Best w123 crash test video for w123 fans
 

9 minutes long. lots of slo mo's for the w123 fans.

1980 Mercedes 240 Crash Test - YouTube

in the 6:30 mark, it shows a clip from the underside of the car during the crash. I saw a spark. Was that the battery?

I posted this several years ago in the video forum :)

-J

I've seen an SD that was hit hard front & rear. Trunk pushed in, back glass popped out - in 1 piece with seal attached. Radiator pushed into the fan.

I needed some door pieces. All 4 doors opened and closed perfectly. These are good safe vehicles suitable for my young son when he gets his license. Big, slow, safe.

This test was done at 34.95mph. that is a lot of damage. I know the front is a crumple zone.

The bottom view shows the transmission shoved back and towards the drivers side of the hump. looks like it shoved the hump over a bit as the trans mount bent back.
.
Dummy face planted right into the steering wheel. I thought the seat belt was to hold you back.

Both front doors seemed to be jambed, the guy had to really jerk on them. so the body got tweaked.

Shame to have destroyed a W123 and especially a 240D with manual everything. That was a nice color that dark blue.

Just think of all those good parts that went to the scrapper. :(


Charlie

The shots under the car are the most interesting. Seems like a lot of damage for a "slow" impact.

solid concrete wall.....passenger compartment intact. ...as designed.

The way that steering column moved upward toward the dummy's head and its face impacted the steering wheel in the 240d is pretty horrifying. Compare that to the Volvo 240.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jNBSuNrU9UI#t=100

Airbags and seatbelt pretensioners are a good thing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ye-EIymm2k

Yup, most people don't realize that seatbelts stretch in a crash.

I don't plan on running to any concrete walls at 35mph anytime soon.....so i will say I won't be seeing any of this type of damage anytime soon :D

It can always be worse
 

Always heard Aussies say that Holdens were junk, but never thought they could be THIS bad:

Old school Commodore crashing - YouTube

A hit like this against a solid wall is different than against another car in a rear-end type situation. When impacting another car some of the energy is absorbed by the other car's crumple zones, and by the other car's movement as it's pushed in the direction that the car in the rear was headed.

This is probably more along the lines of the damage that you could expect with a head-on collision of two cars going 35mph.

Anyway, no physics major here by any means, but that's part of the reason why it seems worse than you might expect.

Much discussion of "old car safety" on the Mopar site I frequent. A bit strange that the majority of people there think their old cars are totally unsafe for anyone you care about, like a teenage daughter. Many even claim that drum brakes can't stop a car (but can skid tires?). Apparently, they believe the claims/hints from car companies and insurance institutes, and many own "trailer queens" they never drive on a public road. Being a mechanical engineer, and having lived thru those days, I am more skeptical.

As I recall, seat belts (w/ shoulder harness) are as effective as a front air bag. Indeed, the fed mandate was either air bags or motorized seat belts. Customers balked at the latter, so air bags became standard (and dropped in cost). An air bag does also help a belted passenger, but is not essential. Of course, side air bags help regardless. I recall that the collapsing steering wheel (~1967+) was also mainly to protect unbelted passengers from impalement. You wouldn't believe how many idiots routinely drove without seat belts thru the 1970's, and I was often ridiculed for always "belting up". The lack of seat belt laws did improve the gene pool though.

There is a suspicious video on youtube by an insurance institute that shows a 90's Jap car in a frontal collision with a ~1960 Chevy. The Jap car slices thru the 60's car unscathed, leaving an interesting cloud of rust in its wake. This supposedly shows that modern cars are much safer. It leads to many obvious questions like "what happened to the crumple zone"?, how did it slice thru the engine block and thick frame rails?, why so much rust? I am pretty sure if my 65 Chrysler had a head-on collision with a 90's Accord, we would keep going in my direction.

I am not totally careless. I swapped the old bucket seats in my 60's cars for modern seats with head restraint and integral shoulder belts. I feel that safe, defensive driving is the best safety approach and will always be better than all the fools driving erratically with 7 air bags. Over-riding defective biological control units by an automated safety over-ride (radar braking and lane holding) will be the greatest safety enhancement and it is already here. I think it should be mandated for people with poor driving records.

Actually it's a 2009 and 1959 Chevy. The two cars were almost the same weight. The dust you see is just dirt that collects on the inside of the panels and doors, not rust.

1959 Chevrolet Bel Air vs. 2009 Chevrolet Malibu IIHS crash test - YouTube

The 1959 car is simply not designed to give in a preprogrammed way... it does not have crumple zones. That's why you see the passenger compartment and engine bay collapse equally. Also remember that those models only had an X frame, there is no strength running down the side of the car.

The video the OP posted is the same as two W123s striking each other at 34 MPH. The wall can only push back as hard as the car is pushing on it.

-J

For comparison, here is a '57 Mercedes:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ammiY22U7ag

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpsVqW-4pwU

With a more modern steering design and seatbelts it would have done not so bad!

-J