Vs Maybach vs Mercedes - UHSS vs regular steel

[Wolfgang]

The Maybach used a W140 envelope on the first test mules, around 1997, to conceal its design.
But comparing its high strength steel content places it closer to its engineering neighbor, the W220:

1992 W140 - 17% HSLA
2000 W220 - 38% HSLA
2002 W240 - 38% HSLA
2003 W211 - 48% HSLA
2006 W164 - 64% HSLA

 

[K-A]

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?





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

Merc, I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think you just don't want to admit that you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying the Maybach is not safe.

I am saying the Maybach uses older passive safety technology (10+ years lacking in engineering development, half the HSS use that newer M-B's use, NO UHSS or MHSS) than newer M-B's. The W221/W204/W212 are all constructed during the same period more-or-less. M-B just ups the HSS output by a couple % each time, for tangible, and maybe even for marketing purposes. And yes, based on my research, M-B moves fast, and uses "Class" as no object when it comes to safety, so even a 1-2 MY newer car, might be a little refined from the one before it, passive and/or active safety wise.

So yes, I have provided (or been provided with) facts as to why the Maybach is less safe then a W221 (using a car with equal mass, the W204 was just an example, as it's the cheapest Benz out, but still uses passive technology from the W221 era).

HSS is one very important aspect of safety, just like mass is.

Let's get the facts straight: 90's M-Bs = less safe than 2006+ M-B's. Maybach = 90's M-B. W221+ = 2006+ M-B's. 90's M-B's use less HSS, and are 10 years behind in M-B further refining their safety engineering than 2006+ M-B's.

Maybach is a 90's M-B, being sold for over quadruple the price of a safer and far more advanced W221 S-Class.

Let's put it this way, take all the styling, and luxuries, and materials out of each. If I was going to pick one car to drive, to protect my life, HANDS DOWN the W221 would do a better job.

Also, if any "Very important people"/Royalty/etc. were to be transported around, I personally think they should be riding in the most advanced, safest automobile available on the market today. Therefore, the Maybach would not be up to that task. The fault being that M-B hasn't put forth any of their further advancements or knowledge into it in over 10 years.

 

[K-A]

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

Thanks again! I signed up to that Website. Some very cool info there.

 

[K-A]

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


M

And here I agree.

However, you missed the point in that the Maybach's "Safety" is just one aspect of my criticism when it comes to M-B selling a car based on a car developed in the late 80's, with styling and/or tech and/or engineering based on a car from the late 90's. Safety being very important to me, and me feeling that the "bones" of a car (what the actual *CAR* is made up of) is far more important to me than engine, handling, and materials. It's like lipstick on a pig, if the car is constructed poorly (not saying the Maybach is).

Like Hoffmeister said, M-B engineers their cars to be safer than the average, maybe 15-20 years after they're born (i.e, the W140 I think still performs well enough, but some other cars have now surpassed in in safety performance, I'm sure).

If I buy todays M-B, I'm confident that it'll be amongst the safest on the road, even considering the latest Safety engineering, for a good decade-and-a-half or two.

However, for the coin of a Maybach, it shouldn't be nearing its "last legs" per-se, when comparing it to the passive and active safety *statistical numbers* (HSS, etc) of common cars coming out today. And I'm not saying that it needs to be revamped every 5 years, of course not.... Again, M-B engineers their safety FAR beyond that. However, we're talking a car based on a car that was out in 1991, with safety engineering stemming from the era of an S-Class that came out in the late 90's. If I buy a Maybach, I expect it to perform with, or perform similar to the current, and future Benzes, not be 2 generations, going on 3 (if you consider it more W140 than W220, while it seems to be a cross between the two), outdated.

And HSS is VERY important in all cars. ESPECIALLY when your'e spending $400K, you better have proof that that money is worth it in every little crevice of the car, and 38% HSS doesn't cut it, when new C-Classes and E-Classes have 70+%, and a new-again S-Class is nearing the corner almost.

 

[coolraoul]

Thing is, KA... You seem to think that there is no replacement for U/HSS.

But there is! more of conventional steel.

OK, the MM don't use much ultra-high strength steel, but to compensate they have wider/more massive elements of conventional steel, to improve the rigidity.

The W212 uses lots of high-tech steel. More than the F10 5-series if I remember well. Yet the 5-Series is a more rigid car. How come? 'cause it's heavier. Uses more "normal" steel to compensate, resulting in enough rigidity but for a higher weight.

It's ridiculous to evaluate the safety only by the amount of HSS. You forget structural rigidity, crash-cell engineering, etc...


And you misunderstand the HSS: it's more here to save weight than to improve rigidity or crash-test. Because a stronger type of steel allows you to decrease the width and size of the element, reducing the weight while having the same/slightly superior rigidity figure.

One additional element: a car should NOT be too rigid in a crash, because it would means too severe decelerations figures for the buman body to withstand. This is why Mercedes engineered the "safetycell/crash-absorbing zones" structure in the 50's.

So the MM, due to its sheer size and weight, due to the length of its bonnet and spaciousness of its interior, can allow itself to be softer than a C-Class so that it absorbs more of the crash-energy to save its occupants. While a C-Class doesn't offer such a vast crash-absorbing zone.



Your view of the passive safety is extremely simplistic and reductive. There is much more to it than HSS amount or even rigidity of the bodyshell.

 

[K-A]

Thing is, KA... You seem to think that there is no replacement for U/HSS.

But there is! more of conventional steel.

OK, the MM don't use much ultra-high strength steel, but to compensate they have wider/more massive elements of conventional steel, to improve the rigidity.

The W212 uses lots of high-tech steel. More than the F10 5-series if I remember well. Yet the 5-Series is a more rigid car. How come? 'cause it's heavier. Uses more "normal" steel to compensate, resulting in enough rigidity but for a higher weight.

It's ridiculous to evaluate the safety only by the amount of HSS. You forget structural rigidity, crash-cell engineering, etc...


And you misunderstand the HSS: it's more here to save weight than to improve rigidity or crash-test. Because a stronger type of steel allows you to decrease the width and size of the element, reducing the weight while having the same/slightly superior rigidity figure.

One additional element: a car should NOT be too rigid in a crash, because it would means too severe decelerations figures for the buman body to withstand. This is why Mercedes engineered the "safetycell/crash-absorbing zones" structure in the 50's.

So the MM, due to its sheer size and weight, due to the length of its bonnet and spaciousness of its interior, can allow itself to be softer than a C-Class so that it absorbs more of the crash-energy to save its occupants. While a C-Class doesn't offer such a vast crash-absorbing zone.



Your view of the passive safety is extremely simplistic and reductive. There is much more to it than HSS amount or even rigidity of the bodyshell.

I understand all of this.

But it does NOT change the fact, that the Maybach is "light years" behind the W221, or C-Class, in safety engineering.

The Maybach was engineered during the same time as the W220, using probably identical safety cell technology, and mindframe.

M-B upping the ante on usage of HSS is simply one of many improvements and refinements in safety technology they incorporate into newer cars. You think that the HSS usage has no correlation with where they were at that time, in terms of safety cell engineering/strength/absorbtion, etc.?

To say: "Well, the Maybach is huge, so it's okay that it uses safety, and steel technology from the 90's, even though it costs 5 times as much as a W221".... which is a superiorly built car (down to the UHSS Safety Cage), is an "interesting" way to look at it.... to say the least.

A Maybach should be huge, AND use M-B's latest, or near latest developments in safety technology, just like the W221 is, and does. Not 2 generations prior to it.

And, of course I know that a car needs crumple zones, and those are soft indeed. And I'm sure you can imagine, if anything, M-B has enhanced that technology on the newer models as well (or they've stayed the same... Certainly, they have not downgraded). However, the safety cage itself, should be as hard as can be, which the Maybach's isn't, compared to, yes: A newer C-Class, a newer S-Class, E-Class, etc. The Maybach's panels are certainly thicker to compensate for the extra mass (and to fit in with the extra mass), but certainly M-B didn't design them to be thick enough to block the drivers view from all around the car (you need a lot of conventional steel, to equal the strength of HSS/UHSS).

I think you guys are being too apologetic for M-B. Fact is, it's a laughing matter that they're still selling a car based on the W140, in 2011 and beyond. People who buy these cars are intended to be powerful, with lives of importance. They should not be riding on safety technology implemented in the 90's, even if it is from Mercedes Benz. They should have something that is in line with M-B's latest offerings. Yes, larger car, so larger crumple zones, that is what you're paying for. But if a W221 comes out with a stronger, and more advanced safety cage, and a generation or two of further safety knowledge, commitments, and refinements (again, unless M-B moves backwards, then my argument is null and void), then the 5X more expensive Maybach, should be using the same (in an ideal world, not run by corporate bean counters, it should be 5X better, but we know that'll never happen).

A W126 is a helluva strong car, and still safe compared to some of todays cars as well. But if the IIHS were to slam one of those barriers into its side, you best believe it'll cave in far more than todays M-B's. Or if a W126 went head on with a W212, you'd want to be in the W212, by a drastically large margin.

 

[K-A]

Looking at the Maybach's interior A and B Pillars, they don't seem any thicker than a newer M-B's, perhaps even thinner, if anything.

Again, there is no magic to structural-crash-rigidity. If it uses UHSS in the B-pillars, it'll hold up well to a 40 MPH side impact (for example), if it uses MEGA HSS, it'll look like it was untouched, like the W212.

The Maybach, using half of what the newer M-B's use in HSS, obviously loses out on the effects of such extensive HSS use in the safety cage, and it using absolutely NO UHSS, loses out more-so. The B-Pillars not looking thicker-to-compensate-for-lack-of-UHSS, I guarantee, in a side impact, like what the IIHS practices, it'll look much worse, and even taking size into consideration, protect worse, than a W212/W221/W204.

 

[Merc1]

Merc, I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think you just don't want to admit that you understand what I'm saying. I'm not saying the Maybach is not safe.

I have already pointed out that I understand what you're saying here, that the Maybach is constructed with lesser materials (IYO) and isn't as safe as a C-Class and I'm saying that is nonsense. It is really quite clear what the issue is here. You simply don't like the Maybach and that is understandable, but you're ragging on its for the silliest of reasons. We're talking about a 6000lb Mercedes-Benz here and you're going to sit here and tell me that because it uses more of the old-fashioned steel that it isn't as safe as C-Class, I say its bunk and you STILL haven't provided anything to prove otherwise.

So yes, I have provided (or been provided with) facts as to why the Maybach is less safe then a W221 (using a car with equal mass, the W204 was just an example, as it's the cheapest Benz out, but still uses passive technology from the W221 era).

You have provided facts on steel on someone else gave you the info on construction, that prove that S and C are newer in their construction and composition, but you haven't proved that a person is going to come out better in an accident if they're in a C350 vs a 57S.

HSS is one very important aspect of safety, just like mass is.

Which is why a C-Class isn't going to protect me better in a crash with a semi than a Maybach will.

Let's get the facts straight: 90's M-Bs = less safe than 2006+ M-B's. Maybach = 90's M-B. W221+ = 2006+ M-B's. 90's M-B's use less HSS, and are 10 years behind in M-B further refining their safety engineering than 2006+ M-B's.

And this is likely the most incomplete set of so called "facts" yet given. It doesn't take into account many other things that factor into a vehicle's safety.

Maybach is a 90's M-B, being sold for over quadruple the price of a safer and far more advanced W221 S-Class.

So what? Who is disputing the Myabach isn't outdated? What you don't seem to get is that no one is arguing that a W221 isn't a more advanced car, but on the same hand I'm not going to be crunched to death in a Maybach either in a accident.

Let's put it this way, take all the styling, and luxuries, and materials out of each. If I was going to pick one car to drive, to protect my life, HANDS DOWN the W221 would do a better job.

Based on what? Your gut feeling? No thanks. Here is where you argument falls apart because other than the same thing over and over about steel you seem to have very little knowledge of Mercedes' safety engineering envelop.

Also, if any "Very important people"/Royalty/etc. were to be transported around, I personally think they should be riding in the most advanced, safest automobile available on the market today. Therefore, the Maybach would not be up to that task. The fault being that M-B hasn't put forth any of their further advancements or knowledge into it in over 10 years.

All personal stuff, nothing factual. One could argue that that Phantom is the best car for such a task.



M

 

[Merc1]

Thing is, KA... You seem to think that there is no replacement for U/HSS.

But there is! more of conventional steel.

OK, the MM don't use much ultra-high strength steel, but to compensate they have wider/more massive elements of conventional steel, to improve the rigidity.

The W212 uses lots of high-tech steel. More than the F10 5-series if I remember well. Yet the 5-Series is a more rigid car. How come? 'cause it's heavier. Uses more "normal" steel to compensate, resulting in enough rigidity but for a higher weight.

It's ridiculous to evaluate the safety only by the amount of HSS. You forget structural rigidity, crash-cell engineering, etc...


And you misunderstand the HSS: it's more here to save weight than to improve rigidity or crash-test. Because a stronger type of steel allows you to decrease the width and size of the element, reducing the weight while having the same/slightly superior rigidity figure.

One additional element: a car should NOT be too rigid in a crash, because it would means too severe decelerations figures for the buman body to withstand. This is why Mercedes engineered the "safetycell/crash-absorbing zones" structure in the 50's.

So the MM, due to its sheer size and weight, due to the length of its bonnet and spaciousness of its interior, can allow itself to be softer than a C-Class so that it absorbs more of the crash-energy to save its occupants. While a C-Class doesn't offer such a vast crash-absorbing zone.



Your view of the passive safety is extremely simplistic and reductive. There is much more to it than HSS amount or even rigidity of the bodyshell.

My friend just doesn't get it. What he is saying is just like pointing to the number of airbags a car has and automatically calling it an overall safer car than the one with fewer airbags. You can't disqualify a car's safety based on one aspect like the amount of certain type of steel it has.


M

 

[coolraoul]

If you feel more secure in a W204 than in a 57S based on the HSS amount, then you have very little understanding of what safety is.

If putting some HSS in the A-pillar makes a safe car, then it's easy...

The MM has 38% HSS, placed where it matters more, eg. surely in the pillars and some important points, to achieve better resistance with less "visual" impact due to a reduced size of the pillar.

But where it is invisible, it surely has more massive pieces than a 204.

Again, save some strategic points, HSS is only here to reduce weight without reducing the rigidity. Not to increase rigidity. At 3 tons, weight reduction is no issue for the MM, so it only has HSS where it needs to from a rigidity PoV.

And I don't think you can evaluate the pillars size from a picture. Picture don't tell you how massive the MMs are.

Some little cars like the Fiat 500 have very good EuroNCAP ratings. Better than a Q7 for instance. The german ADAC crashed them together and the Q7 turned the Fiat into a pizza.

BTW, did you knew that to test the safety of the W140, Mercedes crushed it completely into a giant clamp to see if no element of the interior could broke and hurt the passengers?

Don't fool yourself, KA. If bodyshell engineering was only a matter of HSS ratio, it would be easy to make good cars...

 

[Merc1]

And here I agree.

However, you missed the point in that the Maybach's "Safety" is just one aspect of my criticism when it comes to M-B selling a car based on a car developed in the late 80's, with styling and/or tech and/or engineering based on a car from the late 90's. Safety being very important to me, and me feeling that the "bones" of a car (what the actual *CAR* is made up of) is far more important to me than engine, handling, and materials. It's like lipstick on a pig, if the car is constructed poorly (not saying the Maybach is).

Problem is that your "feeling" doesn't = facts K/A.

However, for the coin of a Maybach, it shouldn't be nearing its "last legs" per-se, when comparing it to the passive and active safety *statistical numbers* (HSS, etc) of common cars coming out today. And I'm not saying that it needs to be revamped every 5 years, of course not.... Again, M-B engineers their safety FAR beyond that. However, we're talking a car based on a car that was out in 1991, with safety engineering stemming from the era of an S-Class that came out in the late 90's. If I buy a Maybach, I expect it to perform with, or perform similar to the current, and future Benzes, not be 2 generations, going on 3 (if you consider it more W140 than W220, while it seems to be a cross between the two), outdated.

Again, all a personal gripe. Nothing to do with safety or anything that points to a Maybach being less safe than a C-Class.

And HSS is VERY important in all cars. ESPECIALLY when your'e spending $400K, you better have proof that that money is worth it in every little crevice of the car, and 38% HSS doesn't cut it, when new C-Classes and E-Classes have 70+%, and a new-again S-Class is nearing the corner almost.

You didn't even know what the makeup was until you looked it up man...lol.

I think the number of airbags are important, and if a car has less airbags it is less safe than one with more airbags.

Now I don't really believe that, but that's what you're doing.


You're problem with the Maybach is its age, but you're making an issue out of its safety when there isn't one to be made. Again, it is on sale in 2011 which mean its has to pass the safety standards of every other Mercedes-Benz product on sale in 2011. Whether it merely meets or exceeds those standards is your issue with the car. You haven't given any proof of how it does in crash tests compared to newer MB products.



M

 

[Merc1]

If you feel more secure in a W204 than in a 57S based on the HSS amount, then you have very little understanding of what safety is.

If putting some HSS in the A-pillar makes a safe car, then it's easy...

The MM has 38% HSS, placed where it matters more, eg. surely in the pillars and some important points, to achieve better resistance with less "visual" impact due to a reduced size of the pillar.

But where it is invisible, it surely has more massive pieces than a 204.

Again, save some strategic points, HSS is only here to reduce weight without reducing the rigidity. Not to increase rigidity. At 3 tons, weight reduction is no issue for the MM, so it only has HSS where it needs to from a rigidity PoV.

And I don't think you can evaluate the pillars size from a picture. Picture don't tell you how massive the MMs are.

Some little cars like the Fiat 500 have very good EuroNCAP ratings. Better than a Q7 for instance. The german ADAC crashed them together and the Q7 turned the Fiat into a pizza.

BTW, did you knew that to test the safety of the W140, Mercedes crushed it completely into a giant clamp to see if no element of the interior could broke and hurt the passengers?

Don't fool yourself, KA. If bodyshell engineering was only a matter of HSS ratio, it would be easy to make good cars...

Exactly, and cost plays a factor in these things also. K/A doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that there are different ways of achieving the same results.


M

 

[Merc1]

I can't believe we think that thicker A-pillars = greater safety.

Come on K/A you're really off with that one.

M

 

[K-A]

I feel like I'm arguing with people who have far less common knowledge, and studies in regards to all types of vehicular safety. But that's fine.

You're too stuck on the C-Class VS Maybach. No where did I say the C is a car "I'd rather be in" in an accident. I did say, that it is FAR more advanced in BOTH passive and active safety.

Merc, I have provided facts. Both in structural rigidity, which is a by-product of the vastly lower amounts of HSS used in the 'Bach. As well, we all know that it DOES have less Airbags. And we all know, it does have a decade + less engineering information, developments, and refinements from the newer models. 5 years is okay, going on 7 years, is understandable, but going past 10 years, is when it becomes funny.

Your argument is simply: "Mercedes is the best at safety, I don't care about HSS and Airbags, what M-B does is magic, and the Maybach is huge, so it's as safe as any M-B today.... Oh, and it's a "Maybach", so M-B probably overengineered in safety".

I'm telling you, that factors like HSS, and Airbags, and a decade of TIME for a safety obsessed company like M-B, ALL play their own little parts, in combining to become safer overall vehicles.

Forget the C-Class. If you think the Maybach is as safe as a W221 S (picking on someone its own size, to make this easier for you to comprehend my argument), then you're simply blinded by the 'Bach. It's not as safe as a W221, period. Whether it's "passable", or "good enough", is irrelevant to my argument. It isn't as good in any way, VS this car that costs 5X less. If I'm forking out $15K on a car, I want the latest and greatest in safety. If I'm shelling out $400K on a car, I REALLY want the latest and greatest.

The W140 was safe, but the W220 was safer (if you argue this, because the W220 had questionable build quality, then remember, you're also arguing against the Maybach, as it was developed during the W220's shoddy era). The W221 is safer than the W220, etc. etc.

Also, I'm glad to get some hard data from Wolfgang. But I assure you, I was confident and sure of *all* my predictions (which were right), because I've studied safety enough to know what was available in the 90's, what was expected, and were M-B were at, in terms of meeting and exceeding criteria, as opposed to today. It's a no brainer to me.

Again, understand the argument: The Maybach is still safe to todays standards, but not in the league of the W221+. Forget size, and mass. I'm concentrating on safety engineering. A $400K car sold in 2011+ shouldn't be "okay just because it's huge". It should be huge, and state-of-the-art for M-B's 2011 standards, especially if M-B's entire rest of the line, is so as well (aside from some of the older cars, like SL, which are due for revamps soon as well).

CoolRaoul: U/HSS is superior in many respects, and yes, one of them is sturdiness. An equal amount of HSS will protect much better than an equal amount of non HSS, every time. The fact that you're being apologetic for a car that uses "only" 38%, compared to cars coming from the same manufacturer, that now use 70+%, whilst being sold on the same Dealer lots currently, that cost a tiny fraction of its, makes your argument far more flawed than mine from the get-go.

 

[K-A]

Exactly, and cost plays a factor in these things also. K/A doesn't seem to want to acknowledge that there are different ways of achieving the same results.


M

Indeed, there are. And Mercs protective ways in 2007+ are better than they were in 1997, period. That's all I'm saying. Newer Mercs protect better than older Mercs, period. The Maybach is an older Merc, a hybrid of W140 and W220.

Both might protect you in a 50 MPH crash the same. But here is where the importance of "exceeding safety criteria" comes into play. For 1997, the Maybach was FAR beyond anything out there, in exceeding crash test standards, like the W140.

Now, M-B's far exceed todays much more rigorous and demanding criteria. That's why the W212 looks like it was flicked, in the IIHS side test. That's why it has the strongest tested A-Pillar/Roof strength of ANY non SUV car (and better than about all SUV's as well), which is due to one thing: MEGA HIGH STRENGTH STEELS!!!! It has relatively lean A-Pillars, and exceeds cars that have much fatter ones (like my Chevy) why?? Yes, because of ULTRA/MEGA/SUPERDUPER High Strength Steels.

In the event of a 100 MPH collision, the HSS/*Mega High Strength* combo's steels used in pivotal areas, will become all the more-so important factors, over the "Non HSS / High Strength Steels" combo's used in those same pivotal areas on the Maybach. This is simple "over-engineering", and exceeding safety standards of today VS yesterday. And yes, Auto Safety has come a LONG way since the 90's.... Not as much for M-B as for other manufacturers, but a long way nonetheless. If the Maybach used the same technology as the W221/W212/W204 do, in a car of its mass, it would be even safer than it is now.

 

[Wolfgang]

BTW, Xenatec also builds the Phantom LWB.


Based on aluminum, not steel.

http://www.xenatecgroup.com/we/uploads/artikel_prestige_cars_1.pdf

The Maybach coupe looks cooler!

 

[Merc1]

I feel like I'm arguing with people who have far less common knowledge, and studies in regards to all types of vehicular safety. But that's fine..

K/A if anything that is you simply because you're caught up on ONE aspect of safety. You're not looking at the total picture.

You're too stuck on the C-Class VS Maybach. No where did I say the C is a car "I'd rather be in" in an accident. I did say, that it is FAR more advanced in BOTH passive and active safety.

And if the C is more advanced safety wise, but you wouldn't want to be in C instead of a Bach in an accident, then what the hell is the point? That is ridiculous man. Your common sense would put in a 57S before a C350 in a serious accident, more advanced nonsense flies out the window then doesn't it.

Don't blame me because you brought up the C-Class next to the Maybach and then aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is...lol. When a semi hits a C350 it won't be pretty, a serious accident that a larger Mercedes-Benz product would protect you better in.

Merc, I have provided facts. Both in structural rigidity, which is a by-product of the vastly lower amounts of HSS used in the 'Bach. As well, we all know that it DOES have less Airbags. And we all know, it does have a decade + less engineering information, developments, and refinements from the newer models. 5 years is okay, going on 7 years, is understandable, but going past 10 years, is when it becomes funny.

Yet nowhere in this guesswork is anything concrete that proves that a C-Class protects you better in an accident than a Maybach 57S.

Your argument is simply: "Mercedes is the best at safety, I don't care about HSS and Airbags, what M-B does is magic, and the Maybach is huge, so it's as safe as any M-B today.... Oh, and it's a "Maybach", so M-B probably overengineered in safety".

Nonsense plain and simple. At no point did I say anything about no magic man. If you're not going to stick to what was actually said then this is pointless. You're the one pulling 10 year this and 15 year that out of thin air and trying to pass it off as facts. I haven't seen a single link to anything beyond metal in any of your post.

CRASH SCORES FOR FOR A MAYBACH WOULD HELP YOU, NOTHING ELSE WILL.

I'm telling you, that factors like HSS, and Airbags, and a decade of TIME for a safety obsessed company like M-B, ALL play their own little parts, in combining to become safer overall vehicles.

And I'm telling you that repeating it doesn't make it absolute truth. Where are the facts, links and hard data? NO where to be found. Using your logic the W221 is already outdone by the W212 and should be considered less safe.

Forget the C-Class. If you think the Maybach is as safe as a W221 S (picking on someone its own size, to make this easier for you to comprehend my argument), then you're simply blinded by the 'Bach. It's not as safe as a W221, period. Whether it's "passable", or "good enough", is irrelevant to my argument. It isn't as good in any way, VS this car that costs 5X less. If I'm forking out $15K on a car, I want the latest and greatest in safety. If I'm shelling out $400K on a car, I REALLY want the latest and greatest.

The W221 is more advanced in every way, again for the umpteenth time no one is disputing this. Again for the umpteenth time all cars sold have to pass the same regulations in the U.S. for 2011 and the Maybach is no different.

Your problem with the Maybach is a personal one because there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Maybach is unsafe, or less safe than the W221 to the point where it is going to be a problem for someone buying one. You're making something out of nothing. Period.

The W140 was safe, but the W220 was safer (if you argue this, because the W220 had questionable build quality, then remember, you're also arguing against the Maybach, as it was developed during the W220's shoddy era). The W221 is safer than the W220, etc. etc.

Here is where you don't get it. The Maybach uses the W140 chassis and most of the same hard points. Secondly have you ever sat in or examined the Maybach? Apparently not, it isn't built anything like the W220. The W220 was a tin can compared to the Maybach. That said, the W220 was one of the safest cars Mercedes had made to date. The shoddy build quality had to do with the interior, not the body structure and its safety equipment.

The W240 Maybach wasn't done on the cheap reguarding its build like the W220 was, anyone that has examined the 2 cars can easily tell this.

Also, I'm glad to get some hard data from Wolfgang. But I assure you, I was confident and sure of *all* my predictions (which were right), because I've studied safety enough to know what was available in the 90's, what was expected, and were M-B were at, in terms of meeting and exceeding criteria, as opposed to today. It's a no brainer to me.

It sure is man, because you don't have it right. You're stuck on steel and limited to it. I bring up airbags and now you're saying that they're important too. See a trend?

Here is the killer: Even if the Maybach is less advanced and less safe than a W221, it isn't so much so as to be compromised to the point of concern.

That single point you can't prove with anything you've given, you're just GUESSING that the Maybach is less safe because it is less advanced.

Where are the crash test scores or any type of data to support your theory of feelings? NO where to be found.

Again, understand the argument: The Maybach is still safe to todays standards, but not in the league of the W221+. Forget size, and mass. I'm concentrating on safety engineering. A $400K car sold in 2011+ shouldn't be "okay just because it's huge". It should be huge, and state-of-the-art for M-B's 2011 standards, especially if M-B's entire rest of the line, is so as well (aside from some of the older cars, like SL, which are due for revamps soon as well).

Again, this your personal feeling and isn't supported by any facts other than that the Maybach is less sophisticated safety wise compared to a W221.

Prove where it matters in the real world and you will have something, otherwise its the same thing over and over.

The safety envelop of the Maybach isn't so much less so that it poses a danger to a buyer in 2011, otherwise they couldn't sell it. Period.




M

 

[Merc1]

Indeed, there are. And Mercs protective ways in 2007+ are better than they were in 1997, period. That's all I'm saying. Newer Mercs protect better than older Mercs, period. The Maybach is an older Merc, a hybrid of W140 and W220.

And all I'm saying is that the difference between the two isn't enough to make such racket about and you haven't proven that it is worth worrying about. Your issue is personal with the Maybach, not based on anything factual.

Both might protect you in a 50 MPH crash the same. But here is where the importance of "exceeding safety criteria" comes into play. For 1997, the Maybach was FAR beyond anything out there, in exceeding crash test standards, like the W140.

Do you really think the Maybach is only good for 1997 standards? The car was not a simple drop of a new body on an old chassis. True it isn't a ground up car like the Phantom, but a lot of engineering effort had to go into making it fit for sale for the projected 7 years k/a. Don't you realize that? It went on sale for 2004 and is projected to go until 2012, it has to remain current during that time otherwise Mercedes' can't sell it or would have to modify it, and you don't know if they have or haven't done so it order to keep it relevant safety wise. If so proof please. Show me where the Maybach is so out of date that it poses a safety risk to a prospective buyer.

Now, M-B's far exceed todays much more rigorous and demanding criteria. That's why the W212 looks like it was flicked, in the IIHS side test. That's why it has the strongest tested A-Pillar/Roof strength of ANY non SUV car (and better than about all SUV's as well), which is due to one thing: MEGA HIGH STRENGTH STEELS!!!! It has relatively lean A-Pillars, and exceeds cars that have much fatter ones (like my Chevy) why?? Yes, because of ULTRA/MEGA/SUPERDUPER High Strength Steels.

When the Maybach is tested, we can see how how it compares. Until then you're just comparing half the facts.

In the event of a 100 MPH collision, the HSS/*Mega High Strength* combo's steels used in pivotal areas, will become all the more-so important factors, over the "Non HSS / High Strength Steels" combo's used in those same pivotal areas on the Maybach. This is simple "over-engineering", and exceeding safety standards of today VS yesterday. And yes, Auto Safety has come a LONG way since the 90's.... Not as much for M-B as for other manufacturers, but a long way nonetheless. If the Maybach used the same technology as the W221/W212/W204 do, in a car of its mass, it would be even safer than it is now

I don't disagree with this, but again the level of safety provided by the Maybach isn't so much less that it poses a risk to anyone. The car is still on sale and has to pass current standards and thus is viable. How much less safe than a W212 or W221 (forget the C-Class, won't accept that ever unless you have data) is the thing you can't and haven't proven.

This is your own personal issue, not Mercedes-Benzes, Maybachs or any buyers of any of these vehicles.


M

 

[Wolfgang]

A small correction. On October 22, 2002 Maybach announced a higher percentage of high strength low alloy steel: 41%.

The fact that the bodyshell including all external fittings tips the
scales at "only" 586 kilograms (Maybach 62: 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. 41 percent.

 

[K-A]

K/A if anything that is you simply because you're caught up on ONE aspect of safety. You're not looking at the total picture.






And if the C is more advanced safety wise, but you wouldn't want to be in C instead of a Bach in an accident, then what the hell is the point? That is ridiculous man. Your common sense would put in a 57S before a C350 in a serious accident, more advanced nonsense flies out the window then doesn't it.

Don't blame me because you brought up the C-Class next to the Maybach and then aren't willing to put your money where your mouth is...lol. When a semi hits a C350 it won't be pretty, a serious accident that a larger Mercedes-Benz product would protect you better in.





Yet nowhere in this guesswork is anything concrete that proves that a C-Class protects you better in an accident than a Maybach 57S.





Nonsense plain and simple. At no point did I say anything about no magic man. If you're not going to stick to what was actually said then this is pointless. You're the one pulling 10 year this and 15 year that out of thin air and trying to pass it off as facts. I haven't seen a single link to anything beyond metal in any of your post.

CRASH SCORES FOR FOR A MAYBACH WOULD HELP YOU, NOTHING ELSE WILL.




And I'm telling you that repeating it doesn't make it absolute truth. Where are the facts, links and hard data? NO where to be found. Using your logic the W221 is already outdone by the W212 and should be considered less safe.





The W221 is more advanced in every way, again for the umpteenth time no one is disputing this. Again for the umpteenth time all cars sold have to pass the same regulations in the U.S. for 2011 and the Maybach is no different.

Your problem with the Maybach is a personal one because there is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Maybach is unsafe, or less safe than the W221 to the point where it is going to be a problem for someone buying one. You're making something out of nothing. Period.




Here is where you don't get it. The Maybach uses the W140 chassis and most of the same hard points. Secondly have you ever sat in or examined the Maybach? Apparently not, it isn't built anything like the W220. The W220 was a tin can compared to the Maybach. That said, the W220 was one of the safest cars Mercedes had made to date. The shoddy build quality had to do with the interior, not the body structure and its safety equipment.

The W240 Maybach wasn't done on the cheap reguarding its build like the W220 was, anyone that has examined the 2 cars can easily tell this.





It sure is man, because you don't have it right. You're stuck on steel and limited to it. I bring up airbags and now you're saying that they're important too. See a trend?

Here is the killer: Even if the Maybach is less advanced and less safe than a W221, it isn't so much so as to be compromised to the point of concern.

That single point you can't prove with anything you've given, you're just GUESSING that the Maybach is less safe because it is less advanced.

Where are the crash test scores or any type of data to support your theory of feelings? NO where to be found.






Again, this your personal feeling and isn't supported by any facts other than that the Maybach is less sophisticated safety wise compared to a W221.

Prove where it matters in the real world and you will have something, otherwise its the same thing over and over.

The safety envelop of the Maybach isn't so much less so that it poses a danger to a buyer in 2011, otherwise they couldn't sell it. Period.




M

First off, my "hard data" is within the weaker safety shell (less HSS, no UHSS, no Mega HSS), and less Airbags. I *never*, repeat: *never* said the Maybach poses a "safety risk", I said it isn't as safe.

So you're telling me, that using common sense, common safety knowledge (let's stick with 3 very obvious and easy points: Less intensive HSS, less use of HSS, less Airbags, about a decade of extra safety knowledge and enhancements by engineers forgone), you can't connect the dots enough to figure out which car would be safer... Given equal mass? C'mon buddy.

If I tell you that I won't believe that a 1979 Honda Civic is less safe than a 2010 Honda Civic, until I see crash data of a '79 Civic, what would you say to me?

And I don't understand how you don't understand, how technical safety enhancements don't translate to the real world.

If the Maybach is incredibly safe for a car developed during its time (I consider the Maybach to be a car that stems from a period before 2004, considering the dated chassis, technology, and even design it pulls from the M-B catalog), then the added "refinements" of the W221, will make it even more safe. Look back at my "100 MPH" example, to get an idea of what I'm talking about.

And remember, I originally was only focusing on steels. Bringing in Airbags, time/knowledge/enhancements, etc. are only being brought in now, and are also points that further prove my point.

Just because a car is massive, doesn't allow it to under-compensate, and be built "softer" than smaller cars. A $400K Maybach should be bigger, AND more advanced in passive and active safety, over a C-Class, and it's not.

*I* am the one proving any facts here (steel %, Airbags, comparison of Maybach era M-B's, and W221 era M-B's in crash tests).

You're simply stating that steels and airbags mean nothing, to make a car safer (which is laughable), and that a Maybach "must be" as safe as a new car in the real world, because Mercedes-Benz marketing says so.

Passing 2011 safety standards means nothing, either. Or are you implying that if a $400K Maybach is just making it, is enough to justify the fact that owners are getting dated Safety technology for $400K, while far cheaper cars, are getting superior safety technology.

The W221/W204/W212 FAR exceed 2011 safety standards. The Maybach does too, but again, this goes back to the "M-B engineers ahead in safety, to keep up with cars maybe 10-15 years after they come out". The 'Bach is in need of new-age M-B safety engineering. You need more proof? What do you think M-B would do with a brand newly designed Maybach today? They'd build it to new M-B Safety standards, i.e 70% HSS, lots of UHSS and MHSS, airbags coming up your a$$, etc. etc. Why would they do that? Because it would make it even safer than it is now. For "Safety Tests" AND real world.

And yes, I do believe that, size taken out of the equation, the extra 3 years M-B had to engineer the W212, they ever so slightly enhanced the safety from the W221 (the W211 boasted better real world safety stats than the W220, being that is recorded a lower death rate per accident, per the IIHS, and it also used more intensive and generous HSS). Not only does it boast a little bit more U/HSS, but it has knee airbags and pelvis airbags (don't think the W221's originally came with those, but I could be wrong). Also, M-B stated that the W212 "uses the latest and best steel technology that wasn't available just a year or two ago", when it came out.

M-B might move backwards in other areas, but one area I am thoroughly convinced they are constantly pushing ahead, and not engineering to a price point (i.e S-Class reserves better than C-Class, etc.... No way), is in safety. With M-B, the newer you get, the more safety advancements. This doesn't make an older one unsafe. They're all practically evolutions of the W126 in terms of modern safety approach as far as I'm concerned, but the key word here, is "enhance, refine, meet and exceed expectations of the day".

If the Maybach wasn't a $400K beast, I wouldn't make such a fuss. But it is. So if I'm spending $400K, I want MORE U/HSS than a C-Class, MORE Airbags, etc. If I'm not getting that, then I'm getting conned.

You shouldn't make excuses for the car, and just accept that it is dated in M-B's safety technology and engineering standards for todays models.