Driving back home last night, a 200 mile trip, the weather was lousy. High
winds, off and on rain. wind was hard out of the NW, quartering off the
port or starboard the whole way. (headwind and crosswind) Most traffic on
I-80 was going 55-65, some noticeably slower. (very unusual, except for
why I carry a fire extinguisher in the 300SD...prolly should throw one in the
TD too.
Chris
Mitch Haley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Richard Murdoch wrote:
> Not quite impossible. A friend had his 85 300D catch fire while he was on
> the
> highway.
My mail carrier stopped in my driveway
Richard Murdoch wrote:
> Not quite impossible. A friend had his 85 300D catch fire while he was on
> the
> highway.
My mail carrier stopped in my driveway and told me she was having brake
trouble. I noticed that the trouble with her Taurus at that moment in
time was the flames behind the right
> On 1/24/06, Loren Faeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > The local independent shop has the remains
> > of an SD that caught fire while driving down the interstate. I would have
> > believed that to be impossible until I saw it. The fire does not appear
> > to
> > have started at the alternat
oren Faeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: [MBZ] Why we drive old Mercedes Benz Cars
> Today we learned that a HS friend of my daughter was burned beyond any
> recognition after
I asked Jeff about that car just a few days ago. He thought that maybe it
was brake fluid rather than #2 that got the fire going initially.
On 1/24/06, Loren Faeth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> IThe local independent shop has the remains
> of an SD that caught fire while driving down the intersta
D]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: [MBZ] Why we drive old Mercedes Benz Cars
Today we learned that a HS friend of my daughter was burned beyond any
recognition after her 2005 Toyota hit a rock pillar at the e
Yes, your are right. I didn't think that one through. I don't mess with
107s as much as you do.
I too, feel safer with dissel fool. (but it does burn)
At 10:25 PM 1/24/2006, you wrote:
> One thing that I have noticed is that on the old cars with the tank
> under
> the trunk (107-115 inclusi
rcedes Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 8:36 PM
Subject: Re: [MBZ] Why we drive old Mercedes Benz Cars
I vaguely recall a scandal around a TV "documentary where they were
demonstrating the difference in flamability of Diesle and gas cars by
firing
The attack was against Chevrolet, but it was really against ALL side
mounted pickup tanks. This includes every manufacturer of pickups. Some
used the tanks behind the seat in some models. IH and Ford come to mind,
but both IH and Ford also used side mounted tanks. So did the datsun I
had.
I have not found out what model toyota it was. I tend to believe it was
one with the tank mounted behind the seat. (vertical) Those will gravity
feed the fire, as I mentioned previously. In a frontal collision, it is
unlikely that a rear mounted tank would have spewed enough fuel to cause
thi
That was the chevy pickup truck attack. they were trying to prove that
side mounted tanks in pickups were dangerous. They could not get the
trucks to burn in the staged crashes, so the "helped" them with Estes model
rocket engines.
At 09:36 PM 1/24/2006, you wrote:
I vaguely recall a scanda
One thing that I have noticed is that on the old cars with the tank
under
the trunk (107-115 inclusive) if a fuel line is cut or broken, the fuel
stays in the tank.
In the R107, at least, the tank is behind the rear seating area.
That is, above the floor of the trunk and forward of the bulkhead
OK Don wrote:
>
> I vaguely recall a scandal around a TV "documentary where they were
> demonstrating the difference in flamability of Diesle and gas cars by
> firing a rifle at the fuel tanks. Neither one exploded onr burned.
> They decided to light the gas tank with a model rocket engine to
> de
I vaguely recall a scandal around a TV "documentary where they were
demonstrating the difference in flamability of Diesle and gas cars by
firing a rifle at the fuel tanks. Neither one exploded onr burned.
They decided to light the gas tank with a model rocket engine to
demonstrate their point!
I s
Alex Chamberlain wrote:
>
> Surely a big part of why the Toyota fire happened is just that it was
> a gas car?
I think in this case it was caused by having an exposed fuel tank
under the car. It should not, however, be the lowest part of the
car. Makes me wonder what else got clobbered before the
I always thought that gasoline caused most vehicle fires, but I have seen a
lot of semi tractors that burned. The only difference is that diesel needs
a wick or it needs to be heated enough to vaporize. Gasoline evaporates
easily at air temps. Since diesel has more BTUs per gallon, it will bu
Surely a big part of why the Toyota fire happened is just that it was
a gas car? That's one big safety advantage of diesel that many people
don't think about---it's combustible, but not inflammable, much less
volatile. Not saying that MB's aren't safer than other cars, rather
that there's a big f
Amen, Dr. L
Bob Rentfro
'77 300D 148K
'01 VW Beetle TDI 61K
Litchfield Park, AZ
- Original Message -
From: "Loren Faeth" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Mercedes Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 4:09 PM
Subject:
Today we learned that a HS friend of my daughter was burned beyond any
recognition after her 2005 Toyota hit a rock pillar at the entrance to a
park and then burned. It took them almost a week to find out who it
was. There was not enough of the vehicle left to get a VIN from, and the
aluminu
20 matches
Mail list logo