Weight

[Ade B]

Flicking through an old magazine earlier, the current SLR weighs in with a hefty 1768kg - given most of the body is carbon fibre, its still heavier than my 'hewn from granite' old skool steel, leather and walnut burr CE which according to the brochure tips the scales at 1490kg...

No doubt the huge engine, drivetrain and safety gizmo's add some to the SLR, but it did surprise me as you associate the W124 as being a heavy car and the SLR as being light...



Ade

 

[JasM]

I thought the W202 was a heavy car, however after reading through the manual i found out it only weighs 1350kg.

 

[230K]

Good Morning

When i had the 190E i think it was actually lighter than a VW Golf of the same age. Someone will check it out and prove me wrong though.
Long time ago though!!!!

230K

 

[st4]

There is far too much "weight" in modern cars. This makes them not as good to drive and less fuel efficient. When we have electic cars they simply can't be as large or weigh as much as cars do today.

The added mass of modern cars does make them much more safe and my porky 211 vs the featherweight w124 will perform much better in a crash. Its also got a lot more mod cons so there are pro's and cons re the added mass of modern cars.

 

[Benzowner]

There is far too much "weight" in modern cars. This makes them not as good to drive and less fuel efficient. When we have electic cars they simply can't be as large or weigh as much as cars do today.

The added mass of modern cars does make them much more safe and my porky 211 vs the featherweight w124 will perform much better in a crash. Its also got a lot more mod cons so there are pro's and cons re the added mass of modern cars.

I thought weight helped motion after starting. I agree it will take more fuel to gain the desired speed, but when at that speed, the weight will assist in maintaining that speed, momentum? Long time since I did fisiks

 

[talbir]

Wow, 1768kg ! never would have guessed it to be that much !

That's the same weight as a w211 e55....both cars have an identical engine, yet the SLR is a second quicker to 60 !

Huh ?


talbir

 

[st4]

Wow, 1768kg ! never would have guessed it to be that much !

That's the same weight as a w211 e55....both cars have an identical engine, yet the SLR is a second quicker to 60 !

Huh ?


talbir

But they don't, the SLR generates more power and torque. The SLR is more than likely more aerodynamic.

I thought weight helped motion after starting. I agree it will take more fuel to gain the desired speed, but when at that speed, the weight will assist in maintaining that speed, momentum? Long time since I did fisiks

Depends on the gradient of the slope, going up hill the added mass would be a hinderance in maintaining that speed. Going down hill it would be advantageous.

 

[popuptoaster]

Less weight is always better, just try and beat a Lotus or a caterham round a corner if you want proof, cars are only big and heavy because the customers are all fat and lardy and want the car to do everything for them, there's no need for them to be so overweight other than customer demand for more space for cupholders.

I have an excuse for driving a fairly large car, I'm 6'7" and just cant get comfy in anything small.

 

[Uberwagon]

Less weight is always better, just try and beat a Lotus or a caterham round a corner if you want proof, cars are only big and heavy because the customers are all fat and lardy and want the car to do everything for them, there's no need for them to be so overweight other than customer demand for more space for cupholders.

I have an excuse for driving a fairly large car, I'm 6'7" and just cant get comfy in anything small.

I think if my car lost a ot of weight the ride/ handling balance would be lost. One of its best features is how it deals with rough undulating roads, it's completely planted.

It came in at 1725 kilos on the weighbridge, quarter tank of fuel.

Having sat in (Sadly only sat haha) the SLR is lighter than I expected considering how solid and tightly packed the car is.

Dave!

 

[MBManInKen]

Less weight is always better, just try and beat a Lotus or a caterham round a corner if you want proof, cars are only big and heavy because the customers are all fat and lardy and want the car to do everything for them, there's no need for them to be so overweight other than customer demand for more space for cupholders.

Or perhaps each to their own? I don't want to push a feather-light car at ever higher speeds around corners, I prefer comfort and luxury and buy my cars on that premise...

My present LWB S500 is significantly lighter than my previous one, despite having more toys BTW.

 

[st4]

Or perhaps each to their own? I don't want to push a feather-light car at ever higher speeds around corners, I prefer comfort and luxury and buy my cars on that premise...

My present LWB S500 is significantly lighter than my previous one, despite having more toys BTW.

But the new S class you'll replace it with will be heavier than the 221 you presently drive. Is the 221 not also shorter and narrow than the 140. I may be wrong.

The point being made is also re performance cars, they aren't getting lighter, just more powerful. The new Nissan GTR for example is a porker, and it hasn't been built around the premise of comfort and luxury.

 

[MBManInKen]

But the new S class you'll replace it with will be heavier than the 221 you presently drive. Is the 221 not also shorter and narrow than the 140. I may be wrong.

I believe the LWB V221 is 6 or 7 millimeter shorter than the V140 version. The kerb weight is slightly more, but not extravagantly more.

There is a bit of a pendulum motion in all this, but Mercedes has been particularly criticised for the less "robust" feel and build of its cars from the late 90s onwards and perhaps it's not that surprising therefore to see a bit more weight and robustness added to the cars (*). Certainly people like me buy cars with quite different motivations and intentions.

The point is that the weight of the s-class is not really outrageously high and that the people buying them usually buy them for quite other reasons that someone buying a lotus or indeed an SLR. Even if I win the lottery tomorrow, I'd still not buy an SLR - it has no appeal to me.

So, each to their own.

(*) The other point that needs to be made is that convertibles have extra weight is because extra strengthening and stiffening is needed to compensate for the absence of the fixed roof.

 

[st4]

There is a bit of a pendulum motion in all this, but Mercedes has been particularly criticised for the less "robust" feel and build of its cars from the late 90s onwards and perhaps it's not that surprising therefore to see a bit more weight and robustness added to the cars (*). Certainly people like me buy cars with quite different motivations and intentions.

I agree, the quality did dip and many perceive quality in tactile terms, be that the weight of the doors, the thickness of the plastics etc. Hence weight will go up. Modern cars safety and deformation characteristics are much better than they used to, and if we want safety we have to accept the added mass that goes with it.

The point is that the weight of the s-class is not really outrageously high and that the people buying them usually buy them for quite other reasons that someone buying a lotus or indeed an SLR.

Quite. Compared to Audis very portly new Rs6 (2.2tons +) it is a feather weight, especially given that an S500 is a very fast car and also much more luxurious. I don't see quite how Audi's car weighs so much, and every roadtest I've read of it says how its really to heavy to deliver in a performance driving setting, and its too firmly sprung to be comfortable, so erm, its useless. The S class excels in its remit, and actual is deemed quite nice to drive too.

 

[wemorgan]

Flicking through an old magazine earlier, the current SLR weighs in with a hefty 1768kg - given most of the body is carbon fibre, its still heavier than my 'hewn from granite' old skool steel, leather and walnut burr CE which according to the brochure tips the scales at 1490kg...

No doubt the huge engine, drivetrain and safety gizmo's add some to the SLR, but it did surprise me as you associate the W124 as being a heavy car and the SLR as being light...

I'm told one of the heavier items in the vehicle are the seats that weigh over 60kg each. It seems customers want ultimate luxury as well as ultimate performance in the SLR, which in my opinion makes it a more a GT than pure sports car.

 

[popuptoaster]

My '75 280ce weighs under 1500kgs and no one can say thats not built like a tank, a 1600 mk1 escort of the same period weighs under 900kgs.

My Merc is solid, comfy and planted on the road, its not about lots of weight, its about how the car is set up and whats its designed for, prettty much all cars these days are overweight, a lot of it is down to having to pass the crash regs but electric motors weigh lots and there are far to many, its not hard to move a seat or wind a window up by hand, personally i'd rather have my horsepower moving my butt up the road than carrying lazy boy chairs.

I was running a mildly tuned mk1 escort mex a few years ago and it was as fast as my work mates Celica 4x4 thing, even with half the power, half the weight made the difference, imagine an SLR engine in something that weighs 1000kgs even, im sure they could build it if they wanted.

 

[KillerHERTZ]

I thought the W202 was a heavy car, however after reading through the manual i found out it only weighs 1350kg.

The exact weight should be displayed on the VIN sticked on the front door frame

 

[st4]

its not hard to move a seat or wind a window up by hand, personally i'd rather have my horsepower moving my butt up the road than carrying lazy boy chairs.

Many do agree with you, and so do I to an extent, but there are also a great many of people who do like having electric seats, electric windows etc and I hope in the name of global this and carbon that cars are no longer offered with luxuries with manufacturers fearful of chasing socialist CO2 targets. Its about choice, and people should be able to choose what they want from their cars and the features the market place can offer them. MBManinken wants luxury and likes carrying around his "lazyboys", you want peformance, I want a blend of both and thankfully we all still have that.

 

[Number_Cruncher]

>>I thought weight helped motion after starting.

One way to look at this would be to ask how far up a hill could you go if you disengaged drive at the foot of the hill.

If we can (temporarily) ignore losses, the maths is quite simple, as the gradient of the hill doesn't matter.

Kinetic energy lost = potential energy gained

1/2 m * v^2 = m * g * h

m - vehicle mass
v - velocity
g - acceleration due to gravity
h - height

Note, there's mass on both sides of the equation, so, mass cancels out!

h = v^2 / (2 * g)

So, if you had 2 cars, one heavy, one light, approaching the foot of the hill at the same speed, and disengaging drive, they would both reach the same height.

Adding rolling losses back in to the situation, the rolling resistance of the tyres of the heavier car would, ceteris paribus, be greater, and so, the lighter car would go further up the hill than the heavier one.

I include the weasel word phrase, ceteris paribus, because I'm assuming that the cars are otherwise comparable; that one isn't a sleek eco-car and the other a Luton van, that the inertiae of the rotating masses are comparable, etc, etc....

 

[MBManInKen]

My Merc is solid, comfy and planted on the road, its not about lots of weight, its about how the car is set up and whats its designed for

Listen, I loved my first s-class, a 1973 W116. Great car and pretty much amongst the best in its days in terms of comfort and safety. But could it compete with my V220 S500? No chance. And that's not just about fancy electric seats, it's about much more fundamental issues such as safety. My current S500 is numerous times safer and steadier on the road than my W116 was. ESP, which I had on the previous S500 as well, for example makes a massive difference in handling and safety. The 8 airbags and numerous other safety aspects all do chip in too...

The idea that a few decades of technical developments make for no difference on really fundamental issues such as safety and handling is rather flawed IMHO.

As much as I loved driving them, I would not want to swap back to the W116 or W126 that I once drove. I might have some nostalgic feelings about them, but in the real world cars have progressed quite far beyond those days (and perhaps my nostalgia has more to do with the fact that I was a lot younger and slimmer in those days ).

its not hard to move a seat or wind a window up by hand, personally i'd rather have my horsepower moving my butt up the road than carrying lazy boy chairs.

But it's quite hard to move a window up or down at the other side of the car when needed or to move the rear blind up by hand while driving along the motorway. No one forces anyone to buy these cars and spend money on the options - but based on their prevalence it seems the market does want these things. I'm certainly one of the customers who value comfort. Of course you are quite entitled not to - but perhaps it's unnecessary to stereotype those of us who have different opinions of being fat and lazy b*******...

As for performance, I can assure you that there is no lack of power and performance in my S500 .

 

[popuptoaster]

i wasnt talking about safety, you said heavier cars were more planted on the road which is not true as i mentioned, i also said that PERSONALLY i prefer less luxuries, ok i'll admit i was wrong about most people being fat and lazy, i just looked it up, only 46% of men are overweight, so just under most of you are fat and lazy.

i find that if i cant reach part of the car then stopping and adjusting it is fine, and usually safer than faffing about looking away from the road obviolsy the rear window blind is essential to driving and must be easily operated when in motion. lol