FT Lauderdale
W220 M113K
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 55
From: Naperville, IL/Chicago
2008 CLK63 Black Series 2012 C63 Black Series 2014 SLS Black Series
...now let's see a G Wagon vs. Smart Car
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
6 Mercedes Models That Did NOT Age Well (But Are Somehow Still Cool)
Verdad Gallardo
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
From: Richmond Hill, Canada
2005 E55, 2000 CBR1100XX Super Blackbird
It is kind of a stupid arguement... if I took a C-Class, Camry, or Accord and plowed into it with a tractor trailer at 40-50mph... I'm fairly sure the c-class wouldn't do so well either. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately concludes that we all need to cocoon ourselves in large cars cause we are less likely to die if hit head on at 40mph.
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
+1
Administrator
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,080
Likes: 559
Drives Slowly
Holy shyt..........that hurt!!!! That reminds me of the abuse I would take when my high school QB would lob me a floater between the linebackers and cornerbacks.
I actually thought about getting my kids a Smart before seeing that video............ but now, I may have to consider one for my wife.
I actually thought about getting my kids a Smart before seeing that video............ but now, I may have to consider one for my wife.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
02 996 Turbo, 05 CLK55 AMG
+1...
It is kind of a stupid arguement... if I took a C-Class, Camry, or Accord and plowed into it with a tractor trailer at 40-50mph... I'm fairly sure the c-class wouldn't do so well either. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately concludes that we all need to cocoon ourselves in large cars cause we are less likely to die if hit head on at 40mph.
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,327
Likes: 0
From: Chicago, IL
02 996 Turbo, 05 CLK55 AMG
lolHoly shyt..........that hurt!!!! That reminds me of the abuse I would take when my high school QB would lob me a floater between the linebackers and cornerbacks.
I actually thought about getting my kids a Smart before seeing that video............ but now, I may have to consider one for my wife.
I actually thought about getting my kids a Smart before seeing that video............ but now, I may have to consider one for my wife.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 574
Likes: 1
From: NorCal
W211,E90,E66,E39,E38,NSX,Z32-TT
It is kind of a stupid arguement... if I took a C-Class, Camry, or Accord and plowed into it with a tractor trailer at 40-50mph... I'm fairly sure the c-class wouldn't do so well either. It's a slippery slope argument that ultimately concludes that we all need to cocoon ourselves in large cars cause we are less likely to die if hit head on at 40mph.
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
While I don't doubt that 40mph head on collisions happen... so do plane crashes... lightning strikes... etc... how about we focus more on making people better drivers and not how we can make cars heavier with excessive safety equipment, and remove the role of the responsible driver from the equation? I can see the throught process now: "It's the car manufacturers fault that you got hurt when you were driving stupid and crashed into another car at 40mph!"
Just my $.02
-m
I get what you're saying. It doesn't prove much of a point because as safe as a car can be, there's always something bigger and badder out there.
I think the point of the research is to demonstrate the true reality of what these "smaller vehicles" will likely face out in the real world. Its a message to the public that these vehicles are not as safe as they advertise it to be, because when they crash onto something in real world conditions (likely a standard size car), they will get hurt.
Mercedes will always advertise that their cars are safe. Sure, it'll get mangled too if we slammed onto a 18th wheeler. But we have a far higher chance of slamming into another car similar to our size than that.
Some of us think that driving around an enclosed golf-cart is safe. This study shows otherwise. To a point, there is validity to this test.
Super Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 514
Likes: 0
From: Chicago
CL65
Oh absolutely... but that's the beauty of capitalism... I would never own one of these cars either, that's my choice. However I just don't like this whole fear mongering when it comes to crash safety standards. Let's just keep piling in every possible conceivable safety measure until all cars weigh 57,000lbs and drivers have become so inept that they are only allowed to drive 5 miles a day...
I see a lot of Smart cars around here in Chicago. I'm sure most people who drive them rarely see 40mph much less are just buying the car for fuel economy. I think the Smart is a cool car and think that if people want to buy it, it should be up to them... not what some "influential safety organization" tells them to do.
-m
I see a lot of Smart cars around here in Chicago. I'm sure most people who drive them rarely see 40mph much less are just buying the car for fuel economy. I think the Smart is a cool car and think that if people want to buy it, it should be up to them... not what some "influential safety organization" tells them to do.
-m
Number of idiots on the road divided by the average time they spend driving drunk multiplied by the average weight of the vehicle they drive. This equals to : Watch your *** because chances are the guy driving in your vicinity might not care to.
Take a general population, which is already lacking common sense and the ability to properly operate a motor vehicle, and then introduce overly complex cell phones with text messages, email, pictures, IM, and whatever else you can think of. Not the most comforting scenario.
What can happen, usually does. When it happens to me, I don't want to be sitting in a glorified golf cart.
Last edited by MarkoCL65; Apr 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM.
Member
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 246
Likes: 3
From: Toronto
2011 Black C63 Eurocharged V5
lmaooo....Rock...Youre just stupid!! haha...
Marcus---I have to actually disagree with you here. Yes The vehicle with the larger mass will usually win---thats physics...but that doesnt mean the test is meaningless.
The C class is what Id consider a small 4-door. Camry...A4.....Taurus...335i...these are the cars that dominate the road. In your example about the E55 vs the tractor trailer...Yes it is true...but the point is that *IF* a smart car "were" to get into an accident with another car--chances are...that vehicle would be AT LEAST C-class size.
As to 40mph frontal impacts being rare---yeah sure!!....If youre doing 75mph on the highway and get bumped or slide or hit a guard rail in snowy conditions(ala Inocent1)---you might be doing over 40 when u hit something bigger than a Cclass. Isnt the most common accident a `T-bone`through an intersection??
That said...I would (and did) consider a smart car---BUT ONLY IF i lived in a downtown European city setting where 30mph would be the top speed.
The one thing about Smart cars that you guys dont get is their gas milage. In Canada we can get 3cylinder Diesel Smart that gets *80mpg**!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is rediculous when gas is $4/gal. Myself---I just got a Jetta Diesel. I must say I LOVE IT. its slow as molases...but....My first tank.....15 gallons=712miles!!!47.5mpg. Thats hard to beat. My new job has me driving 40,000 miles this year---so it adds up.
Marcus---I have to actually disagree with you here. Yes The vehicle with the larger mass will usually win---thats physics...but that doesnt mean the test is meaningless.
The C class is what Id consider a small 4-door. Camry...A4.....Taurus...335i...these are the cars that dominate the road. In your example about the E55 vs the tractor trailer...Yes it is true...but the point is that *IF* a smart car "were" to get into an accident with another car--chances are...that vehicle would be AT LEAST C-class size.
As to 40mph frontal impacts being rare---yeah sure!!....If youre doing 75mph on the highway and get bumped or slide or hit a guard rail in snowy conditions(ala Inocent1)---you might be doing over 40 when u hit something bigger than a Cclass. Isnt the most common accident a `T-bone`through an intersection??
That said...I would (and did) consider a smart car---BUT ONLY IF i lived in a downtown European city setting where 30mph would be the top speed.
The one thing about Smart cars that you guys dont get is their gas milage. In Canada we can get 3cylinder Diesel Smart that gets *80mpg**!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That is rediculous when gas is $4/gal. Myself---I just got a Jetta Diesel. I must say I LOVE IT. its slow as molases...but....My first tank.....15 gallons=712miles!!!47.5mpg. Thats hard to beat. My new job has me driving 40,000 miles this year---so it adds up.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,555
Likes: 2
From: Fairfax,VA
06 E55
Smart is ok, comparing to Geely Otaka
now that's scary! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAN2cx2UIE
and one more, sorry it is kind of off-topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRy...eature=related
now that's scary! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAN2cx2UIE
and one more, sorry it is kind of off-topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRy...eature=related
Last edited by Karlson; Apr 15, 2009 at 12:32 AM. Reason: added another link
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 574
Likes: 1
From: NorCal
W211,E90,E66,E39,E38,NSX,Z32-TT
Smart is ok, comparing to Geely Otaka
now that's scary! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAN2cx2UIE
and one more, sorry it is kind of off-topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRy...eature=related
now that's scary! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vAN2cx2UIE
and one more, sorry it is kind of off-topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SRy...eature=related
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 560
Likes: 65
From: LHC, Arizona
2024 GLE 63 S Coupe 2020 E 63 S
Here's the thing about smart cars, yes they have a great 'cage' so to speak but none the less, bigger hood leaves more room for kinetic energy to be absorbed. With smart car yeah you may have room for a person to get inside when your done but, the g-forces are going to be directly transferred to the person inside, so you will may not get crushed, but your body will be absorbing the impact instead. I'll stick with my gas guzzling german tank.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 557
Likes: 0
From: Surprise, AZ
2005 Crossfire SRT6
The MSN vid at 26 seconds seeing the MB emblem fly in slow motion is classic. The chinese car crash test just proves it's population control. That might not be too bad of an idea.
