Of course it is, it's a science experiment to test crashworthiness of vehicles demonstrating vectors, M1 and M2 and engineering design in metallurgy.

__________________
1974 240D 3.0L 4(M) - 250K -OM617.910 + 300D FW + Rajay turbo power!
1977 6.9 3(A) - 84k

Until now they only tested cars against a static deformable barrier (in the frontal crash) which basically simulates hitting a vehicle of the same type or a static object like a tree. If I were to hit a big tree I'd much rather be in a Smart than some old Caprice wagon. That tree isn't going to move and it's all about crumple zones, cabin rigidity and air bags where old cars typically do poorly. Now of course with multi-vehicle collisions, the mass of each vehicle comes into play and it changes things. The Smart is extremely safe for its size, but because it's light the deceleration forces on its occupants would be quite severe in a collision with a heavier vehicle.

I think the bottom line is one has to draw a line somewhere. If you wanted to be quite safe on the road (and disregard all other potential killers in life) you'd have to drive an 18-wheeler or a tank. For me a good compromise is a car like my Jetta TDI. It gets better mileage than the Smart, but still weighs a good 3000 lbs and has airbags, good crumple zones and a reasonably strong cabin. A Mercedes diesel is a good choice too IMO. Some may think big pickup trucks are even safer, but death statistics show otherwise. That's probably due to the higher rollover risk.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Thanks! Yeah, it probably would.

I agree... naturally... if you are going to hit a stationary object such as a tree a Smartcar would be fine. However if I were able to be in either a Smartcar or some old big wagon, I would rather be in the 5000 lb wagon with its seatbelts and standard safety features, which by the late 60s consisted of things like energy absorbing instrument panels, energy absorbing steering columns, etc rather than a 2000 lb Smart car. You seen how the C240 threw the Smart car into the air... imagine it hitting a 5000 lb station wagon or a SUV with alot of metal/weight.

I just wanted to add something, all older cars of the early 70s are not unsafe and some cars back then actually had airbags (optional on most 1974-76 GM full-size models for about $300) and crumple zones. In the early 70s, Ford started using "S" frames which absorbed frontal crashes. Not sure what GM started adding crush zones, but the photo below will show how "old wagons" like mine hold up. Here is a photo of a 1973 Chevrolet Impala stationwagon, which is the same body style as my 1972 Chevrolet Caprice wagon discussed here. This photo was from 1976, when the car was 3 years old. This 5000 pound early 1970s station wagon hit a large dump truck head-on at nearly 50 mph. Notice how well the passenger cage held up by the very minimal rearward movement of the a-pillars. The driver of this car survived with only some bruises. I would hate to see a Smartcar that had hit the dump truck.


I understand what you are saying though... the Smart car is a safe car hitting another small car or like you said, a tree.

Just for comparison, here is a 1999-05 VW Jetta in the off-set test... while it got a good overall rating, it only got an acceptable rating of the structure/safety cage and looks a little more crumpled that the old wagon that hit the dump truck at 10 mph faster than the Jetta hitting the stationary barrier at 40 mph. Notice also how the dummy is wedged against the dashboard and steering wheel.

1999-05 Jetta


http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=113

Not all Mercedes even in the 90s did well either... look at the 1996-2000 E-Class... crumple zones didnt keep this passenger cage from folding up.... collapse of the A pillar, but it still got a good rating.. not sure why.


http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=74

The 03- newer E-Class was much better and the 01-up C-Class is also an excellent performer...

86560SEL, from what you're saying that old Caprice wagon may not be as dangerous as I thought. It would be interesting to see the IIHS or government test it using today's standards. I guess it would do quite poorly on the side crash test if not the front test because there are no side airbags. I have yet to see any car get good side ratings without side airbags. And from what I've seen, almost always the newer the model the safer it is (compared to its predecessor).

I've seen the ratings for my cars and they're acceptable to me. The A-pillar deformation is normal on older Mercedes (pre-98) and is part of the design to further soften the impact, at the expense of some cabin space. The dummy in the Jetta may look a bit cramped, but I bet I don't sit as forward as the dummy did and even in this position the dummy wasn't subjected to any great forces.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Yeah, these are safe cars, as were most cars in the early 70s... BIG cars that is though and the mid-size cars, which were big in the 70s... the smaller cars of the 70s were horrible though... like the Chevette and Datsuns, got horrible ratings.

Yeah, I would like to see some of the now non-production 70s cars in crash tests to see how safe the passengers are. Not sure about the side ratings on a wagon such as mine or on the one in the photo... I would say the wagon would fair well with all of the side pillars... however I wonder how well the 4dr hardtops (no upper b-pillars) would fair. I think I have heard they did not so well. I have a '73 Pontiac Grand Ville as well... a 4dr hardtop with no upper b-pillars... I have often wondered how well it would hold up in a side crash... probably poor if hit by a large car/truck, but probably OK in todays world of smaller cars.

Yeah, the ratings for the Jetta and E-Class were good ratings... they scored good overall ratings for cars in their size class.

I would like to see a W126 in an off-set crash test... I think I saw one once put out by MB and it did extremely well.

More on the Smart car on someone elses comment... yeah the Smartcar hit the smaller MB... imagine if it hit the big Mercedes R-Class SUV weighing in at 5000!

Update- oh here it is... W126 in an off-set test... did quite well... and this was with even less of the front end absorbing the crash, showing that the safety cage is super strong.


In fact, that whole link is interesting... an W140 S-Class hitting a Opel... notice how the Opels passenger cage collapses... Mercedes is unphased.


general link...
http://www.whnet.com/4x4/w140crash.html

Yeah, I've seen those links before, they're pretty interesting. Note however that the W126 frontal test was performed at 35 mph whereas the IIHS I believe tests them at 40 mph.

My impression of the 70's American cars is that they're big and heavy but also stiff, at least from the movies that I saw (I know, hardly anything to go by). If they are indeed stiff, that would preserve the vehicle but at the expense of the passengers who would feel tremendous forces.

BTW, here's a video of a crash between an older Volvo and a newer small Renault. You may have seen it before but I'm posting it because it's relevant to this thread. As you can see, bigger is not always better.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

But yeah, a W140 vs. a small egg shell like that Opel is no contest!

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL

Yeah, I noticed that 35 mph statement on the W126 crash test. Am I mistaken though, or is even less of the front-end taking the impact than the IIHS tests which use the entire half of the front... looks like only 35-40% of the Mercedes W126 is taking the impact, which would make even more force on the A-pillar/passenger cage?

Yeah, the really older cars, like the mid 60s and back models are stiff and have very little safety features overall, except for an occasional padded dash on some of the more upscale models. Thankfully, the late 60s added the energy absorbing column, instrument panel, padded interiors, etc.

My grandmother had a crash in her 1973 Cadillac in the 80s (like the one in the photo below)... she hit a truck and three 70s/80s models cars.. all smaller. She totalled them all, but was still able to drive her car home with some dents... no one in the Caddy was hurt, but a 1973 Cadillac has a heavily padded interior, so that helped... in fact most Caddys since the mid 50s had nice padded interiors.... lesser cars had more metal on the inside.



Couldnt check that link... my computer blocks off you-tubes... I will have to look at it on my laptop later.

I'll take a Mercedes over any car in an accident; preferable a new S class.

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

I wonder which of my cars would kill me less in a crash, my 80 300cd or my 86 Subaru XT. I think my XT would crumple like origami but transmit less force to me than my 300cd. The 300cd is a nearly 2 ton car with 1973 safety features, the XT is on a wagon chassis from the 80's and weighs slightly less. The P.O of my XT had another XT that a friend borrowed and crashed into a telephone pole at a good rate of speed, and the friend was OK.

__________________
1980 240d
1999 SL500

I dont know, but the instrument cluster in your Subaru is awesome!

Thanks! mine has been repainted once (a slightly lighter shade of brown). It has the 402 engine as well, although it has a 2 barrel carburetor instead of a four. It has A/C that works great. It has 3rd seat, luggage rack and the am radio as well. It used to have a tow hitch on it that the original owner made from stainless steel man i wish he didn't sell it before i came along! It also has a switch for the rear glass so you can open it while you are driving. Does your tailgate open manually, or is it powered by a motor? mine is manual, although i hear some are electric. My car came with the original spare tire, and in the same compartment where the paper license plates from when it sat on the lot brand new! pretty cool....

__________________

1979 240D with a 617 turbo diesel.

Why they do these tests, I don't know. You can't beat the laws of physics. And if they add more safety stuff to the smaller cars, won't the larger cars get these features/equipment, also (which will no doubt add weight to these already bloated vehicles)? So no matter what happens, larger cars will always be "safer".

This is becoming an arms race, like with football playing equipment. Some sports medicine experts have posited that if the players wore no pads and leather helmets, there would be FEWER injuries. All of the "low hanging fruit" of safety equipment and features was picked a decade ago. All this equipment is adding weight. When the W107SL was built, it was considered an overweight pig. Now...? Check out the weights on 2008/9 model cars.

There is no way to build a car that will keep you safe in any situation against any object, that you could actually afford. I liked the Saturday Night Live commercial satire for "the world's safest car", where the airbag inflated to colossal size BEFORE you started to move the car, thus filling all voids in the passenger compartment and keeping the passengers secure.

People get killed walking, riding a horse, etc. You take risks every day starting even before when you go outside to get the newspaper.

Money would be much better spent giving out REAL driving tests to get licenses - and real courses to train for them.

__________________
86 560SL
With homebrew first gear start!
85 380SL
Daily Driver Project

http://juliepalooza.8m.com/sl/mercedes.htm

Well, its a nice car! Unusual too since the 402 was rarely seen on the Impala Kingswood. There was another '72 Kingswood Estate up in Virginia not too far from here that was for sale that had a 454 in it! It was loaded to the max and was blue on blue.

Mine still has the original tow hitch, but I am thinking of removing it.. not sure yet. It also has factory air shocks, which I am soon changing to conventional shocks. Yeah, only my rear gate window is power... the gate is manual, but you are right, some had the power gate as well... it was optional. I discovered that the one with the winged looking knob around the key hole is the manual gate models and the flatter one is the power gate models. I know a guy with a 71' Kingswood Estate with the power gate and knew of another with the power gate, but oddly it was the 2-seat model. Unfortunately, this 100% rust free car was going to be crashed in a derby... it was a beautiful dark blue with dark blue interior and a good running 402 engine... I think the guy was a crazy to strip/crash it... he offered it for sale for awhile, but times are hard, no one has money. I think he was in New York, but the car was an original southern car and had not been up north long.

Mine is still in the restoration process. I had to have a new camshaft and lifters installed and I am currently undergoing some issues with mis-routed vacuum lines by the moron I had to redo the engine. He even left off some lines and the TCS solenoid and I cant find it. I have visited some Chevy sites, trying to see how to run the hoses, but I am getting different answers, but hopefully with that info, I can get it sorted out. Mine has the 4bbl quadra-jet. The reason my interior is in good shape is that it has always been garaged and not much sun exposure. The inside needs detailing though... its just as its been since 1991 when it was parked in the garage. I cant wait to get it detailed and see how well it cleans up. Its a local car that I had tried to buy for about 10 years. It belonged to a older lady that bought it from the original owner in 1984. She drove it from between Bristol Tennessee to Charlotte North Carolina to her craft shows.... as she got older, she stopped that and parked the car in the garage along side of her like new 1975 Cadillac. I hounded her for years, she finally sold it to me, but it had set awhile (since 1991 I think) and I had to brake work, etc. I also didnt know that the cam was bad, but it was really worn. The car does have some rust, because its damp/rainy here in the southeast and the cars rear windows had leaked and water rusted out the spare tire well some and the lower quarter panels, but the floor pans and frame are totally rust free.

That is really neat about yours having the original spare and that tag you mentioned. My old 1972 Buick Electra I had, as well as my current 1973 Pontiac Grand Ville 4dr hdtp sedan had/have the original bias-ply spare tires.

You may already know of these, but here are some neat sites for fans of these cars.... here is a 1971-76 Chevy forum...
(where you can read my complaining of my vacuum lines )
http://www.chevytalk.org/fusionbb/showforum.php?fid/40/

and a neat stationwagon website with lots of photos!
http://www.stationwagonforums.com/forums/

and this one is really neat... its a site dedicated to the 1971-76 Chevrolet full-size wagons, as well as the other GM wagons of that era...
http://www.chevywagons.com/chevywagonscom

here is the 1972 page... there is a '72 Impala wagon on there that looks alot like yours... same color too...
http://www.chevywagons.com/1972
(one interesting thing about that red '72 Estate wagon on the bottom right is that it dont even have A/C... it was a Canadian car and alot of those Canadian cars back then didnt have A/C - this car was listed for sale online awhile back and I had asked about it.)

and even production #s... I provided him with this info that I had compiled over the years (he may have already had it though), as well as production #s for all other 71-76 GM wagons (not posted here)
http://www.chevywagons.com/production_totals

Talk to you later!

They both use 40% overlap, the only difference is the speed.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/frontal_test_info.html

Good for your grandmother, but anecdotal crash stories are not really comparable to actual crash tests. There are too many variables to make these comparisons valid. That's why I said it would be interesting to see these old cars crash tested using today's standards. I wouldn't expect much and I'm almost certain the forces on dummies would be greater than in most modern cars with advanced crumple zones and airbags.

__________________
2004 VW Jetta TDI (manual)

Past MB's: '96 E300D, '83 240D, '82 300D, '87 300D, '87 420SEL