Vs M5 (F10) vs. the Competition

[K-A]

Where is the proof body of W212 is 78% HSS? I am not being inflammatory, I am actually curious.

I Google searched the 78% figure and a lot of hits came up, but many of them pointed to the E-Estate (maybe it uses a bit more HSS). To be "safe", here's a Link talking directly about the E Sedan, which states it as having 72% HSS (which would be the figure I stated that M-B claimed at the E's launch). Scroll down and it's above the "Pricing" category: 2010 W212 Mercedes-Benz E-Class Range Details And Pricing | Reviews | Prices | Australian specifications


Yet, two posts ago you were arguing that you showed substantial proof here is the exact quote -

So now you are admitting you don't have substantial proof?

Correction: I said "No substantial proof in an absolute way, i.e proof that the E is the end all be all, stronger body shell in every which way. What I have IS substantial proof in itself, i.e, if you slam into the E and F10 at the exact same (side) angle, with an SUV at 40-50 (whatever it is) MPH (IIHS Test), the E's body will hold up substantially better. I have proof of this, in visual form. I also stated that I have proof that if the E rolls over, it can withstand more weight and force (via statistical and visual footage). These are facts. All we have is the data that we have on it, and unless someone else tests them and somehow comes up with different results, I think it goes without saying that in those two, very important aspects, the E looks superior.

All you have is one image and one figure that is incontrovertible, I will give you that. Rest is flawed and indirect assumptions. At the same time you ignore other figures like torsional rigidity that F10 does better. Which brings me to my original point which is that we (or at least I) don't have enough information to form an opinion. It is got nothing to do with being a fan boy, I don't give a flying f*** if F10 has weaker or stronger body as long as it is safe enough.

Ah, well here is where your argument is flawed. The Torsional Rigidity figures are not facts. I'm not saying that I don't believe the F10 to have more torsional rigidity (I assume it does, and this has nothing to do with safety, as BMW puts more emphasis on handling, in which I believe that in itself would push them to build a more torsionally rigid car than its M-B counterpart). What I have given you, when stating my case that the W212 has a superiorly strong safety cage/body/bones than an F10, is: 1- Pictures in a Side Impact, at exact angles, which showcase the strength of a few different areas of the cage, 2- Roof Strength test data, 3- Awarded Safety Cage, not over an F10, but over 3 other cars that have amazing builds themselves (showing just how advanced the W212 is), 3- outstanding HSS % figure in the body construction, and 4- less movement figures in the footwell and steering wheel area.

What you have given me, is arguments that my data is insufficient, it seems, and a number of torsional rigidity that we do not have on hard data on (hard data, which is what I have provided in stating my case). If you can find me an independent test, or M-B figures stating the W212's torsional rigidity figures, I would be a happy boy. You've also provided the A-Pillar of the F10 moving 2mm less, and tests showing the F10 performing better (in terms of load to occupants) in the NCAP Tests.

Now, again, this argument is about safety cage strength, advanced materials and construction in the body/safety cage, etc.

I'll repeat: What I do not have is an absolute answer as to who has the superior construction/materials. However, what I do have is enough data and footage that lead me to believe that the W212 edges out the F10 here. I feel there's enough data to support the W212, to form my "conclusion".

I don't see why it's so hard.

 

[Zafiro]

I don't see why it's so hard.

I dont see why you guys care. Going back and forward on every page. Neither of the cars are any death traps so why bother arguing about it

 

[K-A]

Speaking personally, a car is only as good as what it is made out of/how it is made. People debate endlessly about inane HP and at-the-limit handling figures that they'll never use in the real world (couch racing, statistics bantering, etc.), so as a car enthusiast, I feel that the actual construction and materials of a car are mostly important, especially considering you use them at all times (it surrounds you when you drive, and has an effect on every which aspect of a cars performance and character).

But you're right, neither are anywhere near death traps (goes without saying), and safety/construction on one or the other shouldn't be enough to sway anyone from the other, if they have their heart set on one. To be honest, my only concern with the F10 is the roof load capacity figures, all else, like the IIHS Side Test, the Pole Test, etc. etc. are close enough.

 

[mini_cooper4]

Just goes to show what huge effect marketing has on the consumer Back in the day when I drove the 3 pointed star (2000 W203 C180 Elegance & 2003 W203 C180 Kompressor) I was obsessed with safety and all that pioneered by M-B, I also owned these two C-Classes because my late dad was a Benz man. Earlier years he influenced me as child, I remember him lecturing me on how soft the gear lever-knob was on his W126 coupe a 560SEC and steering wheel boss for safety etc...back in 1991 that car was THE ultimate car and I was obviously of the opinion that ONLY M-B exists Then in 2004 I traded the C180 K to a BMW E46 325i Coupe...Never looked back and frankly about safety these days I give a sh!t, all cars have to comply with regulations etc. And BMW's always has been as safe as houses.

Same as you I was a believer that MB is the only car on the planet when I was a kid and that was influenced by family members too.
When I grew up a little my father was trading his W140 for a E38 and I was upset about that and told him that he is trowing his money to the wind by switching to BMW from Benz...
I felt in love with BMW with that particular model - the E38
So stiff yet luxurious not a boat like the W140 which was my favorite car at that time. I'm the biggest ex Benz fan and now I have my eyes open and I don't like companies but the cars that are doing it for me

 

[Guibo]

the Bodyshell Award (with a BMW 5 GT competing against it, for that matter) was pointed out to further validate the great bones of the E-Class, etc. etc.

I think you are making too much of that award. Almost everyone here was talking about torsional rigidity. That appears to be only one of several criteria used in the judging process of that award. Other factors in the award include (but are not limited to):

• aerodynamics
• acoustics/quietness
• ergonomics
• incorporation of the different techniques to streamline production

The R8 (or Jag) might very well have better rigidity than the W212. However, if either fails in the big picture, with enough deductions in the other areas, then that could mean they might have lost the award even though they could have had more rigid bodies.
In the R8's instance, its ergonomics may be compromised by limited footwell space (as a function of the mid-engine design) or poor outward visibility (large B-pillar creating a massive blind spot, but which might add to torsional rigidity). If the methods used in its construction do not translate well to ease of manufacture, then it could lose points there too. If more of it is built by hand on its own dedicated assembly line (not unheard of for more bespoke, exotic machines) whereas others are more automated and robotized and built on a line with other vehicles, then the R8 could lose points for process optimization. I think its drag coefficient is also something like 0.35 whereas the E-Class is around 0.27, which further increases the E-Class's chances of taking the award.

The 5 GT is indeed a different car, but I would be hard pressed to believe that it is engineered in a lesser way, and I feel that it may be close enough to represent how the F10 would have fared. Also, the F10 did compete in the next year, and came in 3rd place (behind an Audi for one).

Not engineered in a lesser way, but I'd think it's layout might put it at a more compromised position structurally assuming similar gauges of steel. While the 5 GT has a completely open cabin in back, the W212 and F10 sedan have a fixed parcel/speaker shelf that helps add to rigidity. On top of this, we do not know which version of the W212 was used in the Euorcarbody award: was it with the optional folding rear seats or the standard seats with fixed rear bulkhead? If it's the latter, then that welded-in plate of metal would add further strengthening that would not be in a 5 GT.
And the 5 GT could still fall behind the Audi in the awards even if its structure were more rigid (which I doubt), for the reasons listed above that have nothing to do with torsional rigidity.

 

[Sunny]

What you have given me, is arguments that my data is insufficient, it seems, and a number of torsional rigidity that we do not have on hard data on (hard data, which is what I have provided in stating my case).

Where is the hard data W212 has more % of HSS than F10?

Where is the hard data that the award means the w212 has stronger body than F10?

 

[K-A]

Thanks for the good post, Guibo.

Where is the hard data W212 has more % of HSS than F10?

Where is the hard data that the award means the w212 has stronger body than F10?

The hard data says that the E-Class had/has more HSS than any other production car (in 2009), one year before the F10 came out. I can't find any data on the F10's HSS, but I will wager strongly that it doesn't meet the E's (you can kind of draw conclusions in a sense, taking into account the heavy weight, strength based on Test pictures, etc.). The F10 seems to get strength the old fashioned way: Heavy steel, and lots and lots of it (have you seen how thick the B-Pillars are? Thickest I've ever seen on a car, the W212's are half the size, but via IIHS footage, hold up better in that particular Test, which is an easy way to gauge what kind of steels are there, and how much (thickness/strength), hence the purportedly high torsional rigidity figures, the various strong sections, and again, the massive weight.

The Award certainly does not singularly tell you that the W212 has a stronger body (let's say, compared to the 5 GT or R8 or XJ, since they competed in the same year) as that is indeed one criteria for judging, however, it does tell you how advanced the body is, and how it was Awarded as the most advanced and best Body, in terms of meeting all criteria's, the best. The F10's Drag Coefficient of a relatively "bad" .30 would also work against it in that particular Car Body Award, as well.

I stand strong on the assumption that the F10 did not use a very "advanced" method of body construction (relatively speaking, especially compared to Audi and M-B counterparts). This is not to do with its perceived strength, but mainly in its perceived strength VS its weight. It seems clear to me that BMW focused on rigidity, but didn't factor in an advanced (more $$$$) way of going about it (higher tensile steels, and less of them). This will SURELY be "fixed" in the next generation, as rumored already.

 

[Merc1]

I don't think I've ever seen a more ridiculous, matterless, pointless, thread-soaking conversation in the 6 years this site has been running.


M

 

[K-A]

Oh c'mon now, how many Threads have been wasted due to people arguing about .1 second 0-60 (stuff that is matter less unless engaging in dangerous and volatile activity, unless one is a bonafide racer [rare]), or who can do a hairpin turn better than the other great hairpin turner?

.... Difference is, at least those guys can get ahold of some examples (sometimes) and find out for themselves (of course, excuses aplenty will come "heat/humidity/good day/bad day/launch/traction/running quality/more cylinders/more boost/etc."). In order to settle this discussion, we need to smash W212's and F10's into each other in about 10 different ways.

 

[Sunny]

^So then you don't have any hard data for either question, just assumptions?

 

[Wolfgang]

googleing a minute or two. Google is your friend.


Materials: around 72 percent of all body parts made from high-strength steel

Key aspects of the safety concept at the heart of the new E-Class include intelligent design and meticulous material selection. More so than ever before, Mercedes-Benz has given preference to ultra-high-strength steel alloys because they offer maximum strength whilst minimising weight and, therefore, are essential for meeting the strict safety and durability requirements.

Around 72 percent of all the bodyshell panels for the new E-Class are made from these grades of steel – a new record in passenger-car development. These ultra-high-strength, high-tech alloys, which boast three to four times the tensile strength of conventional high-strength steel grades, account for around eight percent of the weight. They are used at points where the material can be exposed to exceptionally high stresses during an accident – as a material for the B-pillars and the side roof frames to provide side impact protection, for example, or at the rear to produce a robust crossmember.

If these sophisticated alloys were not used, far more material would be required in order to meet the stringent safety requirements. The B-pillar is a perfect case in point: the body components which have to absorb high forces and transfer these into the body structure in the event of a side impact consist of sheet-metal shells and an extensive reinforcement which reaches as far as the upper edge of the belt deflector. One of the shells and the reinforcement are made from ultra-high-strength, hot-formed steel. Were they made using conventional sheet steel, however, the B-pillars would be more than a third heavier. In other words, the ultra-high-strength, high-tech alloy enhances safety whilst also reducing weight.

Source: Daimler Global Media Site > Newsroom (Home)




Next BMW 5 Series will have all-steel chassis

Autocar UK reports that the next generation 2011 BMW 5 Series will have an all-steel chassis, giving up the aluminum materials used in the current generation. Apparently, the change is being made due to costs issues and most important, ease of manufacture. The aluminum chassis has been too costly for BMW over the years and it was more difficult to manufacture in large volumes.

The E60 5 Series uses an aluminum frame at the front, but the rear is still made out of steel. The new BMW 7 Series was the first model to drop the aluminum front-end.

As our friend EnI points out, the aluminum chassis offered some weight savings, but the structural rigidity was questionable, especially after a collision, the frame was very difficult and extremely costly to repair.

As far as the new all-steel chassis, some special techniques are used by processing the steel – a multi phase steel (tubes are made of thinner steel layers reinforced with some other composites – making them lighter yet stronger than classic steel tubes).

As a result, the weight is quite reduced compared to a classic steel frame. BMW X5, X6 and 7 Series are also using such steel body frame. Bottom line is that BMW is not overlooking the weight issue here, and the new 5 Series will be just as heavy as the E60 model, but more rigid and providing higher safety.

There will be more aluminum, composite plastics and magnesium parts used in F10 5 Series, which will compensate in the end for the heavier body frame.

The new BMW 5 Series GT is built on the same structure, following the same plan, so this is a clear indication of what the next 5 Series will bring to the table.

Source: Next BMW 5 Series will have all-steel chassis

 

[Merc1]

I hate this, but K/A you're not making any sense here. You continually gloss over anything that doesn't support your claims.....which I don't even know what they are anymore? Guibo gave you a post with some real substance to it, and you just say "thank you" yet he is basically telling you the same thing Sunny is telling you.

*************** I don't even know what the point of this debate is **********************************


What is the point of who has the best structure of who uses the most of this and the most of that, if the same vehicle doesn't hold up as well in the crash tests as the very cars you're trying to imply are inferior because of their construction?????


THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE K/A............................NONE.


M

 

[K-A]

So there you have it. Hard data on the W212, and the 5 GT being built on the same structure/same plan.

 

[klier]

whoops wrong thread.

 

[K-A]

What is the point of who has the best structure of who uses the most of this and the most of that, if the same vehicle doesn't hold up as well in the crash tests as the very cars you're trying to imply are inferior because of their construction?????
M

What's the point of holding up high the low MPG, lower output M5 V10 motor, when the F10's more "normal" V8 makes more HP and higher MPG?

Some of us appreciate things that we find as excellent.

Crash data can only truly be told when real life figures come out, alongside tests of course. Body Construction/Materials and how each cars frames hold up are very telling ways as to how well they're built, how well they can protect in real life crashes, and how well they can perform when put under harsher tests (let's say your F10 flips over at high speeds, and that roof with only 14,000 lbs of load capacity gets put under very strenuous tests).

And I agree with and know everything that Guibo said. However, once again, all the data and pictures, information that I can come up with, lead me to believe that the W212 has the stronger/more advanced/superior bodyshell. Why is this going over everyones heads?

 

[Merc1]

Its going over everyone's heads because the W212 *seemingly* doesn't do as well in crash tests as the 5-Series does. It really quite simple. Everyone else gets this, except you.

What's the point of holding up high the low MPG, lower output M5 V10 motor, when the F10's more "normal" V8 makes more HP and higher MPG?

This has nothing, absolutely nothing do with what you're talking about here. On paper you can clearly see the new M V8 is superior to the old M V10, the E-Class clearly superior (if at all) to the 5er on paper in terms of what you're talking about.

The pics given here don't prove squat, hell the rear door on the E-Class was open and the 5er's wasn't. I guess that doesn't matter for the rear passenger. Right?

K/A - You're a fellow Benz owner, so I'm asking you to stop this foolishness because you're argument doesn't hold water and you're seemingly stuck on something you read in a press release or on wikipedia. How you can gloss over the crash test results and keep harping about how the E's body is superior is beyond me.

I'll even go you one further, in my personal experience I too have always believe that Mercedes' were safer than anything on the road (except maybe Volvos and Saabs) but that was due to what I've seen + the real world death rates stats. This belief was held because of what Mercedes (and again Volvo) did after one of their vehicles were wrecked in Europe, they re-claimed them to go over them and refine their respective safety concepts. I still wouldn't trust any other car with my life if I have to be in a serious crash, but I can't readily support that without digging up death rate information and what not on all these cars, a tedious job.

I'm guessing that you're saying overall that a Mercedes is safer, but the theory you're pushing to back up that claim doesn't hold up. Construction alone isn't cutting, at least for you and the way you're presenting it.


M

 

[Sunny]

googleing a minute or two. Google is your friend.


Materials: around 72 percent of all body parts made from high-strength steel

Key aspects of the safety concept at the heart of the new E-Class include intelligent design and meticulous material selection. More so than ever before, Mercedes-Benz has given preference to ultra-high-strength steel alloys because they offer maximum strength whilst minimising weight and, therefore, are essential for meeting the strict safety and durability requirements.

Around 72 percent of all the bodyshell panels for the new E-Class are made from these grades of steel – a new record in passenger-car development. These ultra-high-strength, high-tech alloys, which boast three to four times the tensile strength of conventional high-strength steel grades, account for around eight percent of the weight. They are used at points where the material can be exposed to exceptionally high stresses during an accident – as a material for the B-pillars and the side roof frames to provide side impact protection, for example, or at the rear to produce a robust crossmember.

If these sophisticated alloys were not used, far more material would be required in order to meet the stringent safety requirements. The B-pillar is a perfect case in point: the body components which have to absorb high forces and transfer these into the body structure in the event of a side impact consist of sheet-metal shells and an extensive reinforcement which reaches as far as the upper edge of the belt deflector. One of the shells and the reinforcement are made from ultra-high-strength, hot-formed steel. Were they made using conventional sheet steel, however, the B-pillars would be more than a third heavier. In other words, the ultra-high-strength, high-tech alloy enhances safety whilst also reducing weight.

Source: Daimler Global Media Site > Newsroom (Home)




Next BMW 5 Series will have all-steel chassis

Autocar UK reports that the next generation 2011 BMW 5 Series will have an all-steel chassis, giving up the aluminum materials used in the current generation. Apparently, the change is being made due to costs issues and most important, ease of manufacture. The aluminum chassis has been too costly for BMW over the years and it was more difficult to manufacture in large volumes.

The E60 5 Series uses an aluminum frame at the front, but the rear is still made out of steel. The new BMW 7 Series was the first model to drop the aluminum front-end.

As our friend EnI points out, the aluminum chassis offered some weight savings, but the structural rigidity was questionable, especially after a collision, the frame was very difficult and extremely costly to repair.

As far as the new all-steel chassis, some special techniques are used by processing the steel – a multi phase steel (tubes are made of thinner steel layers reinforced with some other composites – making them lighter yet stronger than classic steel tubes).

As a result, the weight is quite reduced compared to a classic steel frame. BMW X5, X6 and 7 Series are also using such steel body frame. Bottom line is that BMW is not overlooking the weight issue here, and the new 5 Series will be just as heavy as the E60 model, but more rigid and providing higher safety.

There will be more aluminum, composite plastics and magnesium parts used in F10 5 Series, which will compensate in the end for the heavier body frame.

The new BMW 5 Series GT is built on the same structure, following the same plan, so this is a clear indication of what the next 5 Series will bring to the table.

Source: Next BMW 5 Series will have all-steel chassis

Thanks, but the bit about 5 not having aluminum is not accurate.

So there you have it. Hard data on the W212, and the 5 GT being built on the same structure/same plan.

No one said it wasn't made on same structure, but both me and Guibo pointed to you, it is not just the structure the shape also matter when it comes to body strength. We even pointed many examples to you - why sedans have stronger body than wagons. Why folding seats decrease body strength. How even E36 M3 sedan is more rigid than very similar E36 coupe, but you still ignore all that relevant information because it does't support your argument and make a stupid post.

 

[K-A]

Its going over everyone's heads because the W212 *seemingly* doesn't do as well in crash tests as the 5-Series does. It really quite simple. Everyone else gets this, except you.


M

Why are you focusing on Crash Tests?

This is about body strength. I have more evidence that the W212 does this better than the F10. So, my opinion is that the W212 wins out over the F10 in this.

Why is that so hard?

The subject is on advanced materials/body strength. Maybe that's meaningless to you, as crash tests are all that matter, but that isn't the case with me. Crash Tests have been inaccurate in terms of real life performance, and M-B have always performed at the best without getting good scores. Therefore, I tend to focus more on extreme safety cage performance with M-B's.

 

[Merc1]

Why are you focusing on Crash Tests?

This is about body strength. I have more evidence that the W212 does this better than the F10. So, my opinion is that the W212 wins out over the F10 in this.

Why is that so hard?

The subject is on advanced materials/body strength. Maybe that's meaningless to you, as crash tests are all that matter, but that isn't the case with me. Crash Tests have been inaccurate in terms of real life performance, and M-B have always performed at the best without getting good scores. Therefore, I tend to focus more on extreme safety cage performance with M-B's.

WHAT IS THE POINT OF A STRONGER BODY IF IT DOESN'T HOLD UP AS WELL IN A CRASH TEST?????????


THATS LIKE WHEN GM USED TO BRAG ABOUT HAVING THE LARGEST V6 IN THE CLASS (3.8L) YET THE V6s IN THE ACCORD AND CAMRY MADE MORE HP AND TORQUE.


I'm focusing on crash test here because like I just stated in my other post, real world data about how well cars do is much harder to come by and secondly how do you and I determine this without buying and then wrecking an E-Class and 5-Series for ourselves?


BETTER BODY STRENGTH = WHAT???????????? SUPERIOR WHAT??????

IF CRASH TEST DATA ISN'T VALID THEN WHAT IS? WORD OF MOUTH, MYTHS, URBAND LEGENDS??????


WHERE IS THE REAL-WORLD DATA? POST IT AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE A POINT ABOUT BODY STRENGTH.


M

 

[Sunny]

Why are you focusing on Crash Tests?
Crash Tests have been inaccurate in terms of real life performance

Can you back that up with any hard data?