Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
> <> > Similar to a '55 VW, then. Can you spell oversteer? << I certainly remember a '56 Chevy being a road whale in comparison to my '72 W108, > which has a quite similar suspension to a '55 Benz.>> > No design advances underneath from '55 to '72, then. Pitiful. And I remember comments about the 'high pivot" swing axles. Although it's painful to do so, I will paraphrase Ritter's comments about his 6.3s handling. "Evil and dangerous and the inadequate brakes compounded it." RLE > > ** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
Actually, the 6.3's were great handling cars for the time and it is very unfair to compare them to something newer. They had 4 wheel disk brakes - American iron ran drum brakes. The "inadequate brakes" were far superior to any American 4 door sedan from the same era. And as far as the "Evil and dangerous" handling goes? The biggest issue was that they stuffed a 6.3 liter engine into a 108 chassis and the transplant turned the car into a real hotrod with expected full throttle handling compromises. The 108/109 chassis with a 4.5 liter V8 was great to drive - I owned 2 of them. And concerning the rear end? Even though the rear end was a swing axle, the deflection angle was not near as bad as a VW. The VW axles pivoted outside the transaxle. This, combined with a much narrower track translated to a very high deflection angle. The Mercedes rear end was wide enough that the angles were slight. Also, the rear end has a single pivot point and a hydro compensator across the joint. The compensator is a combination shock / spring unit that manages the axle deflection. Earlier Mercedes like my 1959 220S did not have a hydro compensator. In other words, Mercedes did make design advances to the rear end of the car & the hydro-compensator worked quite well. At least the system translated to an independently sprung rear end - American iron from the same period ran a straight axle across the back. Thanks, Tom Hargrave www.kegkits.com 256-656-1924 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:01 PM To: mercedes@okiebenz.com Subject: Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev > <> > Similar to a '55 VW, then. Can you spell oversteer? << I certainly remember a '56 Chevy being a road whale in comparison to my '72 W108, > which has a quite similar suspension to a '55 Benz.>> > No design advances underneath from '55 to '72, then. Pitiful. And I remember comments about the 'high pivot" swing axles. Although it's painful to do so, I will paraphrase Ritter's comments about his 6.3s handling. "Evil and dangerous and the inadequate brakes compounded it." RLE > > ** Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
Yeah, if you really push one, a swing axle Benz will start to jack in the rear -- at well over 100 mph. The low scrub front end (better after 1962) does give minor bump steer and some understeer, but nothing like the floating rear axle and zero caster front end on a 55 Chevy, to say nothing of the lack of an anti-roll bar and a flexible frame to boot (Benz was unibody after '53). My 280 SE has very neutral handling, fading into understeer as fast as I've driven it (not that fast, it's a bit wobbly from age and deteriorated rear suspension mounts). A '55 Chevy plows horribly, until the inside rear tire lifts and it rolls over. The Benz rear axle is the prime example of a LOW pivot swing axle design -- the pivot is below the differential. Not very exciting today, but in 1953 it was the cat's meow. Not much comparison -- those old Detroit Lead Sleds ride nicely (as in very soft), but handling is, well, scary. A swing axle (camber limited, you will note -- oversteer on a VW is due to really bad weight distribution, not the axle design) IS an independent rear suspension, compare with a floppy live axle! No spring wrap, no bunny hop, no oversteer from the rear axle moving around under the car, and believe me, you can SEE them move from behind one of those '50's cars. The 6.3 was grossly overpowered for the chassis -- no way it was a good match, but it was at the end of the chassis design life, not the beginning! Peter ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
All the below points out the "over engineered" part of the magazine's remark. The W115 looked a lot like a '55 Chevy, but that's where the similarity ends. On 7/15/07, Peter Frederick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah, if you really push one, a swing axle Benz will start to jack in > the rear -- at well over 100 mph. The low scrub front end (better > after 1962) does give minor bump steer and some understeer, but nothing > like the floating rear axle and zero caster front end on a 55 Chevy, to > say nothing of the lack of an anti-roll bar and a flexible frame to > boot (Benz was unibody after '53). My 280 SE has very neutral > handling, fading into understeer as fast as I've driven it (not that > fast, it's a bit wobbly from age and deteriorated rear suspension > mounts). A '55 Chevy plows horribly, until the inside rear tire lifts > and it rolls over. > > The Benz rear axle is the prime example of a LOW pivot swing axle > design -- the pivot is below the differential. Not very exciting > today, but in 1953 it was the cat's meow. > > Not much comparison -- those old Detroit Lead Sleds ride nicely (as in > very soft), but handling is, well, scary. A swing axle (camber > limited, you will note -- oversteer on a VW is due to really bad weight > distribution, not the axle design) IS an independent rear suspension, > compare with a floppy live axle! No spring wrap, no bunny hop, no > oversteer from the rear axle moving around under the car, and believe > me, you can SEE them move from behind one of those '50's cars. > > The 6.3 was grossly overpowered for the chassis -- no way it was a good > match, but it was at the end of the chassis design life, not the > beginning! > > Peter > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > -- OK Don, KD5NRO Norman, OK "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics." -Benjamin Disraeli '90 300D, '87 300SDL, '81 240D, '78 450SLC, '97 Ply Grand Voyager ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
It wasn't until the mid 90's that Ford in Oz had independant rear suspesion. GM had it a bit earlier but the early independant set ups used to chew tyres at an alarming rate unless upgraded with redesigned components. No wonder they can't sell their cars, the average car buyer in Oz is getting more sophisticated and blind brand loyalty is starting to fade. - Original Message - From: "Tom Hargrave" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Mercedes Discussion List'" Sent: Monday, July 16, 2007 11:58 AM Subject: Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev > At least the system translated to an independently sprung rear end - > American iron from the same period ran a straight axle across the back. > > Thanks, > Tom Hargrave > www.kegkits.com > 256-656-1924 > > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev
i've only spun my 6.3 once and that was out of pure stupidity that would have likely spun a modern car as well. it was drizzling. the light was turning yellow and i didn't want to wait for hte long light. so i floored and hit the turn in the wet. sharp lefts at 70 in the rain don't seem to work that well. On 7/15/07, Tom Hargrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Actually, the 6.3's were great handling cars for the time and it is very > unfair to compare them to something newer. > > > They had 4 wheel disk brakes - American iron ran drum brakes. The > "inadequate brakes" were far superior to any American 4 door sedan from > the > same era. > > > And as far as the "Evil and dangerous" handling goes? The biggest issue > was > that they stuffed a 6.3 liter engine into a 108 chassis and the transplant > turned the car into a real hotrod with expected full throttle handling > compromises. The 108/109 chassis with a 4.5 liter V8 was great to drive - > I > owned 2 of them. > > > And concerning the rear end? > > Even though the rear end was a swing axle, the deflection angle was not > near > as bad as a VW. The VW axles pivoted outside the transaxle. This, combined > with a much narrower track translated to a very high deflection angle. The > Mercedes rear end was wide enough that the angles were slight. Also, the > rear end has a single pivot point and a hydro compensator across the > joint. > The compensator is a combination shock / spring unit that manages the axle > deflection. Earlier Mercedes like my 1959 220S did not have a hydro > compensator. In other words, Mercedes did make design advances to the rear > end of the car & the hydro-compensator worked quite well. > > At least the system translated to an independently sprung rear end - > American iron from the same period ran a straight axle across the back. > > Thanks, > Tom Hargrave > www.kegkits.com > 256-656-1924 > > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2007 9:01 PM > To: mercedes@okiebenz.com > Subject: Re: [MBZ] Old benz vs old Chev > > > < '73).>> > > > Similar to a '55 VW, then. Can you spell oversteer? > > << I certainly remember a '56 Chevy being a road whale in comparison to my > '72 W108, > > which has a quite similar suspension to a '55 Benz.>> > > > No design advances underneath from '55 to '72, then. Pitiful. And I > remember > > comments about the 'high pivot" swing axles. > > Although it's painful to do so, I will paraphrase Ritter's comments about > his > 6.3s handling. "Evil and dangerous and the inadequate brakes compounded > it." > > RLE > > > > > > > > > > > ** > Get a sneak peak of the all-new AOL at > http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > > > ___ > http://www.okiebenz.com > For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ > For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: > http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com > ___ http://www.okiebenz.com For new parts see official list sponsor: http://www.buymbparts.com/ For used parts email [EMAIL PROTECTED] To Unsubscribe or change delivery options go to: http://okiebenz.com/mailman/listinfo/mercedes_okiebenz.com
