WRT the 59 Chevy vs a modern car crash.....

For the 59, and plus or minus some years, chevy had a frame whose configuration is not what you would assume to be the normal automotive frame of the time....

The Chevy frame, for 59, and into the early sixties, had a very narrow cross section from the front bumper, and next to the engine, which did not widen until around the B pillar.

Essentially for the offset front end collision staged with the modern car, the only parts taking the impact on the '59 were the body sheetmetal and the left front suspension. This was a very poor frame design from an impact perspective.

I've often wondered if this was deliberate or ignorance on the of the group staging the comparision.

Jim

__________________
14 E250 BlueTEC black. 45k miles
95 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 66k miles
94 E320 Cabriolet Emerald green 152k miles
85 300TD 4 spd man, euro bumpers and lights, 15" Pentas dark blue 274k miles

Interesting and depressing numbers in there:
- Motorcycles are 29 times more likely to have a fatal accident, per mile, than personal cars/trucks
- Personal cars/trucks are 67 times more likely to have a fata accident than commercial road transport (e.g. buses)
- Trucks/SUVs have much higher fatal single vehicle accidents than passenger cars
- Personal cars/trucks have a 112 times higher fatal accident rate than commercial air travel, per mile

Basically, motorcyclists are stupid (I own three...) and we can't drive worth anything. I guess that's not really news.

This fact seems to be lost on most SUV buyers thinking "OMG I want a big safe truck to take the kids to school"

__________________
CENSORED due to not family friendly words

How safe is it? Compared to other 1976 cars very very good. Compared to a modern car? Not that good. As other noted, in a crash your head is going to hit the steering wheel. 1985 models did get seatbelt pretensioners. I would not describe it as unsafe. Check out copart.com for real crash pictures.... you'll see the old design holds up well.

-J

__________________
1991 350SDL. 230,000 miles (new motor @ 150,000). Blown head gasket

Tesla Model 3. 205,000 miles. Been to 48 states!
Past: A fleet of VW TDIs.... including a V10,a Dieselgate Passat, and 2 ECOdiesels.
2014 Cadillac ELR
2013 Fiat 500E.

Just to add to the Mercedes lore stories. I was buying some interior items from a guy who was parting out his W123. The car had 489,000 miles on the original engine and he was t-boned at about 50mph on the passenger side. The rear side door would no longer open, but had there been a passenger they would have not been injured. I spent about 20 minutes with a massive sledgehammer trying to get the door to budge about an inch from the inside in order to remove some trim. Despite going at it for quite a while (and I'm not a lightweight), I was unable to budge the door. That incident really impressed me with the safety features considering I could probably punch a fist sized impression on a newer car.

On these forums, there are crash pics posted and it seems very often that the W123 is able to drive itself home while the other guy waits for the tow truck.

Dkr.

To answer the question about who is asking if it's safe, it's just various people that I know, the main reason I posted this was for my own peace of mind, since I'll be driving friends and family, I wouldn't want to put them at more risk by driving a dangerous car. Although all of the wonderful response have helped with that. Thanks again, you people always come through.

You guys also remember the accident that just happend with the gull wing? Guy walked right away...



Mercedes 300SL Gullwing head on crash - Mercedes-Benz Forum

__________________

Personal opinion -

Our old cars, generally speaking, require more attentive driver's. We have to plan ahead, think down the road, etc.

We additionally have fewer distractions from TV screens, maps, etc. unless we choose to add them.

Combine this and while the car itself may have fewer safety systems, they most often have safer drivers.

New cars, from what I see, inspire carelessness due to an illusion of relatively invincibility. The car will save you, so why bother driving with care?

I think that the above condition leads to an overall safer driving experience regardless of whatever arguments are made about the safety of the car's systems. What are left are those instances where everything else is out of your control - the random T-bone or unexpected deer jumping into to your car or what have you. There are plenty of those instances where even new safety systems can't protect you - a semi truck sandwich for example. So perhaps life is too short to worry about that sort of stuff...

__________________
1979 300D 040 Black on Black - 1985 300D Maaco job (sadly sprayed over 199 Black Pearl Metallic) on Palamino

http://i.imgur.com/LslW733.jpg

The Baja Arizona Oil Burners Send a message if you'd like to join the fun
Left to Right - UberWasser, Iridium, Stuttgart-->Seattle,, mannys9130

Visit the W123 page on iFixit for over 70 helpful DIY guides!

Probably exponentially safer than a 2014 IIHS top safety pick econo-box with a driver who is Texting ...

But it wouldn't be my first choice in terms of safety. . .

Although a brain and some common sense goes a long way on todays roads. . .

Eyes on the road, two hands on the wheel, use the signals and mirrors, and keep it at or below the speed limit.

And remember, nothing powered by an OM617 is a left lane kinda car

That is a pretty scary result. I thought the Volvo would come off a bit better.

May be I'll fit a roll cage to my W123!

__________________
1992 W201 190E 1.8 171,000 km - Daily driver
1981 W123 300D ~ 100,000 miles / 160,000 km - project car stripped to the bone
1965 Land Rover Series 2a Station Wagon CIS recovery therapy!
1961 Volvo PV544 Bare metal rat rod-ish thing

I'm here to chat about cars and to help others - I'm not here "to always be right" like an internet warrior



Don't leave that there - I'll take it to bits!

The local crusher guy hates old Mercedes because they really make his machine groan when crushing them. He said he put in a local guy's race car with a full roll cage and it crushed with half the effort of a benz.

__________________
[SIGPIC] Diesel loving autocrossing grandpa Architect. 08 Dodge 3/4 ton with Cummins & six speed; I have had about 35 benzes. I have a 39 Studebaker Coupe Express pickup in which I have had installed a 617 turbo and a five speed manual.[SIGPIC]

..I also have a 427 Cobra replica with an aluminum chassis.

Did Mercedes employ a stuntman in the Chapman TV commercial?

__________________
85 300D turbo pristine w 157k when purchased 161K now
83 300 D turbo 297K runs great. SOLD!
83 240D 4 spd manual- parted out then junked

When our cars were built they (and Volvo's) were the safest cars in the world, by a rather large margin. Mercedes was among the first to build cars with a monocoque structure, rather body on frame. They engineered crush zones to absorb energy in impacts, reducing the impact of that energy on the occupants of the car. Those passengers were protected in a safety cell or safety cage that was part of the structure of the chassis. This was developed by Mercedes in 1951 and is used today by every car maker. (There is some argument here, as SAAB, had introduced a safety cage in the production 92, which began to roll off the line in December of 1949--it was the first SAAB car made). Mercedes, made huge padded steering wheels, so if you did impact the wheel the damage would be minimized. The 3-point seat belt (invented by an engineer at Volvo) minimizes movement front and to the side in various impacts. The steel sunroof didn't shatter glass on the occupants, the roof structure was reinforced to support 10 times the weight of the car. Door latches and handles were designed and reinforced to doors could be opened easier, those door handles were designed for leverage so emergency responders could just pull on the handle, rather than have a flimsy flap to lift up on but no leverage to pull. Mercedes has over 80,0000 safety patents a lot of them predate our cars.

Mercedes was the first to put airbags as standard equipment in cars, (GM has been offering optional airbags in some large cars since 1974) and seat-belt pretensioners with the 1981 S-Class, beating the US government mandate for passive restraint systems. Mercedes called it "supplemental restraint systems" (SRS) because they were philosophically opposed to the idea that passive restraints should ever be considered adequate to the active restraint of a seat belt. The US safety regulators had this misconceived notion, where they'd given up on getting people to wear seat belts and mandated technologies to protect the stupid unbelted occupant. And that was the mandate, create a passive restraint system. Some car makers used motorized seat belts for the shoulder strap, but the lap belt still have to be manually belted. These were stop gap measures allowed by the DOT to give time to carmakers to design and engineer airbags.

Are cars safer today? Yes, for sure they are, with many technologies that improve both active and passive safety. But, to be honest the only real safety technologies I wish my W123 had would maybe be seat belt pre-tensioners and ABS (which I can minimize the need of by being alert, keeping a safe distance, and driving based on surface conditions).

__________________
1983 W123 300TD US spec Turbo engine, with Euro bumpers and manual climate control, and manual transmission.

MrOwl42 is a very good fisherman; so little bait, so many fish.

anyone have a link to the w123 South Africa Chapman crash video. I have searched but to no avail.