Just how safe is the W123?

[MrOwl42]

Does anyone have good sources/stories to verify the safety of a W123? I've got a 1977 300D, I know it doesn't have airbags, but still is an extremely solid car with crumple zones. Some people are questioning the safety of it, so I was wondering if anyone had some sources or ways to prove it's safety. Pros as well as cons are welcome.

[tjts1]

Its safer than the average 1970s car but I wouldn't want to have an accident in it vs a modern car. Besides airbags it lacks, ABS, seatbelt pretensioners, UHSS structure... the list is long. That seatbelt alone are not going to prevent your head from impacting the steering wheel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCA-GuE0mUA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgegEGQAsIk
http://www.w123.dk/index.htm?http://www.w123.dk/w123_w123Sikkerhed.htm

[Zacharias]

I saw this advertisement the first time in a theater as part of a "best ads from around the world" film festival. You could have heard a mouse hiccup when it was over. The impact of the footage when seen on a fullsize movie screen was incredible.

W123 Crash - Mercedes-Benz Forum

If the link doesn't work, google "Chapmans Peak directed by Keith Rose".

Based on an actual event.

New cars have piles of safety technology that is designed to allow them to do well in crash tests. Real world collisions do not necessarily match controlled crash tests.

Having been through a severe side impact in a w126, where I sustained a serious concussion, the only thing I might wish for would be side airbags, but not even all modern cars had them standard until quite recently.

[tangofox007]

Originally Posted by Zacharias

New cars have piles of safety technology that is designed to allow them to do well in crash tests. Real world collisions do not necessarily match controlled crash tests.

In a crash test, what is the chance of a crash?

In the real world, one has to consider other factors. Like the chance of getting into a crash in the first place. I wonder how the relative poor performance of the typical diesel W123 comes into play there. I have had a few close calls that would not have been so close in a car with a bit more get up and go.

Anyway, when watching that video, all I could think was "Step on the right rudder pedal."

[BillGrissom]

I think there is a wealth of false info and misunderstanding about auto safety. Few remember that the federal mandate was either air bags OR an automated seat belt. The primary purpose of a front air bag is to protect unbelted occupants. Ditto for padded dashboards (~1964?) and collapsing steering columns (~1968). Better for society that unbelted drivers die quick and not reproduce. Re seat belts, my 85 300D has self-tensioners. It also has a stupid "gravity lock" with little ball that likes to get stuck and make it so I can't fully pull out the seat-belt and use it until it decides to reset sometimes a day later (safer?). All the above is only to protect a driver who runs into things. I never have in 40 yrs of driving. I never follow too close, change lanes without turning my head to look and signaling, or speed on wet roads. I have been hit multiple times in the rear and sides by idiots, usually with no insurance. I feel safer in my 300D in a side collision than most new sedans, but safest of all in my 65 Newport with its wide heavy doors and really long "crush zone" trunk. That is where the idiots usually attack.

The front disk brake mandate (~1973) was to minimize people going off mountain roads from losing their brakes after riding them miles downhill - think Florida drivers on the Blue Ridge Pkwy.

An amusing youtube video is from the Insurance Institute (or such) claiming to show how much safer newer cars are by a partial head-on crash of a modern sedan against a ~62 full-size GM sedan. The newer car slices thru the old car, leaving a cloud of rust dust. I am guessing the old full-frame car had totally rusted frame rails and body, and maybe some missing parts. What happened to the "crumple zones" idea in the new car, which came thru almost unscathed? That video has many classic car owners saying their cars are unsafe.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by BillGrissom

Few remember that the federal mandate was either air bags OR an automated seat belt. The primary purpose of a front air bag is to protect unbelted occupants.

This assertion is so completely wrong. Take a wild guess as to why they call it a "supplemental restraint system?"
Airbag - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by BillGrissom

I feel safer in my 300D in a side collision than most new sedans, but safest of all in my 65 Newport with its wide heavy doors and really long "crush zone" trunk. That is where the idiots usually attack.

The words you're looking for is "a false sense of security".

Originally Posted by BillGrissom

An amusing youtube video is from the Insurance Institute (or such) claiming to show how much safer newer cars are by a partial head-on crash of a modern sedan against a ~62 full-size GM sedan. The newer car slices thru the old car, leaving a cloud of rust dust. I am guessing the old full-frame car had totally rusted frame rails and body, and maybe some missing parts. What happened to the "crumple zones" idea in the new car, which came thru almost unscathed? That video has many classic car owners saying their cars are unsafe.

Yes, you are definitely guessing when you talk about this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrXViFfMGk
Even if the 1959 Bel Air was brand new, I'll take my chances in the car designed around seat belts, air bags, a safety cage and crumple zones, thank you very much.

An even better example of how quickly the technology has evolved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs
But hey, don't let that change your dogmas. I'm sure a car that was never crash tested during its development 60 years ago is way safer than anything designed and repeatedly crash tested today.

[Stretch]

Originally Posted by tjts1

...
An even better example of how quickly the technology has evolved.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs
...

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!

[cooljjay]

I remember seeing a CL ad for a 300td parts car, I asked the guy what happen. He said he hit the back of a flat bed trunk and went over a cliff on Hwy 1 in marin county.....both him and his dog walked away....

I hit a guard rail at 60mph in Cali....I broke a head light and put a dent in the fender..

I feel totally safe in my car and I am never worried about not walking away from a crash.

In a newer car, I would get pinned to the dash in an accident and most likely would not be able to open my door....

[Skippy]

Much safer in a crash than a motorcycle. Beyond that I can't say for sure. I did get rearended by a 1/2 ton Chevy pickup last year. His junk left on a flatbed. I drove mine home.

[martureo]

Forgotten so soon? If you didn't remember, Miguel (member Delibes) took a spill in a w123 wagon in South America (Columbia IIRC?). http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/events-gatherings/295832-300td-road-trip-european-life-open-travelogue-48.html Pictures of said crash start at post #710.

[Skid Row Joe]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Much safer in a crash than a motorcycle. Beyond that I can't say for sure. I did get rearended by a 1/2 ton Chevy pickup last year. His junk left on a flatbed. I drove mine home.

Skip, why are you comparing it to "a motorcycle" when it's a car? Sounds like apples and elephants again......

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Skid Row Joe

Skip, why are you comparing it to "a motorcycle" when it's a car? Sounds like apples and elephants again......

They're both vehicles. Every time I go somewhere I have a choice of a W123 or a sport bike. Statistically, motorcycles are the most dangerous means of transportation. If, like me, you're willing to ride one, then pretty much any car is an improvement in terms of safety.

Motorcycles had a fatality rate of 212 per billion passenger miles, by far the highest of all modes: “A motorcyclist who traveled 15 miles every day for a year, had an astonishing 1 in 860 chance of dying — 29 times the risk for automobiles and light trucks.” - See more at: U.S. transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking, cycling Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

Source:

U.S. transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking, cycling Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

[jcyuhn]

Originally Posted by Skippy

Source:

U.S. transportation safety over time: Cars, planes, trains, walking, cycling Journalist's Resource: Research for Reporting, from Harvard Shorenstein Center

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.

[tjts1]

Originally Posted by jcyuhn

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"

[Skid Row Joe]

Originally Posted by MrOwl42

Does anyone have good sources/stories to verify the safety of a W123? I've got a 1977 300D, I know it doesn't have airbags, but still is an extremely solid car with crumple zones. Some people are questioning the safety of it, so I was wondering if anyone had some sources or ways to prove it's safety. Pros as well as cons are welcome.

Who(m) is questioning it's safety - and what is their reason in questioning it? i.e., what's their end game......