When I was younger and didn't have good judgement, I used to work on the RX-7's and took one I built and modified to 120 mph..I cringe when I look back at that, because in 2002, in PA, I drove over the crest of a Hill to see two cars, one a RX 7, that had just suffered a head-on collision.
"The police and paramedics will handle it", I thought, as I glanced at the cars and started to go around the scene....but there were no police! and no paramedics! and no onlookers!
I was literally the first car on the scene..
The carnage was incredible and tragic. In retrospect, I wonder why I didn't panic, because there were several fatalities, resulting from two teens in an RX 7 trying to pass another car who then hit a Corolla with an elderly couple head on..I didn't do anything partcularly brave except have the presence of mind to find my cell phone..
After that incident, I never had a great feeling about small cars. I know they design them with crumple zones and airbags, but when I looked at the poor driver of the Corolla with the steering wheel in his chest, I always felt that the superior size, mass and structure of a heavier car was always a safety factor that was most important..
Obviously a lot of physics and math and engineering go into making this judgement.
But for my money, I still try to make my kid take my 300D or Volvo out on longer, more crucial trips..I don't know, perhaps the Corolla with its airbag is actually a safer car....but intuition says that curb weight and physical dimensions and seatbelts are the best. Both of these cars are relatively 50% heavier and bigger than the Corolla...

Well it isn't as simple as a bigger car is safer. For example your 04 Toyota is much safer than your 300D. I would take the Toyota any day of the week but that is not a fair comparison because Toyota had 20 years on the 300D to improve things.

Wow that sounds like a horrible crash, who passes on a blind hill?

Anyway size does help to a point. Say a W220 whacks a W210 well than yes the people in the W220 are better off. It also depends on the accident. Some are just so bad nothing will help you. Rember pics of the S280 in Princess Diana's (sp?) crash. That was an W140!

__________________
1999 SL500
1969 280SE
2023 Ram 1500
2007 Tiara 3200

Well many of the newer small cars are built with better safety engineering and with better materials for withstanding crashes. Another thing you forgot to mention was that most cars these days have ABS which actually helps you avoid getting in a wreck, traction control and stability control help even further, but most cars don't have those two features as standard. The new Corolla you have received excellent crash test scores for front and side impact collisions. You might be surprised that even with the additional heft and weight, some bigger cars perform poorly in these crash tests. It would be wrong to just assume... you can look up the specific crash-test scores for the cars you're comparing for a source of objective judgement.

__________________
1999 Mercedes-Benz S600, 103K miles - garage queen
1988 Mercedes-Benz 560SEL, 89K miles - daily driver
2007 Hyundai Sonata Limited, 31K - daily driver

Very true. Also, I saw pics and videos from a website a long time ago that showed the current E-class withstanding crashes better than the current S-Class. Of course, both of them earned 5 stars all around, but the E-Class apparently has a better body structure for safeguarding the passenger safety cage. Well, the current S-Class was released in 1999, which the current E-Class was released in 2002. It shows that in those few years in between, M-B safety engineers learned and discovered enough to make the E-Class, which on average weighs 400lbs less than the S-Class, better at crashes.

__________________
1999 Mercedes-Benz S600, 103K miles - garage queen
1988 Mercedes-Benz 560SEL, 89K miles - daily driver
2007 Hyundai Sonata Limited, 31K - daily driver

Well no tiny car is going to hold its ground against an Excursion, or Expedition, Of a Dog Ram 1 ton..............simple rule of physics and mass. And the Crash ratings are agains a brick wall, not an item that outweights you 3 to one at least coming at you at the same speed you are traveliing .

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

I knew a kid who caused a traffic fatality once..don't get me wrong, there are places where you have to go W.O.T just to keep from being run over by other drivers,...but most of the time I try to be a safe, conservative and SLOW driver...boy having that as guilt would be too much..

Well that's the NHTSA crash tests. I was referring to those by the Insurance Institute folks. They actually move the object you're going to crash into at a certain speed just as the car that it being crashed into it is moving as well.

__________________
1999 Mercedes-Benz S600, 103K miles - garage queen
1988 Mercedes-Benz 560SEL, 89K miles - daily driver
2007 Hyundai Sonata Limited, 31K - daily driver

One of my best friends in High School had an accident a year after graduation.....he was going about 100mph in a pontiac fireberd......car load of drunk teens in a 4 door plymouth valiant ran a stop sign, he hit them dead center on the drivers side and knocked the passengerside door post out with his bumper, 4 people died, one was thrown clear and lived. Changed him as a person even though all he did was speed. THe others who were the ones at fault all had very high blood level alcohol reading at the Autopsy.

Neighbor had a harmonic Balancer come of his 66 Chevelle when he was racing someone.....he later found out it bounced into oncoming traffic, went through a grill, radiator, hood, then the windshied before hitting the driver sqauare in the face. They died instantly. That man was never the same.

__________________
Proud owner of ....
1971 280SE W108
1979 300SD W116
1983 300D W123
1975 Ironhead Sportster chopper
1987 GMC 3/4 ton 4X4 Diesel
1989 Honda Civic (Heavily modified)
---------------------
Section 609 MVAC Certified
---------------------
"He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche

The heavier the car the more kinetic energy it has when involved in a collision. This energy must be disposed of either through friction with the road surface (lock the brakes), or by deforming body panels (when you hit something).

On almost any surface a heavier vehicle will take longer to stop than a lighter one, the contact patches for the tires being very similar in area. Once the tires are at their limit for grip, because you've stomped on the brakes, the heavier car will always take longer to stop.

On a slippery surface the heavier vehicle is at a much bigger disadvantage, it has more momentum acting against the reduced friction with the road. When it comes to traction to get going the diesel has low end torque acting against it, as lots of torque at low RPMs is the last thing you need when trying to start moving on a slippery surface.

All of the above is yet another reason why it is worrying that we have increased numbers of big SUVs on the road. If we follow the reasoning that you need a big SUV to be safe in a crash, what do you do when everyone has a big SUV, drive a Semi?

My own feeling is that avoidance is better than survival, and I believe a light, modern, vehicle is more likely to be able to avoid a crash than an old, heavier one. On a modern vehicle all the steering and suspension components will be in better condition than your 300D, the brakes will be better, the crumple zones better designed, etc, etc.

Kevin

__________________
'85 300SD

that do not always emulate highway conditions ..or do they? I may be wrong, but i thought they went up to certain limited speeds that do not always emulate the dynamics of what happens on the open freeway..I am going to check,,

I found out only recently that those crash tests so highly touted on TV are all weight class based. Many people think they are safer in an econobox with a "5 star" rating than someone in a large sedan or SUV with a "3 star" rating. Not so. All accidents are unique, but this is a universal: kinetic energy is directly proportional to mass. Also, it's directly proportional to the square root of the velocity, so something going 41% faster has twice the kinetic energy. Taking other factors into account (which I won't do here) like coefficients of restitution, generally favor a heavier, less flexible vehicle

__________________
'82 300SD - 361K mi - "Blue"

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

listen, look, .........and duck.

For real, man!

I've gone from Newark Airport to Manhattan and back via shuttle van about 6 times in the past 2 years, and every time everyone is going oh, about 85 mph in a 55 mpg zone. Yeesh!

Last time the driver had a keychain that said "So many pedestrians, so little time!"

__________________
==========================
Aaron
'84 300D 267,000 - Running WVO - Rice Bran Oil - Mmmmmm, fishy...
==========================

I'm at work right now, so I can't find the data at the moment, but I'll try to look it up when I get home, however, what I'm thinking of was a graph made up over a long term study of accidents that correlated the type of car with both injuries to the people in the car, and injuries to people in the other car.

What did it find? Small modern cars like Corollas, Jettas, etc, were by far safer for both the people in the car, and the people outside of the car. The worst on both accounts? Pickup trucks! SUVs, were, predictably, decent to the inhabitants of the car, but terrible to people in other cars, and little sports cars were the worst to the people in the car, but best to people in other cars.

The thing I liked about the study is that it was based on actual accidents, not simulated crashes, and it correlated lots of different aspects of an accident, a fairly in depth study.

The point is, kinetic energy is NOT what you want more of in a crash. It doesn't matter which side of the equation its on, you don't want more of it, you want less of it.

If you've got a car with ABS and airbags, put your kids in THAT during terrible weather! Heavy = hard to stabilize in a slide, Stiff = kinetic energy transfered to your neck instead of to the crumple zones. Both bad things. Now, W123s are pretty safe cars, and they were great for their era, but don't think that it is safer than a modern small car. The idea of 'econoboxes' being dangerous is no longer the case, now that modern safety technology is available even in mid to low priced sedans.

I know that in bad weather my girlfriend an I drive her AWD subaru. It is orders of magnitude more confident on bad roads, and if the worst were to happen, I'd be glad the ABS and airbags were there.

But as usual, avoidence is better than being in any accident at all, which is why I drive safely, never drive drunk (and even avoid times when lots of drunks are out), and use the right equipment for the job.

Anyway, be safe, its a jungle out there, and I hope the best for you all.

Peace,
Sam

__________________
"That f***in' biodiesel is makin' me hungry."

1982 300TD Astral Silver w/ 250k (BIO BNZ)
2001 Aprilia SR50 Corsa Red w/ 5.5k (>100 MPG)

I feel safer driving my AWD Subaru Legacy in bad weather, since it has ABS and SRS. The 300CD doesn't have these, and can suck at times in the snow, compared to the Subaru. Last winter the ABS and AWD saved me a few times, where I know for sure I would have gotten into an accident in the 300CD...

I think you are well intentioned here Sam, and I heartily agree with you that ABS and air bags are good things. So is collision avoidance. Not all collisions are avoidable. But you are somewhat mistaken about kinetic energy in a collision. The issue is, what forces are applied to your body during an event. F=ma. When 2 vehicles collide, momentum is conserved. If 2 vehicles of significantly different weights collide head on going the same speed, the heavier vehicle will be greatly slowed down but still going forward. The lighter vehicle will be going backwards. No matter how you do it, momentum is conserved. This goes for a collision between any 2 vehicles or any 2 anything, anywhere. Sorry to be so stubborn about this. An acquaintance of mine is the Facility manager for the Consumer Reports test track in East Haddam, CT where I used to live. I remember talking to him a couple years ago about car safety. He was explaining his opinions on vehicle safety and why he got his wife the car that she drove and loved for so many years. A (126) 300SD.

__________________
'82 300SD - 361K mi - "Blue"

"Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement."

listen, look, .........and duck.