German Car Zone

I'm merely stating their leadership position in automotive safety leaving no base uncovered. Now I sound like an MB spokesman. Beh.

Design was made first, and the pop up hood and all those exterior airbags and stuff are added because they wanted to look pretty. So, they spent a lot of $$$ on R&D for a pop up hood.
While BMW on the other hand engineers the car without all that, so they can spend the extra $$$ on things that really matter, like driving dynamics....

That's the other side of the story Artist is trying to paint here.

Newer MB designs (especially in low-end product-line specter) will feature upright vertical grille / front - since pedestrian airbags are to expensive to be standard on eg. A, B or even C-class.

High-end models (E, S, SL, CL etc) will be able to feature different design solutions due to the ped-airbag.

BMW opted for the cheaper way. As usually.
Vertical grill all along the line. And pedestrians will be protected differently (eg. active safety systems: radars, sensors, infrared cameras etc).

Correction Klier, i think BMW spent the money on developing Efficient Dynamics for their vehicles instead of something cosmetic and superficial such as a pop-up bonnet.

If i were the top R&D financial controller at BMW, and knowing that i had limited funds, it would be intelligent to invest the valuable engineering resources on something that would really add a tangible and quantifiable value to the customer such as reducing emmissions. This is value adding.

What is not value adding is developing a pop-up bonnet. Sure it looks nice, but you don't need to develop technolofy to ensure pedestrian safety- a far simpler and cost-effective solution would be to raise the bonnet height.

Well the pop-up bonnet also boosts the aerodynamics by making the front more slippery. Boosting the mpg.

And it's better than simply making the front more straight, it gives more space for the deformation. You'll thank Mercedes-Benz if you're hit by one of their cars and walk away without bad injury.

And given the fact it is way better looking, I think MB was right making it. Furhermore, once they made it, it's not complex to adapt it to the rest of the line-up (bar the lowest models). Create the system on expensive cars, spreading it to the others.

This is called engineering excellence.

For me, it's better than making a battering ram front with a disputable shutline, then whining at a possibly life-saving regulation.


Honestly, Car Guy, gimme the choice between 3g CO2 less (wow, changing my life) and a hood that reduces the injury of a pedestrian (who could be me, or a child), I won't have a hard time choosing.

One is politically correct BS, the other is a real-life benefit on what counts the most: human life.

I don't think CO2 reduction is "politically correct BS". Every reduction in pollution is good. On the long run.

Yes, pedestrian safety is equally important. So, both is good.

But then it's all about prioritizing. IMO MB are a bit lost in time with their priorities. Right now the emission regulations are much more important than the safety issue ... Contemporary cars are several times safer than the cars from eg 10 or even 5 years ago.

The problem for MB is / will be they will have to develop all the green solutions in a very short time. Eg. companies like BMW or Toyota etc started with that years ago, and R&D costs were distributed over the years ... when profits were high, and cash reserves were higher.
BMW even scarified some brand image for the new green tech.

Now imagine MB problem: having to catch up with others in greener products ... meaning they will have to invest lots of R&D money in green tech, and offering the tech as standard - meaning lesser profit margins. Now, when times in the industry are bad, when there is a lack of money. Geez, Daimler needed cash to retain healthy liquidity .. and the good Arabs gave the money to them!

Not only Chrysler but also poor prioritizing (wrong strategic decisions) are making extra gray hair to Daimler officials these days. They went into SLS & several BS projects despite knowing the crisis is kicking in. And now they have to deal with serious consequences.

Cars are hard, pedestrians are soft, keep out of the way...

It is very sad that the manufacturers still have not found a way to make the cars safer without making them dead ugly.

^^ Good points, but...
Mercedes, this is true, is a bit lost if you only see the short-terms.

In the long-run, however, they are at the very front.

Electric cars (stake in Tesla, Li-Ion battery production in a 90% owned joint-venture with Evonik, Li-Ion patent with Continental, work on the "dynamo" self-charging car, electric smart without 200kg worth of battery at the back), fuel-cell (nest-year for sale in a passenger car!), DiesOtto concept... Daimler is thinking long-term here.

I'm not sure BMW has that much in store...

But honestly, between some gramms CO2 (that won't make any difference whatsoever, besides making you believe you do smthg for the planet by buying an X5) and the safety, I am choosing the safety.

I think Eni has got it right with what i was talking about.

First, let's set something straight: yes, safety engineering in all vehicles is of paramount importance. In any given situation, whether as a driver, passenger or pedestrian, i would want the vehicle involved to give maximum protection to all humans involved.

What i'm trying to say is that a pop-up bonnet does not give any further value to a customer rather than cosmetic. It is not really any safer than a vehicle with a high-placed bonnet. Ultimatley, MB would have achieved the same result (i.e. give the same level of pedestrian protection) by just raising the pop-up bonnet.

So ultimately, an engineer and a company would have spent good $$$ for a piece of technology that is strictly for cosmetic purposes.

Now think about it. It could have spent the $$$ on technology that reduces vehicle emissions. This is something more valuable as it saves them and MB more money (through reduced fuel consumption, tax, fines etc.). At the same time, the customer could still have a safe car with a bonnet just placed higher.

There is no disputing that MB has engineering excellence, however, if that engineering excellence is not directed or utilised in an efficient and effective manner, it will ultimately result in wasted superficial solutions such as pop-up bonnets instead of relevant and useful innovations such as Efficient Dynamics.

Well, between a G-Class like bonnet and one that is driven by aerodynamic principles (eg. not high and straight like a fridge), guess the one who give consumption advantage?

Besides, now that MB has developped the pop-up bonnet. It's a relatively "cheap" solution, fully mechanical, that will be applied on other cars, so it's not like it's lost money. it will benefit to the other MBs.

It gives a cosmetic edge, and is good for the consumption because more aerodynamic. And not expensive, as it now is done developing.

Besides, it surely is safer than merely raising the bonnet (angle is different, especially compared to the windshield, more space for deformation underneath...).