Vs Maybach vs Mercedes - UHSS vs regular steel

I agree that the materials are ridiculously first class in the 'Bach, and it is extremely plush. But to me, when I see Maybach, I see late 90's/early 2000's M-B, which is just unacceptable for a car of this range.... Especially now that the S-Class is just a couple of years away from revealing what will be a 2-generations newer car from what the Maybach is based off of.

When I see Maybach, I see W220 done up big time.

Also, for someone like me, who feels that the bones "underneath" a car are more important than the cars sheetmetal, materials, etc., I see even the W204 C-Class as a superior engineered vehicle, not to mention, the Maybach wouldn't perform up to spec with any current M-B in the lineup, safety wise.... Considering it was built during a time when many crash technologies, and ultra high strength steels that are used today, weren't even developed yet.

That said, this Maybach is the first one that has had me interested to look at in quite a while. It would be nice if they did this as a new generation (from M-B themselves) though. The Sedan is absolutely horrid. IMO it looks worse and tons more dated than the W220 it is based off of.

K-A said:

Also, for someone like me, who feels that the bones "underneath" a car are more important than the cars sheetmetal, materials, etc., I see even the W204 C-Class as a superior engineered vehicle, not to mention, the Maybach wouldn't perform up to spec with any current M-B in the lineup, safety wise.... Considering it was built during a time when many crash technologies, and ultra high strength steels that are used today, weren't even developed yet.

Click to expand...

K/A you really need to drop this, its nonsense. I can't believe you really think that Maybach won't perform as well as a newer (and smaller) Mercedes in crash test. So much so that one is in danger if driving a Maybach, that is what you seem to imply. If that is the case then everyone that isn't driving a 2009+ Mercedes is in danger. We've gone over this steel-type/construction thing before and the Maybach is built the same way any other Mercedes is, only moreso. Don't you realize that all vehicles on sale in 2011 have to pass the same standards and secondly that Mercedes over engineers their vehicles regarding safety in the first place? Exactly what crash technologies were developed after the Maybach and what crash technologies is it lacking compared to a C-Class? This about ultra high strength steel not being developed yet is complete made up nonsense. Mercedes has been using them for years and years.

Again for the record, the Maybach is based on the W140 chassis as skeleton and then the W220's Airmatic and interior bits were used for the make up. A nearly 6000lb Mercedes-Benz product isn't going to have a thing to worry about when it comes to safety. Mercedes' history proves this. I'd rather be in Maybach, due to its sheer size and build, in a serious crash than nearly any other Benz model. Good look with an encounter with semi or a suv in C-Class. You'd survive in either the Bach or the C-Class, but I'd bet you'd get out and say what happened, unscathed moreso in a Maybach.


M

The only thing the 'Bach has over the C in terms of structural rigidity (for crash purposes) is mass.

M-B didn't even start using Boron steels, until the 2007 S-Class, if I'm not mistaken. If you look at the following linked Website, you'll notice, the W220, W211, and everything before the W221, didn't even use ANY Ultra High Strength Steels (what is considered UHHS today, at least). M-B ALWAYS overengineers their cars for safety, but the sole reason I know the Maybach doesn't stand up to todays products, is because those steels weren't used (or were too expensive), or weren't developed yet for any vehicle-purposes.

Link:
http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/serviceandparts/guidelines_first_responders.pdf

M-B stated when they made the W212, that it uses "Mega" High Strength steels that weren't even available to the market of car manufacturers just a year or two before it started being developed or built.

The main reason I make such a fuss about this, is because a $400K car shouldn't be based on the bones of a car that came out in the late 80's/early 90's (now that I know its' the W140). It's pathetic. I'm sure if the guy dishing out that coin, knew that they'd be much safer in a W221 S-Class, over their 90's based Maybach, they'd have similar issues.

I don't have the time now, but if I posted after-crash pictures of any car, even Benzes from the 90's, you'd see a vast improvement in terms of structural safety-cage integrity after a frontal (and very much so, after a side) collision.

Simply look at a W211 VS W212 IIHS Tests, and you'll see the difference in bones, after only 7 years development. M-B engineers ALL their cars to the same safety lengths, this is one area where the C gets the same attention as the S, etc. In fact, with M-B, based off of my research, the newer the model, the more advanced steels, etc. you get, as they don't skimp out for a lower-end model. They provide what is the best on the market, on the year the car is being developed.

Therefore, although I have no doubts the Maybach used extra re-enforcments, to keep up with the weight, NVH, etc. etc. The car doesn't use any steel or crash technologies that are superior to the W220 S-Class, I'll bet.

K-A said:

The only thing the 'Bach has over the C in terms of structural rigidity (for crash purposes) is mass.

M-B didn't even start using Boron steels, until the 2007 S-Class, if I'm not mistaken. If you look at the following linked Website, you'll notice, the W220, W211, and everything before the W221, didn't even use ANY Ultra High Strength Steels (what is considered UHHS today, at least). M-B ALWAYS overengineers their cars for safety, but the sole reason I know the Maybach doesn't stand up to todays products, is because those steels weren't used (or were too expensive), or weren't developed yet for any vehicle-purposes.

Link:
http://www.mbusa.com/vcm/MB/DigitalAssets/pdfmb/serviceandparts/guidelines_first_responders.pdf

M-B stated when they made the W212, that it uses "Mega" High Strength steels that weren't even available to the market of car manufacturers just a year or two before it started being developed or built.

The main reason I make such a fuss about this, is because a $400K car shouldn't be based on the bones of a car that came out in the late 80's/early 90's (now that I know its' the W140). It's pathetic. I'm sure if the guy dishing out that coin, knew that they'd be much safer in a W221 S-Class, over their 90's based Maybach, they'd have similar issues.

I don't have the time now, but if I posted after-crash pictures of any car, even Benzes from the 90's, you'd see a vast improvement in terms of structural safety-cage integrity after a frontal (and very much so, after a side) collision.

Simply look at a W211 VS W212 IIHS Tests, and you'll see the difference in bones, after only 7 years development. M-B engineers ALL their cars to the same safety lengths, this is one area where the C gets the same attention as the S, etc. In fact, with M-B, based off of my research, the newer the model, the more advanced steels, etc. you get, as they don't skimp out for a lower-end model. They provide what is the best on the market, on the year the car is being developed.

Therefore, although I have no doubts the Maybach used extra re-enforcments, to keep up with the weight, NVH, etc. etc. The car doesn't use any steel or crash technologies that are superior to the W220 S-Class, I'll bet.

Click to expand...

Again, K/A you haven't proven that a Maybach is unsafe. That is the basis of your whole argument here and it simply isn't true. Using your logic your own E-Class will be unsafe when the W222 debuts in 2012. Its nonsense.

Fact is most people don't know squat about what a car is based on and likely couldn't care less. The Maybach doesn't sell because of the design, not because of what buyers think its based on.

Don't bother posting any crash pictures of a W211, it won't tell you anything about an Maybach. Find proof of where a Maybach is unsafe of that its passenger cell doesn't hold up after a crash.

Any car built uses the best safety technology at the time, yes that may be dated in a few years, but it doesn't make automatically make that car unsafe which is what you're trying to imply. Especially a Mercedes product. Mercedes' cars are often years ahead of any government standard anyway.

You're trying to imply that Mercedes just threw the Maybach together and it lacks the safety to pass today's standards. Its nonsense K/A.

Therefore, although I have no doubts the Maybach used extra re-enforcments, to keep up with the weight, NVH, etc. etc. The car doesn't use any steel or crash technologies that are superior to the W220 S-Class, I'll bet.

Click to expand...

Again, not facts. Made up. What are these technologies besides you trying to imply that the steel used in a Maybach is so inferior to what is used in today's E-Class? Why would they want add weight to the car? The W220 was built like a tin can compared to the Maybach.



M

Merc1 said:

Again, K/A you haven't proven that a Maybach is unsafe. That is the basis of your whole argument here and it simply isn't true. Using your logic your own E-Class will be unsafe when the W222 debuts in 2012. Its nonsense.

Fact is most people don't know squat about what a car is based on and likely couldn't care less. The Maybach doesn't sell because of the design, not because of what buyers think its based on.

Don't bother posting any crash pictures of a W211, it won't tell you anything about an Maybach. Find proof of where a Maybach is unsafe of that its passenger cell doesn't hold up after a crash.

Any car built uses the best safety technology at the time, yes that may be dated in a few years, but it doesn't make automatically make that car unsafe which is what you're trying to imply. Especially a Mercedes product. Mercedes' cars are often years ahead of any government standard anyway.

You're trying to imply that Mercedes just threw the Maybach together and it lacks the safety to pass today's standards. Its nonsense K/A.





Again, not facts. Made up. What are these technologies besides you trying to imply that the steel used in a Maybach is so inferior to what is used in today's E-Class? Why would they want add weight to the car? The W220 was built like a tin can compared to the Maybach.



M

Click to expand...

I'm not saying that it's "unsafe" at all, I'm saying that it isn't nearly as safe as anything M-B has on the market today. For $400K, that is what is unacceptable.

M-B never crash tested the Maybach publicly (if someone has any pics, please post them), but knowing what steels are used today, and knowing what steels weren't available back then, the Maybach is lacking in passive safety technology by a longshot.

In the 90's, when the Maybach was born, there wasn't a car on the market that was expected to have an impeccable safety cage after a crash. Today, it is expected, and met by cars that cost under $20K. It's a simple evolution of safety expectation and demand. The Maybach was probably perhaps the safest car of its time, and as such, it is certainly still safe to todays standards in many respects (like the W140 would be, for example).

However, compared to a W221, W212, etc. the Maybach is ancient in terms of passive and active safety tech. You'd be MUCH safer in either. That is what ridiculous, considering the price difference, and how lazy M-B are with the Maybach.

Here's a Video still of a crash test.

As you can see, SAFE? Yes. Performs as well as current Mercs? No way.

That door protruding out, and A-Pillar deformation is something you don't see on newer Mercs at all. Simple passive safety evolution, that the Maybach is behind on. For the price, I have a problem with that.

YouTube -

And a hilarious Video I came across

Mercedes-benz G-class Crash Test

K-A said:

I'm not saying that it's "unsafe" at all, I'm saying that it isn't nearly as safe as anything M-B has on the market today. For $400K, that is what is unacceptable.

M-B never crash tested the Maybach publicly (if someone has any pics, please post them), but knowing what steels are used today, and knowing what steels weren't available back then, the Maybach is lacking in passive safety technology by a longshot.

In the 90's, when the Maybach was born, there wasn't a car on the market that was expected to have an impeccable safety cage after a crash. Today, it is expected, and met by cars that cost under $20K. It's a simple evolution of safety expectation and demand. The Maybach was probably perhaps the safest car of its time, and as such, it is certainly still safe to todays standards in many respects (like the W140 would be, for example).

However, compared to a W221, W212, etc. the Maybach is ancient in terms of passive and active safety tech. You'd be MUCH safer in either. That is what ridiculous, considering the price difference, and how lazy M-B are with the Maybach.

Click to expand...

Sorry K/A all you have here is guesswork, no facts. Fact is that all cars on sale for 2011 have to pass the same standards to be sold in 2011. Knowing that fact and the fact the Mercedes strives to exceed government mandated crash standards destroys your theory about a Maybach being unsafe.

Again, you want to be in a C-Class and be hit by a semi or would you rather be in a Maybach?

The car itself has been a market failure for sure, but trying to say it is unsafe is nonsense and you haven't given any proof to support that. None.

By the same token the fact that anyone can make a car pass the pre-2011 standards put up by various crash test/safety organizations says volumes about how easy it is to make a car pass a lab safety test. Move the bar just a little and certain makes are now down to 2 and 3 stars where they preciously had 4 or 5 "stars". That is the line of thinking you're using here and my point is that Mercedes (along with other Euro makes) have long since adhered to their own (often higher) standard of real world safety.

Mercedes (along with Volvo) have done their research first hand with real world accidents. I wouldn't care how many stars a Hyundai has on its crash rating sticker I'll still with the company who doesn't make it a point just to pass a test for use in a silly commercial.


M

Daimler uploaded a lot of Maybach crash pics on June 7, 2002 to their media site, e.g.



Daimler Global Media Site > Newsroom (Home)

PS. Bruno Sacco first used HSLA steel in a passenger car, the 1979 W126 (as far as I know).

K-A said:

Here's a Video still of a crash test.

As you can see, SAFE? Yes. Performs as well as current Mercs? No way.

That door protruding out, and A-Pillar deformation is something you don't see on newer Mercs at all. Simple passive safety evolution, that the Maybach is behind on. For the price, I have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

You just have a problem with the car period because nothing in that shot shows anything remotely unsafe about the car K/A. Nothing. The A-pillar is not deformed there in any way that will cause injury, it isn't kinked inward or anything like that. At no point did I say that newer Mercedes models aren't any better at crash tests, my point is that there is nothing unsafe about a Maybach. That shot only proves what I'm saying for it be such an "ancient" design IYO.



M

Merc1 said:

Sorry K/A all you have here is guesswork, no facts. Fact is that all cars on sale for 2011 have to pass the same standards to be sold in 2011. Knowing that fact and the fact the Mercedes strives to exceed government mandated crash standards destroys your theory about a Maybach being unsafe.

Again, you want to be in a C-Class and be hit by a semi or would you rather be in a Maybach?

The car itself has been a market failure for sure, but trying to say it is unsafe is nonsense and you haven't given any proof to support that. None.

By the same token the fact that anyone can make a car pass the pre-2011 standards put up by various crash test/safety organizations says volumes about how easy it is to make a car pass a lab safety test. Move the bar just a little and certain makes are now down to 2 and 3 stars where they preciously had 4 or 5 "stars". That is the line of thinking you're using here and my point is that Mercedes (along with other Euro makes) have long since adhered to their own (often higher) standard of real world safety.

Mercedes (along with Volvo) have done their research first hand with real world accidents. I wouldn't care how many stars a Hyundai has on its crash rating sticker I'll still with the company who doesn't make it a point just to pass a test for use in a silly commercial.


M

Click to expand...

Facts I do have is that M-B did *not* have access to steels in the 90's that they do now. What the new M-B's use generously as "UHHS" or "Mega High Strength Steel" (as they call it) nowadays, the Maybach has none of.

Again, the Maybach is not unsafe, neither is the W140, nor is the W220. My argument isn't that it is an unsafe death-trap. However, the W221 (bigger version of the W204 safety wise, same lengths of safety passive safety engineering, more or less), is far safer than the Maybach. That is my point. The Maybach is the pinnacle of what M-B was capable of, safety wise, in the late 90's. The W221 is the pinnacle of what M-B is capable of, safety wise, in the mid 2000's (further enhanced with the W212).

Merc1 said:

You just have a problem with the car period because nothing in that shot shows anything remotely unsafe about the car K/A. Nothing. The A-pillar is not deformed there in any way that will cause injury, it isn't kinked inward or anything like that. At no point did I say that newer Mercedes models aren't any better at crash tests, my point is that there is nothing unsafe about a Maybach. That shot only proves what I'm saying for it be such an "ancient" design IYO.



M

Click to expand...

So does this mean, after all this banter, that we agree? Lol.

I am not saying the Maybach isn't safe. However, relatively speaking, it is less safe than a newer M-B, with similar mass. Period.

If I'm shelling out $400 f***ing bangers, I better know that my car uses the PINNACLE of Mercedes engineering. And I should know that the C-Class next to me, doesn't have more advanced safety active & passive engineering (which it does).

M-B's cars are designed to outperform other cars 10++ years after they're born (safety wise), so of course, the Maybach will stand up to most anything out now. Hell, the W126 is probably a better car to be in, during a crash, then some cars today.

Fact is, Maybach running on a W140 chassis, relying on engineering from the W140/W220 era, when the W222 is close to being around the corner, is ridiculous.

K-A said:

Facts I do have is that M-B did *not* have access to steels in the 90's that they do now. What the new M-B's use generously as "UHHS" or "Mega High Strength Steel" (as they call it) nowadays, the Maybach has none of.

Again, the Maybach is not unsafe, neither is the W140, nor is the W220. My argument isn't that it is an unsafe death-trap. However, the W221 (bigger version of the W204 safety wise, same lengths of safety passive safety engineering, more or less), is far safer than the Maybach. That is my point. The Maybach is the pinnacle of what M-B was capable of, safety wise, in the late 90's. The W221 is the pinnacle of what M-B is capable of, safety wise, in the mid 2000's (further enhanced with the W212).

Click to expand...

Still none of what you're saying here proves that a C-Class is "far safer" than a Maybach. All you've done is identify (and get it confused at that) what type of steel and the construction type Mercedes used when creating the Maybach. Unless you have hard proof, i.e. crash figures from either Mercedes or some outside organization, you don't know a C-Class is safer than a Maybach.

The steel type (my goodness man) isn't the only thing the makes a car safe. I can't believe you're so caught up on such a singular element.


Again, prove that "the W221 (bigger version of the W204 safety wise, same lengths of safety passive safety engineering, more or less), is far safer than the Maybach."

Proof please, not guesswork. The Maybach is built like a tank and you really think a W221 or W204 is "far" safer? More modern construction, i.e. cheaper also, which is another reason all car companies are switching to all these different and exotic alloys, but to think a Maybach doesn't offer some of the best safety on the road today simply isn't supported by anything you've given here. Mercedes hasn't changed their basic body structure and safety principles in years, only what they build the cars with. That alone doesn't make C-Class safer than a Maybach, its the things you can't explain or don't know about that would. It isn't singularly the steel type. Ridiculous man.


M

K-A said:

So does this mean, after all this banter, that we agree? Lol.

I am not saying the Maybach isn't safe. However, relatively speaking, it is less safe than a newer M-B, with similar mass. Period.

Click to expand...

And what I'm saying is that based on what you've given here my friend you don't know what you're talking about.

If I'm shelling out $400 f***ing bangers, I better know that my car uses the PINNACLE of Mercedes engineering. And I should know that the C-Class next to me, doesn't have more advanced safety active & passive engineering (which it does).

Click to expand...

Again, what are these advancements? Due tell. The C-Class has a lighter, stronger, cheaper to produce in high-volume steel used in its body. Beyond that what does the C-Class have over the Maybach in safety advancements. I'm dying to hear.

M-B's cars are designed to outperform other cars 10++ years after they're born (safety wise), so of course, the Maybach will stand up to most anything out now. Hell, the W126 is probably a better car to be in, during a crash, then some cars today.

Click to expand...

If you really believe this then you have no point to single out the Maybach's safety envelop other than you don't like car, which isn't based on anything factual. Would love to know where you got the 10+ year figure from though. Sounds impressive, but is that a fact or legend? Don't get me wrong I don't seriously take issue with it, but its kinda the same thing you're trying to pass off as fact in your other safety argument (guesswork).

Fact is, Maybach running on a W140 chassis, relying on engineering from the W140/W220 era, when the W222 is close to being around the corner, is ridiculous.

Click to expand...

I agree, but as they say timing is everything. Mercedes chose the easy way and they've paid for it every since 2004. No one wants the thing, its dated inside and out. Unsafe, heck no. Far inferior to a C-Class in terms of safety? Utterly ridiculous.

Like I said Timing is Everything. Mercedes topped the W220 with the Maybach, but the W221 was right around the corner and totally made the Maybach pointless. Next time they'll based the Maybach off the newest S-Class and hopefully they'll build a Maybach that is actually better than the S-Class. That is what a Maybach should be.


M

Merc1 said:

And what I'm saying is that based on what you've given here my friend you don't know what you're talking about.





Again, what are these advancements? Due tell. The C-Class has a lighter, stronger, cheaper to produce in high-volume steel used in its body. Beyond that what does the C-Class have over the Maybach in safety advancements. I'm dying to hear.



If you really believe this then you have no point to single out the Maybach's safety envelop other than you don't like car, which isn't based on anything factual. Would love to know where you got the 10+ year figure from though. Sounds impressive, but is that a fact or legend? Don't get me wrong I don't seriously take issue with it, but its kinda the same thing you're trying to pass off as fact in your other safety argument (guesswork).



I agree, but as they say timing is everything. Mercedes chose the easy way and they've paid for it every since 2004. No one wants the thing, its dated inside and out. Unsafe, heck no. Far inferior to a C-Class in terms of safety? Utterly ridiculous.

Like I said Timing is Everything. Mercedes topped the W220 with the Maybach, but the W221 was right around the corner and totally made the Maybach pointless. Next time they'll based the Maybach off the newest S-Class and hopefully they'll build a Maybach that is actually better than the S-Class. That is what a Maybach should be.


M

Click to expand...

Lol. I might just have to agree to disagree with you on this one, Merc.

I'll give it one more try.

Steels are what make up of the cars Passive safety performance. Are you familiar with the different levels of steel? I.e, Boron steel, DP900, etc. etc.? Many of these steels weren't available (or used) to/on the car market during the time the Maybach was produced.

Here's a chart of some steels, and strength of said steels:
Types of Steel (UHSS) | Boron Extrication

On this Website, the Maybach makes no mention of "Ultra High Strength Steel", only "High Strength Steel" ("Ultra" wasn't used by any M-B until the mid 2000 MY's, I'll wager this includes the Maybach:
http://www.maybach-manufaktur.com/engineering/safety/test-page-in-sub1 [Under "Body Structure"]


The C uses state of the art, top of the line, best available steels on the market today. Also, if you think that M-B hasn't developed superior safety tech in the matter of 10 or so years, then surely you don't consider them the most advanced, forward thinking, constantly improving safety engineers. New M-B's BETTER be engineered to be safer than dated Maybach's, or else they're asleep at the wheel. With these different steels, I'd assume, must come improved crumple-zone tech, improved crash force energy delegation, etc. etc., that M-B has enhanced in a decades time.

The W212, set a record for HSS use on any production car ever, with 75% (or something around that), this proves that it uses more HSS than the Maybach. My "theory" (or common knowledge if you've studied steel usage in cars), is that not only does the W212/W204/W221 use more of the Maybach's BEST steels, but they use 2 levels of newer tech steels that the Maybach uses none of: UHSS, and "Mega" High Strength Steel (used on the B-Pillars, rocker panels, and various other areas).

This is how the difference looks, from a technical standpoint:





Now, you should know, M-B is not a company who "reserves construction tech" for superior models. I.e, they spread the love across the board. With them, they have to top their last generation in terms of steel technology and rigidity. If they have the steel tech available for the Maybach, believe that they WILL use it for the W211, which came out later. For example, the W211 uses more HSS than the W220. I'd wager that the W211 uses more HSS than the Maybach (however, thinner panels on the W211).

This is how HSS safety cell construction compares to safety cell construction using HSS, however, UHSS, and "M"HSS, where it really counts (the later two, the Maybach presumedly uses none of).




I'm trying to prove, that there is no "magic" when it comes to structural cell integrity. If a car doesn't use UHHS, or better, it will not look as solid as a W212. Maybach, or no Maybach. What the W212 uses, was far from available, when the Maybach was built. Therefore, if you see both in a side impact, my "theory" (yes, I can't find pictures of the Maybach, but simple connecting of the dots, has me confident in my "argument") is that the W212 will fare better.


Again, nobody's saying the Maybach isn't safe. But it is obvious that the Maybach is lacking in safety engineering compared to today's Benzes. It's 1-2 generations behind. And we all know, M-B moves quickly when it comes to safety.

If I keep my W212 for 15 years, in 15 years, I'll feel like I'm in a state of the art safe car, but I'll know, 15 years of further development will have M-B's latest offerings simply ahead of mine, in that department.

M-B lowers the bar in quite a few areas as newer models come out in certain subjective areas IMO, and in many ways, lots of older models can be considered "better" when arguing certain points, however usually not involving things as clinical as what we're discussing here. Safety-wise, they're always improving. That's why it's not cool to someone spending $400K on a Maybach, to not have M-B's latest-and-greatest safety engineering, while new S-Classes, E-Classes, etc. are enjoying that.

The Maybach has a relatively low 38% high strength steel ratio. But the steel used is just one aspect of the overall safety.
Daimler takes a more comprehensive look, as this file from July 2002 shows.

Maybach: On the safe side

• Lightweight construction: roof, doors, bonnet and wings of aluminium

• Crash structure: well-proven forked member concept for maximum safety

• Occupant protection: adaptive front airbags and four side and windowbags

• Noise comfort: all windows of laminated glass with an integral acoustic membrane

• Panoramic roof: electro-transparency and an illuminated sliding roof liner

• Lighting technology: 526 LEDs in the tail lights

Lightweight construction plays a major part during the development of an automobile as majestic in size as the Maybach. Using the latest calculation methods, innovative design processes and high-quality, lightweight materials the engineers were able to achieve significant results in reducing the weight of the bodyshell without compromising strength, rigidity and vibration comfort. On the contrary, with a static distortion of 1.82 millimetres per metre (between the axles) and a static deflection of 0.22 millimetres (at the side members) the new Maybach 62 achieves unequalled results in its vehicle class.

The fact that the bodyshell including all external fittings tips the scales at "only" 622 kilograms, and yet passes the most stringent crash tests with flying colours and offers its occupants the highest level of safety, is due to intelligent body design and the widespread use of high-strength steel alloys. These achieve maximum strength (= safety) with the minimum of material (= weight). The proportion of total bodyshell weight accounted for by these high-strength steels is approx. 38 percent.

Five large aluminium components also contribute to the exemplary, low weight of the Maybach bodyshell: the roof, bonnet, doors and front wings. The boot lid and spare wheel recess are made from high-quality glass-fibre reinforced plastics.

Doors: "superplastically" formed aluminium

The Maybach engineers broke new technical ground when designing the doors, which are made wholly of aluminium. A low weight with large dimensions was the criterion which favoured this material. Another important aspect was the structural rigidity of the slim window surrounds, which in turn has a major influence on the aero-acoustics or noise comfort at high speeds. The result of these complex analyses is a masterpiece of modern bodyshell design:

• The window surrounds consist of welded, high-strength multi-chamber extruded sections with outstanding structural rigidity.

• For the first time the complex internal door components and hinge reinforcements have been produced using the technique of "superplastic forming". This involves forming the aluminium components at temperatures of up to 500 degrees Celsius under increasing pressure. Owing to the relatively long time it requires, this innovative process is particularly suitable for exclusive, limited model series such as the Maybach and guarantees the highest precision, quality and crash stability.

• The interior door components and window surrounds are directly laser-welded together.

• The integral side impact protection likewise consists of multi-chamber extruded sections, which exhibit impressive rigidity with a low component width. These are arranged horizontally in the front doors, while the engineers decided in favour of a diagonal arrangement in the rear doors for the greatest possible safety.

In addition to high-tech lightweight construction and a high level of safety the doors of the Maybach 62 have functions which make access and egress more convenient. A newly developed hydraulic system ensures that from an opening angle of 15 degrees the doors are arrested in any position – even on gradients or in strong winds. Pneumatic power locking ensures reliable lock engagement for all the doors of the Maybach (and the boot lid).

Crash structure: robust forked members in the front end

When designing the front-end structure the Maybach developers drew on the unique expertise of the Mercedes-Benz brand, using a feature which offers numerous advantages in passenger cars of this size, namely the forked member. This refers to robust, straight longitudinal members on both sides of the front body structure which fork towards the transmission tunnel and side skirts in front of the firewall to disperse impact forces efficiently during an offset frontal collision. This imposes uniform loads on the tunnel, floor and side wall, thereby reducing any deformation of the passenger cell to a minimum. The Maybach also features two flexurally rigid cross-members: one at the very front of the front-end structure, where it acts as a tensile structure and activates both side members to absorb energy during an offset frontal collision, and a second transverse structure consisting of two separate cross-members at wheel height in front of the firewall. This prevents any penetration into the footwell in the event of an accident.

The body structure also absorbs crash energy at a second longitudinal member level above the front wheel arches. These robust sheet metal sections of high-strength steel extend from the front end to the A-pillars. The two side members beneath the doors are equipped with special impact-absorbing elements at the front. These brace the front wheels during a crash and thereby protect the integrity of the firewall.

Passenger cell: systematic, all-round protection

The extremely rigid passenger cell is the heart of the body structure, and therefore also of the safety concept. It is designed to provides its occupants with the best possible all-round protection thanks to a sophisticated package of individual measures:

• Beneath the dashboard a tube of high-strength steel bolted to the A-pillars on both sides ensures a high level of transverse rigidity. This is supported by a strut on the transmission tunnel and also provides a firm mounting for the dashboard, the steering jacket tube and various major assemblies.

• In the form of an integral tubular frame, both side walls of the Maybach have a special design feature which considerably improves occupant protection during frontal and side impacts, as well as in the event of a rollover. The high-strength steel tube of 28-millimetre diameter reinforces the A-pillar, the front section of the roof frame and the B-pillar. The multi-part construction of the side wall enables the engineers to adapt the material thickness to the loads encountered in the different impact areas, while welded-in bulkheads in all structural components lend additional stability to the large side walls.

• The understructure consists of a separate central tunnel with a steel sheet thickness of 1.4 millimetres, an additional tunnel reinforcement and floor panels welded to the side members on both sides. In addition four die-cast aluminium cross-members bolted to the tunnel increase the longitudinal and transverse rigidity of the floor. In the event of a side impact three robust cross-members beneath the seats and at the rear of the passenger cell absorb the crash energy.

• During a rear-end collision a robust structure of high-strength steel sections at the rear end of the luxury car provides the passengers with protection. These large box-sections are able to absorb very large forces, and as in the case of the front-end structure a robust cross-member ensures that both longitudinal members help to dissipate the energy. This is particularly important during an offset rear collision. The steel fuel tank is located above the rear axle, i.e. outside the impact area.

Equipped with this sophisticated all-round protection package the new Maybach was subjected to numerous crash tests at the Mercedes Safety Center, where it passed even the most stringent with flying colours. These included

• ...a frontal 40-percent offset impact against a deformable barrier acc. to the European NCAP procedure (New Car Assessment Programme);
• ... a 100-percent frontal impact against a rigid barrier acc. to US-NCAP;
• ... a lateral 90-degree impact acc. to the Euro-NCAP standard;
• ... the mast impact test acc. to Euro-NCAP and US regulations (FMVSS 201);
• ... the US-NCAP side impact at an angle of 27 degrees.

Airbags: activation according to accident severity

A highly-effective, adaptive restraint system provides the highest level of occupant protection. Adaptive means that the driver and front passenger airbags automatically adapt to the severity of an accident. Moreover, the electronics register the weight of the front passenger and also take this value into account when activating the front passenger airbag as the situation requires.

Acceleration sensors mounted on the radiator cross-member in the front end – known as up-front sensors – allow the severity of an impact to be recognised at an early stage and thereby create the conditions for adaptive airbag control. Accordingly the front airbags are activated in two stages depending on the accident severity: during a minor frontal impact the electronic control unit activates only one chamber of the two-stage airbag gas generators, and the airbags are inflated to a lower internal pressure. If the system detects a heavy frontal collision, however, it also activates the second chambers in the airbag gas generators approx. 15 milliseconds later; the airbags are then inflated to a higher pressure and provide the vehicle occupants with protection suited to the severity of the accident. Accident researchers have found that this adaptive airbag control is particularly advantageous during collisions in the speed range between 20 and 35 km/h, as the occupants are restrained more "softly" thanks to the first airbag stage.

The early crash detection made possible by the up-front sensors also shortens the time between the impact and the start of belt tensioner activation, ensuring that the occupants are optimally restrained by the seat belts.

The weight of the front passenger is automatically measured by a special membrane in the seat upholstery. To be precise, it is not the actual bodyweight but the distribution of the pressure on the seat cushion that is measured. This enables the electronics to allocate the front passenger to one of four weight classes - 1 to 30 kilograms, 31 to 50 kilograms, 51 to 70 kilograms and over 71 kilograms - and influence airbag activation accordingly. This means that in a less severe accident both generator stages would be activated to give the best possible protection to a heavy front passenger. In the case of a lightweight front passenger, however, the second airbag stage would only be activated during a more severe accident. The front airbags in the Maybach have a volume of 64 litres on the driver's side and 125 litres on the front passenger side.

Seat belt system: fully integrated into the seat

The three-point seat belts with automatic comfort-fit, high-performance belt tensioners and belt force limiters, the indispensable basic components of a modern occupant protection system, are integrated into the seats of this high-end luxury vehicle. This ensures that the belt is optimally positioned in any seating attitude and can therefore carry out its full protective role. The position of the diagonal seat belt is automatically adjusted to the shoulder height of the driver and front passenger via a guide slot.

As a world first the engineers in Sindelfingen have developed a "crash-responsive" seat backrest for the comfortable reclining seats (see page 25) in the rear of the Maybach 62. In the event of an accident the backrests move back into the upright position, thereby ensuring the best possible occupant rebound protection. This is achieved by deformable torsion bars located between the backrest and the rear bulkhead.

The submarining effect – in which rear seat occupants wearing a seat belt slip beneath the lap belt during an accident – is prevented by a buckle-mounted belt tensioner acting on the lap belt and a precautionary seat adjustment feature: in any seat position – including the reclined position – the rear seat cushions are automatically set at a slight angle so that the occupants are firmly supported during a frontal collision and cannot slide forward beneath the lap belt.

Side impact protection: sidebags for all occupants

With sidebags for each seat and two windowbags on each side as standard, the restraint system in the Maybach also meets the highest expectations in terms of side impact protection:

• The four sidebags (volume: ten litres each) are integrated into the seat backrests. During a crash they instantly interpose themselves between the occupant and the door at chest level, reducing the loads acting on the thorax.

• The four windowbags complement the protective effect of the sidebags; during a side impact they deploy across the side windows like a large curtain within 25 milliseconds, thereby providing the passengers with head protection over a wide area. The volume of each front windowbag is 15 litres, those in the rear having a volume of 20 litres each.

The latest accident research findings have led to the development of a new rollover sensor whose information is used by the airbag control unit to activate the windowbags when a rollover is imminent. The air cushions remain inflated for some time after the crash and can also improve occupant protection in this eventuality. The standard occupant restraint system in the Maybach at a glance:




Aerodynamics: Cd-figure of 0.30 to 0.31

Despite its majestic size the new Maybach 62 also cuts a very fine figure in aerodynamic terms and illustrates the high capabilities of aerodynamic development at DaimlerChrysler even in this vehicle class. Expressed in figures: with a frontal area of 2.62 square metres and a Cd-figure of 0.30 to 0.31 the wind resistance is 0.79 square metres.

Nonetheless the aerodynamic specialists in Sindelfingen only regard their work as successful if they are able to show respectable results in the field of handling safety as well. This is where the coefficients of lift at the front and rear axles are the measure of all things. These are extremely low in the case of the Maybach, and form the aerodynamic basis for exemplary handling stability at high speeds or when braking. The speed-related level control function of the AIRMATIC DC (Dual Control) air suspension system also improves handling safety at high speeds: from 140 km/h the system automatically lowers the suspension by 15 millimetres at both axles.

The Maybach developers have reduced both the wind resistance and lift with a number of detailed measures, for example:

• The aerodynamically optimised shape of the bonnet ensures a low airflow resistance across the windscreen wipers.

• The A-pillars are contoured for a particularly low wind resistance. The slight curve of the roof and rear window also has a favourable effect on the airflow characteristics.

• The engine compartment trim directs the airflow to the rear and prevents turbulence in this area.

• The large, smooth area of plastic underfloor panelling allows the slipstream to pass beneath the vehicle body with very little turbulence.

• The discreet spoiler lip integrated into the boot lid reduces lift and provides a clearly defined airflow breakaway edge.

Aero-acoustics: the minimisation of noise

As in the areas of lightweight construction, safety and aerodynamics, the engineers developing the bodyshell of the Maybach were also at pains to achieve a level of noise comfort which would do justice to this high-end luxury car. Most of this effort was devoted to the avoidance of wind noise, the reduction of tyre and road noise and sound insulation measures for the interior – and with excellent results.

In order to trace acoustic disturbances at source the specialists spent hundreds of hours in the aero-acoustics tunnel, using special microphones and sensors to identify body features which caused wind noise or vibration. The vanes in the front bumper, the exterior mirrors, the A-pillars and the window and roof surfaces were aero-acoustically optimised by this means. The sophisticated sealing systems in the joints of detachable body components, which effectively reduce wind noise in the gaps even at high speeds, are also a result of painstaking, detailed work in the wind tunnel.

The Maybach engineers paid particular attention to low-frequency noises resulting from vibration in large-area components. It was aero-acoustic measurements that provided important information for the rigid, low-vibration design of the underfloor panelling and its attachment points, for example. The specialists prevented the thrumming that could affect ride comfort when the sliding sunroof is open by fitting an air deflector with four precisely calculated notches in its profile. These create small areas of turbulence and so avoid irritating noises.

Glass technology: noise insulation with plastic membranes

Sophisticated glass technology also plays a major part in the high level of noise comfort in the Maybach: the side windows are of newly developed, laminated glass containing an intermediate layer of four plastic membranes. One of these membranes (0.76 millimetres) is an acoustic insulator and significantly reduces noise in the interior.

The side windows of the Maybach have an overall thickness of 7.2 millimetres – 2.2 millimetres more than conventional laminated glass. Improved break-in security is a useful side-effect of this sophisticated glass technology, as the laminated glass makes the side windows considerably more difficult to break. The windscreen and rear window likewise incorporate acoustically effective plastic membranes and have a glass thickness of 6.2 millimetres.

Last but not least, the grey-tinted glass in the Maybach makes a major contribution to climatic comfort. It not only filters out UV radiation but also reflects the infra-red light in the sun's spectrum, which accounts for about 53 percent of the entire energy transmitted by sunlight and plays a major part in heating up the interior. Depending on wavelength, a coating of pure silver and other high-quality metallic oxides reduces infra-red radiation into the interior with an efficiency of up to 80 percent. Compared to glass with a conventional green tint, the overall transmission of energy into the interior through the windscreen is reduced from 60 to approx. 47 percent and through the side windows from 44 to 36 percent, thanks to infra-red reflection.

Panoramic roof: transparency at the touch of a button

The innovative, electro-transparent panoramic roof of the Maybach 62 is a highlight of a very special kind. With its elegant cassette structure of exotic wood it extends across the rear section like a glass dome and offers the rear passengers a unique ability to select an individual lighting atmosphere. The manufacturing process for this high-tech glass system is also absolutely typical of the Maybach: it is hand-crafted.

The optional panoramic roof is divided into two halves: the front section incorporates 30 solar cells over an area of approx. 0.5 square metres which convert sunlight into electrical energy and power the ventilation fan of the front climate control system in the Maybach 62 with an output of up to 63 Watts. This solar power flows as soon as the car is parked, and ensures a continuous circulation of fresh air in the interior.

The rear section of the panoramic roof features a number of technical innovations over an area of approx. 0.75 square metres. This roof section consists of two approx. six-millimetre thick panes of glass with an electrically powered, sliding liner between them. The laminated glass pane on the inside has an intermediate layer in the form of a liquid crystal membrane of conductive polymer plastic. The membrane has a cable connection to a control unit which generates an AC output of 90 Volts. Switching the power on arranges the crystals in the plastic membrane in such a way that the glass becomes transparent and allows daylight into the rear of the Maybach 62 over its entire area. The special feature is that as soon as the AC voltage is switched off, the liquid crystals lose their transparent arrangement and the light is fragmented in all directions. The glass becomes opaque and filters the daylight to produce a pleasant, diffused glow, with only approx. 76 percent reaching the interior. This electrically controlled transparency has its world premiere in the Maybach 62.

Thanks to this unique roof technology the rear passengers in this luxury motor car can decide in accordance with their mood or the weather conditions whether to enjoy a bright interior flooded with daylight in which to admire an exclusive, panoramic view of the scenery, or whether to relax beneath a semi-transparent glass dome. For dull weather conditions or longer journeys by night the panoramic roof has yet another highlight for an individual interior lighting effect: an illuminated sliding liner.

Apart from the electro-transparent panoramic roof Maybach customers have numerous other possibilities where roof design is concerned. In the Maybach 62 they are able to choose between an aluminium roof with an integrated solar module or an electrically operated sliding/tilting sunroof for the rear section with or without a solar module. In both cases an electrically operated, sliding liner is included.

Headlamps: lighting features for an unmistakable identity

Taking a close look at the headlamps of the luxury limousine reveals a good example of the attention to detail lavished on the Maybach by its developers: the lenses of the bi-xenon headlamps bear the double-M emblem of the Maybach craft shop – a subtle reinforcement of product identity which is at the same time reminiscent of the legendary Maybach "Zeppelin" of 1930, whose headlamp lenses bore the company trademark.
Bi-xenon is a synonym for the best and most efficient headlamp technology. The great advantages of this system include outstanding brilliance, long range and particularly uniform illumination of the road surface, an important contribution to active safety. The powerful gas discharge headlamps generate their low and main beam with a xenon bulb: while the entire light output is available at main beam, a shutter slides between the lamp and the lens to obscure part of the beam when switching to low beam. When main beam is selected the halogen spotlights (H7) in the inner headlamps are also switched on.

The headlamp units of the Maybach also accommodate H7 fog lamps with the latest projection technology. The driver is able to switch these on together with the low beam headlights or sidelights to obtain special inclement weather lighting which illuminates the road verges particularly well.

The exterior lighting of the Maybach is also unmistakable by virtue of what are called side markers on the outer positions of the headlamp units and in the exterior mirrors. These additional lights in the headlamp units and LEDs in the mirror housings, which glow discreetly when low beam is switched on, characterise the appearance of the Maybach in the dark and make it unmistakable even at night.

A high-pressure cleaning system ensures that the plastic lenses of the headlamps in the Maybach 62 are efficiently and gently kept clear.

Tail lights: 528 LEDs for four functions

The engineers systematically opted in favour of modern LED technology for most of the rear lighting functions. A total of 528 light-emitting diodes make their presence seen when the brakes are applied, or as indicators, tail lights and fog lamps. Only the reversing light has modern HPS bulbs with an output of 24 Watts.

There are many good reasons for using LED technology. One of the most important is the very small space required by light-emitting diodes. It has therefore been possible to distribute the LEDs for the tail lights evenly over the entire surface of the rear light cluster to achieve uniform illumination well into the side areas. Accordingly the light from each tail light extends from the flanks of the bodywork almost to the middle of the rear end, and represents another lighting feature by which the Maybach may be recognised.

The third braking light on the parcel shelf and the side indicator repeaters in the exterior mirror housings are likewise equipped with LEDs. The mirror housings also incorporate courtesy lights, which are switched on when the door is opened and illuminate the entry area.

Lighting functions: automatic emergency and back-up lights

The lighting system of the Maybach is managed by an electronic control unit whose microchip also has various emergency lighting functions stored in its memory. Should a data link or electronic control unit develop a fault, for example, the automatic emergency function prevents failure of the entire vehicle lighting system. Likewise, if one or more bulbs important for vehicle safety should fail, other bulbs are switched on as a back-up.
Daytime driving lights, which also improve active safety by day in the opinion of accident researchers, can be programmed by the driver using the multifunction steering wheel and the central display in the instrument cluster. The low beam headlamps, sidelights, tail lights and licence plate illumination switch on automatically when the engine is started. If the light switch is in the "Auto" position a light sensor on the windscreen ensures that the vehicle lights switch on automatically in the dark. This Headlamp Assist function also relieves the driver of effort when entering a garage and in rainy or snowy conditions.

Source: Daimler AG

I rest my case.

.... And how shall I celebrate this victory? Hmm.

Really though, thanks for that info Wolfgang. You have access to some very interesting stuff.

Me, being a layman who obsesses and studies whatever safety information is available to me. I feel like my assumptions were about 100% spot on:

Mercedes doesn't engineer safety according to the price of a car, so I was certain the W211 used more intensive, and more generous High Strength Steels (newer car, more available and price-conscious steels). Not to mention, the Maybach only uses 38% *HSS*, and NO *UHSS* (because it hasn't been revamped in so long). Needless to say, the Maybach's safety cage construction doesn't compare to what we have in our current Benz lineup.

The car is obviously strong, and the mass will keep you safe on its own practically, but when a C-Class is a more state-of-the-art constructed vehicle then your $400K car, there are some problems.... Problems are, M-B is selling a 90's car for $400K in 2011, and onward.

K-A said:

You have access to some very interesting stuff.

Click to expand...

You have as well! Just use the Daimler Global Media Site previously mentioned in this thread. Here's a direct link to that file (which may only work once you signed up). Daimler also uploads lots of safety related pictures, for many models, to that site.

Daimler Global Media Site > Mercedes-Benz Cars > Maybach > The new Maybach

K-A said:

Lol. I might just have to agree to disagree with you on this one, Merc.

I'll give it one more try.

Steels are what make up of the cars Passive safety performance. Are you familiar with the different levels of steel? I.e, Boron steel, DP900, etc. etc.? Many of these steels weren't available (or used) to/on the car market during the time the Maybach was produced.

Here's a chart of some steels, and strength of said steels:
Types of Steel (UHSS) | Boron Extrication

On this Website, the Maybach makes no mention of "Ultra High Strength Steel", only "High Strength Steel" ("Ultra" wasn't used by any M-B until the mid 2000 MY's, I'll wager this includes the Maybach:
Engineering | Safety | Maybach Manufaktur [Under "Body Structure"]


The C uses state of the art, top of the line, best available steels on the market today. Also, if you think that M-B hasn't developed superior safety tech in the matter of 10 or so years, then surely you don't consider them the most advanced, forward thinking, constantly improving safety engineers. New M-B's BETTER be engineered to be safer than dated Maybach's, or else they're asleep at the wheel. With these different steels, I'd assume, must come improved crumple-zone tech, improved crash force energy delegation, etc. etc., that M-B has enhanced in a decades time.

The W212, set a record for HSS use on any production car ever, with 75% (or something around that), this proves that it uses more HSS than the Maybach. My "theory" (or common knowledge if you've studied steel usage in cars), is that not only does the W212/W204/W221 use more of the Maybach's BEST steels, but they use 2 levels of newer tech steels that the Maybach uses none of: UHSS, and "Mega" High Strength Steel (used on the B-Pillars, rocker panels, and various other areas).

This is how the difference looks, from a technical standpoint:

Now, you should know, M-B is not a company who "reserves construction tech" for superior models. I.e, they spread the love across the board. With them, they have to top their last generation in terms of steel technology and rigidity. If they have the steel tech available for the Maybach, believe that they WILL use it for the W211, which came out later. For example, the W211 uses more HSS than the W220. I'd wager that the W211 uses more HSS than the Maybach (however, thinner panels on the W211).

This is how HSS safety cell construction compares to safety cell construction using HSS, however, UHSS, and "M"HSS, where it really counts (the later two, the Maybach presumedly uses none of).

Again, nobody's saying the Maybach isn't safe. But it is obvious that the Maybach is lacking in safety engineering compared to today's Benzes. It's 1-2 generations behind. And we all know, M-B moves quickly when it comes to safety.

If I keep my W212 for 15 years, in 15 years, I'll feel like I'm in a state of the art safe car, but I'll know, 15 years of further development will have M-B's latest offerings simply ahead of mine, in that department.

M-B lowers the bar in quite a few areas as newer models come out in certain subjective areas IMO, and in many ways, lots of older models can be considered "better" when arguing certain points, however usually not involving things as clinical as what we're discussing here. Safety-wise, they're always improving. That's why it's not cool to someone spending $400K on a Maybach, to not have M-B's latest-and-greatest safety engineering, while new S-Classes, E-Classes, etc. are enjoying that.

Click to expand...

You just don't get it K/A. Steel is one but one aspect of a car's build safety system. More modern steel doesn't automatically equal a safer car. Period.

Nothing you have shown here proves that K/A. What you've done is taken one aspect of a car's maker up and tried to present it as the singular most important thing going and it just isn't so.

Secondly you haven't given a single crash test score or rating on either car to prove that a C-Class is safer than a Maybach. The notion is sorta ridiculous at best. Sheer mass (in a Mercedes, not talking about Lincoln Town Car here) would pretty much overrule any such notion.

What I said before still stands K/A. Mercedes hasn't changed the basics of their safety envelop in years. The fundamentals are the same. Front/Rear/Side crumple zones, engine slides under passenger compartment in a severe front end collision, rear seatbacks that are designed for rear impacts, the list goes on and on. What they've done is refine them and make it better, there hasn't been a change in philosophy. The only thing that has changed through the years is the electronics, more airbags and the metals/construction.

A E-Class uses more HSS than a Maybach. What does that prove? If you think that cost doesn't play a factor in a car like an E-Class which will be produced in the millions over its run, compared to a Maybach, you're dreaming. Careful, because that doesn't mean that Mercedes skimps on the cheaper car, but what they (and every other maker that wants to turn a profit) do is engineer a more cost effective solution for achieving the same results.


The fact that the Maybach is an old design is inescapable, but you seems to have a problem with it for the wrong reasons. Safety isn't the car's problem and there is no evidence anywhere in the known world that suggest that. Going by your logic the current S-Class is inferior to the C and the E-Class also. Why would Mercedes continue to sell it either?

I'm trying to prove, that there is no "magic" when it comes to structural cell integrity. If a car doesn't use UHHS, or better, it will not look as solid as a W212. Maybach, or no Maybach. What the W212 uses, was far from available, when the Maybach was built. Therefore, if you see both in a side impact, my "theory" (yes, I can't find pictures of the Maybach, but simple connecting of the dots, has me confident in my "argument") is that the W212 will fare better.

Click to expand...

And you haven't done it, not even close. All you have presented is that the various cars Mercedes makes are constructed differently, not that any one of them is any less safe than each other. Period. Hard data is needed, not a patchwork of guesses.


M

K-A said:

The car is obviously strong, and the mass will keep you safe on its own practically, but when a C-Class is a more state-of-the-art constructed vehicle then your $400K car, there are some problems.... Problems are, M-B is selling a 90's car for $400K in 2011, and onward.

Click to expand...

More state of the art, but different sized cars and there is still no proof here that the C-Class is going to protect you better than a Maybach.

Lets just pretend that a Maybach was just built by someone other than Mercedes-Benz so this assumption will have merit.

Problems are, M-B is selling a 90's car for $400K in 2011, and onward.

Click to expand...

That is the problem, not the Maybach's safety.


M

I am usually pretty merciless when it comes to Maybachs. The W220 design, inside and out, on a tank-like W140 platform at $400 large ones is a major deterrent in my book. Granted most buyers will either not know or not care because the features and quality are pretty solid. I, myself, do not think it's worth it as it's not bespoke enough and was compromised too much from the 1997 concept to production. If I really needed to sate my ego, I'd go with a Mulsanne or Phantom.

But this coupe conversion looks great as it rather reminiscient of the concept, especially in the rear. The interior still comes off a bit tacky though. I like the more minimalistic approach of the German-engineered Brits.

I see where K-A's coming from. I'm sure the W140 platform is up to the task...right now. I have very little doubt about that. But even if I have godless amounts of money (yeah right), this would be the type of car I'd like to have for at least 10-15 years. I would like, in my mind, to be confident that it would be up to the task in any and every situation, whether it be performance, safety, or whatever criteria.