s-class versus range rover; safety

The current S600 is designed to take a 100Kmh accident and for survival of the occupants without safety belts. Largely due to the number of global diplomats riding in such cars unrestrained.

A Range Rover is a steel cage and in an accident the occupants bounce around like lotto balls. The survival stats for large SUV type vehicles is herendously alarming. They are not safe at all in extreme conditions, they are only safer in the wet at low speeds - which is something the S-Class can match easily given it curb weight.

" Miro" haute in die Tasten:

Do you have a source for this ridiculous statement?

Nevertheless it does not make sense to take a Range Rover over an S-class for safety reasons. The S-class is one of the safest cars available, and due to its better suspension it will stay upright and on the road in situations where the Range will either tilt or leave the road. If you want to enhance safety dramatically, always wear safety belts and use proper seats for little children.

Frank

When it comes to safety, there's no other choice but MB. It would be an easy decision in my mind.

The S500 has elliptical crumple zones, air bags everywhere (front, sides, rear), pre-safe anticipatory technology safeguards (car reacts to emergency response use of steering, braking, yaw, and puts seats upright, tightens seatbelts, closes windows and sunroof, pre-readies the brakes), plus the S500 center of gravity is very nicely low to the ground. I'd rather slide sideways than roll around in a huge cavern of an SUV. I've seen article after article of people walking away from terrible accidents, rollovers, overhead construction beams dropping, and they open the doors and walk away from their bashed-up Mercedes. I had a similar accident myself -- 70 mph rollover into the ditch, landing into a tree. I crawled out with nothing worse than a wrinkled shirt and airbag scrapes on my forehead. The car was unrecognizable, except for the fact it was silver.

I used to like Range Rovers, but they're too tall, they sway on turns (more so at freeway speeds), have big rattly cabins and poor visibility for the majority of the lower traffic surrounding it. I have friends who waited years for their model; they tried to enjoy it for a year, but got tired of handles, switches and knobs snapping off on first use. Their electrical systems never got ironed out, and they went with an ML500 to replace it.

S500, no doubt about it. If I lived near the Serengeti and wanted to tour the area, I'd have a different opinion. But I don't, I live among stupid, smart, crazy, fast, slow, attentive, distracted, skilled drivers that I have to deal with every time I start my car.

Yes I do have a source. This type of thinking goes into the design of the car. You wont see it printed in any brochure.

In news:401f3b93$0$19704$ snipped-for-privacy@news.optusnet.com.au, Miro decided to enlighten our sheltered souls with a rant as follows

Hmm, S-Class... accident... Princess Diana?

I'd say there's not much in the Range Rover - S class myself, the new Range Rover is a fantastic car with one of the best interiors I've ever seen.

I was driving one today, lovely, quiet, refined, well equipped.....

... until the dashboard lighting, sat nav and radio all went off for no reason...

looks like BMW / Ford / Range Rover still can't build a decent car in this country, although I'd still be tempted to get one instead of an S-Class because the interior would be such a nice place to spend time waiting for the breakdown services.

Source for this?

And for that?

Juergen

I dont think you realise what I am speaking about. That was a very old car - the type of car used was attributed to the death. There was a specific mention of the fact that such models are never used for VIP transit.

Please keep your facts under control.

Factory engineer. It is not a marketing ploy, it is a design concept.

"Newsgroup Reader" haute in die Tasten:

Some 10 years ago a guy in a Mercedes SL R129 managed to turn over his car on a german Autobahn in an high speed accident (starting at 120 mph) a dozen times. Accidentally he was filmed at this moment by a traffic surveillance camera. His life was saved by the fact that he had enough room to let the car slide until standstill. If he had crashed against a bridge pillar, he would have died instantly. The only harm he took from that accident was minor scratches. The guy was able to leave the car on his own feet without the help of others. Do not try this at home or in your SUV...

Frank

" Miro" haute in die Tasten:

So you do not have a source.

Frank

" Miro" haute in die Tasten:

Please stop telling BS. In Germany the old W140 is still a common type of transportation for politicians and top managers, because they use the armored version (which is hard to replace). The Princess Diana car was not armored, and the only peson who survived the crash wore the seatbelt. Even in the new Maybach (sat in one recently) the use of a seatbelt is mandatory. The rear seats are designed in that way that you can put them in a rest position and still be protected by the seatbelt (they avoid the submarining effect).

Frank

Either the _factory engineer_ was drunk or you lie.

Juergen

As ususal Frank is right.

Juergen

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Frank Kemper wrote:

"Juergen ." haute in die Tasten:

Frank

As usual Frank is talking about what he read.

If drunk people design these cars then you are a fool for buying one.

I think the first computer was conceived by a guy names Atanasoff while he was drinking.

Beer can be a good thing although personally I think cannabis can be a far better thing.

I can just imagine the engineers sitting around drinking superior German beer and asking themselves , "Why NOT a 500 hp E class"?

Turing might have got there before him, a tad after Aristotle.

Perhaps you want a job in the "smart" division. They seem to have a grip on the idea.

F1 pace cars indeed.