Merc G-Wagon in Aus again?

**Sleepy** · 6th June 2009, 01:20 PM

Read in Friday's paper that Mercedes will re-introduce the civilian G Wagon into Aus. (Diesel, V8 Petrol and AMG versions)
Has something to do with the Aus Military contract.

Can't find much on the net.

Nice vehicle from the sounds Wonder how much ???$$$

**amtravic1** · 6th June 2009, 02:07 PM

I read that as well. Looks like it could be good. 7 speed auto, 3 elcetric diff locks, live axles.
I did a bit a bit of a search and found that the last ones available were around $100,000, I assume that was in the US.

If they are priced competively they should have a good market.

**inside** · 6th June 2009, 02:52 PM

This is good news. I'd definitely look closely at one for my next car.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnM58kHvLxc"]YouTube - Mercedes-Benz G-Class television advert[/ame]

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 6th June 2009, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by inside

This is good news. I'd definitely look closely at one for my next car.

How many stationary immovable concrete blocks have you ever run head-on into? How many of these were built with un-reinforced sinter blocks?

All this crash testing keeps a whole generation of automotive engineers employed, but how many real world crashes, involve a single vehicle impact with a single immovable object?

More than that once all the air bags are deployed, the controlled crumple zones have evaporated and impact absorbent materials are depleted in the initial impact, what will protect you in the secondary, tertiary and quaternary impacts? A full chassis, cargo barrier and hopefully a rigid roll cage will.

I can tell you one thing the in-vitro crash testing does, it's marketing just like this U-toob clip sells a lot of Volvo's and Mercedes Benz.

Just my opinions.

Diana

**JDNSW** · 6th June 2009, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

........ but how many real world crashes, involve a single vehicle impact with a single immovable object? ...........

Diana

Certainly in this area most fatal accidents involve a single vehicle impact with a single immovable object, usually a tree. This includes the last one, a couple of days ago on the Gollan road. (Lost control while overtaking in the wet)

John

**LR V8** · 6th June 2009, 03:25 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

......quaternary......

Sorry Diana, just taking the micky....

I'd be much more interested in the actual crash test results - according to our standards...

Pete

**Sleepy** · 6th June 2009, 03:27 PM

I like the vehicle as a legitimate off road vehicle. The safety feature may be nice but not really what attracts me to it.
Will, no doubt, be too expensive for me. They are over 50K Euros so really just dreaming.

**inside** · 6th June 2009, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

How many stationary immovable concrete blocks have you ever run head-on into? How many of these were built with un-reinforced sinter blocks?

Umm it's an ad, it even says fictionalization in the bottom left. Not everything has to be taken so seriously.

**Lotz-A-Landies** · 6th June 2009, 06:19 PM

Originally Posted by JDNSW

Certainly in this area most fatal accidents involve a single vehicle impact with a single immovable object, usually a tree. This includes the last one, a couple of days ago on the Gollan road. (Lost control while overtaking in the wet)

John

John

I'll answer yours instead of the others, in a real world scenario there are rarely single impact crashes. Yes the tree is an immovable (relatively) object, however before the car got to the the tree there was often an impact with a rock, white post, or the kerb or gutter (paved or not) at the edge of the road (which may deploy the airbag) before the car hits the tree and then rolls.

And it is often the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (quaternary) and subsequent impacts that do the damage to the human occupants. Some of these impacts often only occur inside the brain box with the brain bouncing around that cause the fatality.

My point was that the crash testing shown in Car Ads, (like a lot of the testing itself) does not equate to preventing injuries or damage in real world crashes. This You Tube example is exactly the mythology of the advertising not reflecting the real world, no car could go through even sinter blocks without so much as a scratch. But it sure does sell a lot of cars and that is the real business of car companies, not safety testing.

**JDNSW** · 6th June 2009, 06:56 PM

Originally Posted by Lotz-A-Landies

John

I'll answer yours instead of the others, in a real world scenario there are rarely single impact crashes. Yes the tree is an immovable (relatively) object, however before the car got to the the tree there was often an impact with a rock, white post, or the kerb or gutter (paved or not) at the edge of the road (which may deploy the airbag) before the car hits the tree and then rolls.

And it is often the 2nd, 3rd, 4th (quaternary) and subsequent impacts that do the damage to the human occupants. Some of these impacts often only occur inside the brain box with the brain bouncing around that cause the fatality.

My point was that the crash testing shown in Car Ads, (like a lot of the testing itself) does not equate to preventing injuries or damage in real world crashes. This You Tube example is exactly the mythology of the advertising not reflecting the real world, no car could go through even sinter blocks without so much as a scratch. But it sure does sell a lot of cars and that is the real business of car companies, not safety testing.

I take your point, and I agree entirely that these ads do not reflect real life. Further, the crash testing of cars is very closely specified, and these are not realistic crashes, as you say. What is worse, cars these days are designed to perform well in these tests, not in real life.

But my point remains - the pictures I see, time after time, of local fatal accidents, show a car (or ute or even B-double) that has left the road and hit a single tree, usually within a metre of the edge of the road, and has come to an abrupt stop with fatal results. One feature of many of these is that the vehicle is travelling sideways when they hit. No multiple collisions, no rollover. The other type of fatal accident is a head on collision between two vehicles travelling at high speed, often one or both are B-doubles. While not strictly a single immovable object, the physics is pretty much the same. Certainly, there are other types of accidents, but these tend to be much more survivable, except in the all too common case where the occupant(s) are not wearing seat belts.

One that happened several years ago at my turnoff one Sunday night is typical - and as well as looking at the road markings and the wreckage, while I was looking at it the man who was first on the scene stopped to look at it in daylight and gave me more information. In this case a late model Commodore, travelling at an estimated 150kph (he passed my informant who admitted to doing 120 about a kilometre before the crash scene), failed to negotiate a slight bend, hit a railway telephone post made of 60pound rail while travelling sideways - the post was both uprooted and broken four feet above the ground and broke away from the wires without breaking them, leaving a dint 60cm deep just in front of the LH back wheel. This seems to have straightened the car relative to the direction it was travelling, and it hit the ground nose first and did a complete end over end coming to rest upright having lost the front bumper, grille, front suspension and wheels and then the rear bumper.

The driver suffered only minor injuries. The airbags deployed, and presumably he was wearing his seat belt. According to my informant, he was "drunk as a lord".

John

Thread: Merc G-Wagon in Aus again?

Thread Tools

Merc G-Wagon in Aus again?

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions