Accident protection in a Mercedes vs. other makes? legit?
 

my parents who drove MBs from the 70s on swear by them because they feel their chances of walking away uninjured from an accident is a LOT higher in a Mercedes Benz than in any other car. Thus they've always told me to drive one.

Maybe this was somewhat true back in those days, but does the "avoiding death or serious injury by driving a Mercedes" theory still hold true today? With the new federal regulations and whatnot, would your chances be just the same in a toyota camry, honda or a hyundai?? :confused:

My neice had a 1998 or 99 C230.She got into an accident and the entire car was smashed.The cd's in the trunk were broken,the car couldnt move its front wheels.It drove off to the nearest exit in that condition and my neice walked away scratch-free.I drove a 2004 Camry,and I dont think it would compare to the old Benz's.The W140's seem as if they would be even safer.I heard that in the new W220's they have some system that adjusts the passengers before an accident to keep them in the best spot.I believe Mercedes is much more sturdy than a Honda or Camry,even a BMW.

Just about all cars have made strides in accident safety over previous models, but so have Mercedes Benz. So the bar is continually rising.

If the accident is bad enough you won't make it in "any* car.

There was mention of a tour bus that crossed the center line and hit a W126 300SEL head on, and the driver of that car perished.

Another W126 coupe was seen flying down the autobahn at eve 100 mph, and 10 minutes later it was discovered crashed into an underpass, squashed to the firewall, and its two occupants walking around scratching their heads.

However Mercedes and Volvo also, have always been committed to occupant safety, both active and passive, and their vehicles designed to protect their passengers as much as possible.

Other "lesser" makes have emphasized lighter weights and more plastics for better fuel mileage, and accident safety suffers as a result. The basic results of physics can't be changed.

Between a '95 Subaru and a '91 Benz you can really feel the difference in heft and solidity of the Mercedes.

It always helps to be alert, and attentive, to what's going around you, to drive prudently, and without distractions like loud music, beverages, food, telephones distracting you.

I try to avoid all accidents, but I'd rather take my chances in a MB vs anything else. They are usualy 10-15 years ahead in the safety department, look at the new S class.

But also realize that all cars have limits of energy that can be absorbed until there is bodily injury. A number of years ago I remember a photo of a late 1980's Cadillac deVille that was pinch front to rear by two semis. The traffic on the highway was stopped and the second semi did not stop soon enough. The result was a de Ville with the trunk mashed up to the back window and the front length greatly shorten almost to the windshield. The coach was intact for the most part, however, you could see from the photo that the roof was beginning to buckle. The two passengers in the car were uninjured. A split second in delay of braking of the second semi could have been the difference between like and death for the people in the car. Considering the amount of energy applied to the car I believe that it was a photo that GM could be proud of.

As an additional note:
The accident that involved my 1985 300D was relatively minor, however, the Ohio State Patrol Officer commented to me', "you could not have been in a better car to be in an accident."

i agree.

nothing can touch a benz imho.

tom w

My friend was T-boned by a driver who plowed into the side of his M6 at 45+ mph, but he walked away without injury. His insurance claims adjuster told him that if he had to be T boned, a Merc or Bimmer were best to be in, and the M6 and W124 were the best of the best for survival in that type of accident. My friend's wife commented that she felt safer in her SUV than in the M6, and the adjuster told her "not even a distant second place - no comparison." She still doesn't believe it, something that big just has to be safer, right? :rolleyes:

I never really understood how people feel a lot safer in SUVs and trucks. They brake like crap and handle like crap. I'm talking of course of regular soccer mom SUVs, not the Porsches or BMW SUVs. Those pictures of the 2000? F150 crash tests were pretty horrid. Whole passenger cage just collapses and crushes your ankles and feet and knees.

Your chances would not be the same...
 

The 2007 Honda Accord Value Package model and LX model come with rear drum brakes.

My dad's 1969 Volvo 145 and my 1974 240D, both base models, came with disc brakes on all 4 corners.

It is the difference between having a systematic belief in safety as part of your core business philosophy and trying to sell the image of safety and innovation.

So anders, you are implying that your 20-30 year old cars have shorter stopping distance than a modern car? Bullhonkey I say, even if the Honda has drums. Modern suspensions allow the tires to grip much better than the ole designs. The Benz does have phenomenal brakes considering how old the design is though. I'd bet the stopping distance from 60 MPH is at least 20 feet shorter on the Honduh.

Took a 55MPH+ car in the driver door. A few cracked bones but I came out much better than the Honda Civic. 99 C280. That is why we upgraded to the 99 E300

Of all the MANY hundreds of cars (mostly wrecks) at European Connection's lot (70 acre farm actually), I believe there are only three "death cars". As I recall, one was basically run over by something like a garbage truck or larger. The others had similar massive events.
Guy in our local section had a 190E. He was sitting at a light when some car rear-ended him. Other driver stated she was doing 35mph and just did not see him. No braking on her part at all. Completely squished the trunk. Still, all windows worked, all doors worked and I think the sunroof still worked. Passenger cabin was completely intact. Crush zone absorbed most of the energy.
Daughter was run off road. She went down an embankment and into a tree. Trashed the front of the car ('87 300E). She was fine, just sore from bracing. Went out and bought her an '87 300D shortly thereafter. All my family members will have a Benz to drive, period.
It always amazed me that my '76 240D had four wheel disc brakes when I see brand new cars with drums on the rear. Different attitude at MB.

I am not implying that at all.

Rather, it is the integrity of the leadership and their commitment to safety of the car companies like Honda that I question.

If they truly believed in safety, their base models would have discs on all 4 corners as standard and not make the consumer purchase a more expensive model to get the improved braking performance of disk brakes in front and back.

Mercedes, BMW and Volvo made that commitment 40 plus years ago.

Well a 2007 Rav4 has brakes that are almost as good as a W126. Although I think at higher speeds the W126 would do better simply because the rotors are much larger. :D Keep going Toyota, maybe in another 10 years you will be there, it only took you 20 to get almost as good.:D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=zv0ZPyj7S6M

Old commercial they don't talk about all the new air bag systems, pre safe, and the new electronic stability systems. But still good.

In my book the conclusion is simple:
Mercedes Benz builds some of the safest cars in the world.

Your asking in a Mercedes Forum.
I think you will get somewhat biased opinions.