(first posted 12/2/2017) Italy, Summer 1981. My father is hustling his brother’s black Mercedes-Benz 220 S heckflosse along the autostrada at speed. Inside the car it’s three children creating raucous havoc in the back seat, Dad yelling in the front and Mum not giving any quarter. Suddenly Dad grows quiet. He gently reduces the speed and steers the car towards the side of the road. Puncture. The car’s poise never faltered.
Not much excitement I’m afraid, but it’s one of those innocuous flashbacks that holds the emotive weight of that whole holiday. The heckflosse has a place in my heart.
There’s one thing I never liked about it, though. The heckflosse.
‘Heckflosse’ means ‘tailfin’ in German, and it appeared on a lot of Mercedes-Benz cars. This model was the benchmark for engineering excellence, a paragon of safety and the successful mainstay into the 1960s for that most sober and accomplished of car companies, and yet it pandered to fashion so ill-advisedly.
Ok, so maybe this photograph is a bit misleading. It was taken in Lithuania a few years ago by AVL, and that spray and chrome job is not factory. But those fins…
Not that I have anything against fins per se. Pininfarina’s 1959 Cadillac Starlight, for example. But I’ve always wondered what the fintail Mercedes would look like shorn of the rear’s excesses.
A pluckenheckflosse, so to speak.
It’s early 1959, and four mysterious dark-green are traveling at speed between Stuttgart and Naples. After 3 million development miles, these disguised Mercedes-Benz sedans are undergoing a final assurance run in the hands of senior executives before launch later that year.
These new models were to replace part of the mainstay ponton range.
The nickname refers to the pontoon-type styling of all Mercedes-Benz cars sitting under the mighty 300 Adenauer.
The range covered a series of models from the six cyl. long-nose, long-cabin (final year only) 220 SE through to the four cyl. short-nose short-cabin 180 and the six-cyl. long-nose short-cabin 219 sitting somewhere in the middle. Despite the wide price disparity, the pontons were barely indistinguishable from each other by sight.
It was planned to split this range into two distinct platforms, the first to be replaced being the six-cylinder seniors.
Chief Engineer Fritz Nallinger (at right) convened meetings in September 1956 to lay out the parameters for this new model with his team of Josef Müller – engine development, Karl Wilfert – styling and body engineering, and Rudolf Uhlenhaut (at left) – ride and handling.
What emerged were three key requirements; to design a car from the inside out, to include the safety cell principle, and to ensure the car looked timeless with a recognisable Mercedes-Benz front as well as a hint of Italian design.
Internally, the series was designated W111.
The M127 2.2 litre straight-six engine was to be carried over from the pontons with revisions to carburetion and valve gear, giving slightly better acceleration and improved torque throughout the engine speed range for the three proposed models.
Also carried over from the ponton was the coilspring suspension with independent front and swing axle rear, although it was to receive much attention from Uhlenhaut and his team.
The top model, the 220 SE, received Bosch fuel injection to produce 120 hp (89 kW) and a top speed of 172 kmh (107 mph). The ponton 2 plunger injection had a modified intake plenum for installation in W111.
The 220 S with twin carburettors produced 110 hp (82 kW), top speed 165 kmh (103 mph).
The base 220 served as the strippo, with 95 hp (71 kW) and 160 kmh (99 mph) top speed.
Manual was standard, but available with the short-lived Hydrak clutch option. In 1961 automatic transmission was available for all models.
Brakes were drums all round, with servo-assistance standard on the 220 S & SE, and optional on the base model. These would prove to be a bit of an Achilles heel for the model, and in 1963 the 220 S & SE received discs from the British company Girling, with three pot callipers and a single hydraulic circuit. Dual circuit brakes with ATE callipers on the front came in mid 1963.
As with the ponton, the heckflosse was to have a body of unitary construction. Dimensions were 4875mm (143”) length, 1795 (111) width and 1500 (110) height over a 2750 (111) wheelbase. Glass area was increased by 35% and boot space enlarged 50%. This body featured flow-through ventilation, with egress via vents in the c-pillar.
Seated is Fritz Nallinger, considering some detail work on the heckflosse. At left is Nallinger’s head of body engineering and styling, Karl Wilfert. In the white coat is Wilfert’s styling lead, Friedrich Geiger. And that’s a young Paul Bracq leaning in.
Friedrich Geiger had recently been charged with responsibility for Mercedes-Benz styling, and would continue to serve that role until 1973. Under the guidance of this quiet titan came an extraordinary array of road and performance shapes, contributing significantly to a truly golden period for this manufacturer.
He himself was responsible for the most beautiful Mercedes ever; this factory-bodied 500/540K Roadster. Its flowing shape was the perfectly-balanced mid-point between France’s indulgences and Italy’s asceticism. Even barn-found years later, its shape does not diminish.
And Friedrich Geiger also drew the most iconic Mercedes ever – the gullwing.
Bottom right is the earliest concept sketch I could find, which to my half-trained eye looks to be by Geiger. Which of course is not enough evidence on its own. Both Bracq and Bruno Sacco were present at Mercedes-Benz back then (though Sacco only briefly), but they were fresh juniors.
Best I can make of it, the heckflosse shape is from Geiger’s hand.
He delivered at the front. In spades.
Nallinger’s call for a recognisable front ushered in the best face Daimler-Benz ever created, setting the template for a succession of models that would elicit instant recognition from even the most lay of observers.
The ovoid composite headlights – luscious eggs of polished white amber – had been introduced on the 300 SL roadster in 1957, and on the heckflosse they were combined with that distinctive upright grille style used since the 1930s. A masterful solution.
The US was not quite so lucky.
At the rear, the 220 S & SE were differentiated from the base 220 by the light units and a set of bumperettes complementing the main bumper. Sharper eyes would notice the chrome strip on the senior pair continuing along the top edge of the fin, whereas on the base model they served only as end pieces.
In profile, the W111 drew on the trapezium form emanating from the United States that was being introduced on cars such as the Peugeot 404 and Fiat 1800/2100. Both the Peugeot and Fiat bore the touch of Pininfarina, then at the top of the European styling game and the implied reference within Nallinger’s ‘Italian design’ brief.
With this trapezium styling trend, the belt line and lower edge of the body were in parallel, and the endcaps sat at opposing angles, demonstrated most starkly on the Fiat at bottom right.
The fins were first added to the body when it was discovered the gas-turbine/electric hybrid (mooted to replace the diesel) required extra directional stability.
Actually, this particular heckflosse is a crashtest car – giving proof to the ideas of Béla Barényi.
Béla Victor Karl Barényi was born in 1907 to mother from a wealthy society family and a father who taught mathematics and perspective drawing.
In 1924 he enrolled at the Vienna Engineering Institute and immediately began producing ideas from an intuitive imagination. On his retirement from Daimler-Benz, Barényi had amassed around 2000 patents.
His first employment stood in contrast to the rest of his career. In 1926, he began producing marketing renderings for Steyr. He displayed a deft hand at drawing – no doubt his father’s influence – but by 1934 Barényi was working as an engineer for Austro Fiat.
In 1937, Béla Barényi applied for and received patent number DBP 887.306 for a ‘Vehicle with Three Part Body Shell’.
In 1939, he was hired by Daimler-Benz.
Béla Barényi’s employment with Daimler-Benz was halted in 1946 due to the legal landscape in the immediate post-war Germany.
During this downtime, he further developed his three volume theme with the Terracruiser. This was a car theorized to be the size of a US sedan that incorporated elements of his growing interest in safety. The top example demonstrates the principle of crumple zones at either end of a rigid passenger compartment, and below it is another study addressing the issue of side intrusion.
He was reinstated in 1948, and took a position as Daimler-Benz’ first safety engineer within his university friend Karl Wilfert’s body engineering division. The perimeter sill reinforcements used on the ponton launched in 1952 incorporated elements of his thinking with regards side intrusion collisions.
Meanwhile, Barényi’s interest in the three volume safety configuration continued. He refined the concept with another patent granted in 1952.
And the concept found production form in the heckflosse.
However, his theories regarding the crumple-zone/rigid-cell were still just that.
Theories.
On the 10th of September 1959, Béla Barényi’s theories received real-world substantiation when Daimler-Benz carried out its first ever crash test.
Though crash testing had been conducted since the 1930s, Daimler Benz had previously used this process only to test components. This was the first time they had crash tested an entire vehicle, sending a heckflosse headlong into a stack of discarded press dies. After this single day’s work, the Daimler-Benz engineers took a few months to consider the results.
They returned to the makeshift Sindelfingen test area for three days in March and April of 1960 to extrapolate upon their findings with collisions against other vehicles and a rollover test guided by a corkscrew ramp.
Cars were initially propelled with a winch system used to launch gliders.
By 1962, this method had been replaced with a hot water rocket. That earlier image suggests the rocket was initially located inside the trunk, before being mounted on a single axle trailer behind the car. It was able to propel the vehicle up to 100 kmh, though occasionally the trailer would fail to brake leading to an inadvertent crushing of the trunk space.
The test facility rapidly evolved. The track was lengthened from 65 to 90 metres to accommodate the mighty W100 600 series. Makeshift single-seat sleds fabricated for Oskar the crashtest dummy were upscaled to take on a whole car body.
Though Daimler-Benz had not invented the crash test program, by the early 1960s they were setting the benchmarks.
On 11 April 1960 the press was invited to a crash test.
This was the first time the public had been present, and the opportunity was taken to promote the W111 as the first car built with deformable crumple zones at each end of a rigid passenger cell.
To this day, Daimler-Benz celebrates the heckflosse as thus.
However, in 2010 the Mercedes Benz Interest Group arranged a crash test of a ponton.
The test – held at the ADAC Technical Centre in Landsberg – was configured to the current EuroNCAP scheme, being a frontal offset collision into a deformable barrier at 64 kmh.
The ageing ponton body demonstrated quite conclusively the presence of a frontal crumple zone and rigid passenger cell.
An anomaly perhaps explained by events from back in 1924.
While still at college, Barényi had played around with the idea of a volkswagen, or people’s car. He had put to paper concepts of a low cost vehicle with a shell-like body inspired by the trailing edge stylings of Paul Jaray and a variety of drivetrain configurations. One rear-engined concept featured a central tube chassis, flat-four air-cooled engine and gearbox ahead of the transaxle.
During the 1930s and 40s, Barényi developed a name for himself in the press. Though it’s unclear exactly how news of his own Volkswagen concept had spread, these rather disingenuous images no doubt added fuel to the speculation.
In the early 1950s, two books were published questioning claims that Barenyi had conceived a car with striking similarities to the Volkswagen Typ 1.
The first was ‘Porsche – The Way of an Age’ by Richard von Frankenberg (writing as Herbert A. Quint). Von Frankenberg ridiculed Barényi, accusing him of ‘falsely revising history for his own benefit’. In 1952, Barényi sued von Frankenberg and by 1955 the courts had found in Barényi’s favour. Though the courts acknowledged Barényi’s authorship of a car with similar configuration to the Beetle before anyone else had come up with the idea, they also specifically stated that Ferdinand Porsche had come to the same idea independently.
The second book was ‘Die Autostadt’ published in the early 1950s, in which author Horst Monnich had written an imaginary interview with Ferdinand Porsche around the conception of the Beetle. According to automotive historian Phil Carney, Monnich portrayed Barényi as ‘a strange juvenile dreamer seeking claim for something he did not deserve.’ Barényi sued and the case was settled, with all mention of him omitted from subsequent printings of the book.
Were Barényi’s contributions to Mercedes-Benz cars deliberately hidden from the public eye during this turbulent period in his life?
There’s more to consider.
In 1955 Fritz Nallinger, Rudolf Uhlenhaut and Karl Wilfert travelled to the US and visited the Ford crash test facility in Dearborn. They were astounded to discover that Ford was marketing its safety attributes so openly. The Ford effort would ultimately fail, which really goes to the general lack of understanding back then as to how to promote this crucial aspect.
The then-unproven principle of the crumple zone might have carried with it too much of an implied structural weakness – particularly with the unibody process itself still smarting from similar rumours a few years earlier.
It is entirely possible that in 1952 Daimler-Benz had simply not yet conceived a way to market safety to the public.
Daimler-Benz runs this image with the following caption;
Safety first: frame-floor system of the Mercedes-Benz W 120 series of 1952. Further development led to Béla Barényi’s patented safety cell.
Note the snake-like ridges in the floor. They don’t marry up with the perimeter sill reinforcements on the underplatform. I wonder whether they may in fact be a way of strengthening the structure and channelling impact energy.
From the same page comes this image with caption;
“Ponton” marriage: Chassis and body of a Mercedes-Benz saloon from the W 120 series are united in this photo, taken in 1953.
You can see underneath the snake-ridges are not present. Might the previous image have been a prototype, or would there be another skin obscuring the inner floor?
Though the extent to which the ponton used the crumple-zone/rigid cell principles is not clear, they do seem evident.
At any rate the cameras loved the heckflosse, and it gets the kudos.
The heckflosse was loaded with other safety features as well. The aforementioned increase in glass area greatly improved visibility, and ‘clap’ pattern windscreen wipers were introduced for more effective coverage.
Inside, it was first car to receive retractable seat belts – another M-B patent. The steering wheel received a padded boss with broad surfacing. The dash too was padded, with instruments and controls recessed. The internal door openers were also recessed, and window winders and vent controls made of flexible material. The door locks featured Barenyi’s safety pin configuration first seen in 1951.
The only thing that appears misguided is the vertical strip speedometer, not so practical when the traditional dial allows drivers to intuitively gauge speed at the briefest glance.
E. O. Probst, writing for the 1960 edition of Auto Universum, test drove a 220 S;
‘As a result of noteworthy changes and improvements in the chassis, road-holding qualities – already outstanding in the previous model – are now still better: the car keeps to its course rigidly and its behaviour in the curves would do credit to many a sports car. It has a slight tendency to understeer, but it is so perfectly balanced that, in extreme cases, a slight correction of the steering wheel is all that is necessary to keep the car in its tracks with hardly any perceptible side-motion at the rear.
What is most astounding is that designers were able to achieve such perfect road-holding qualities combined with a suspension which affords such a pleasing and comfortable ride on even the worst roads.
In conclusion, the Mercedes 220 S is in every respect – performance, safety, comfort and economy – one of the finest cars offered on the world market today.’
Its driving characteristics called out for competitive action. In 1960, Daimler-Benz entered three teams in the Monte Carlo Rally, and achieved an historic first, second and third. Privateers also entered the fray, and the heckflosse garnered 117 victories in that year alone as well as the 1960 European Rally Championship for factory drivers Walter Schock and Rolf Moll.
With all that rallying success, it was just a logical progression to place the gullwing racer’s 3-litre engine into a heckflosse for even better performance.
Truth is, while Daimler-Benz had tentatively continued to enter rallying, they had officially withdrawn from competitive racing at the end of 1955.
The W112 300 SE was created as a stopgap of sorts between the outgoing Adenauer 300 sedan that finished production in 1961, and its yet-to-be-launched 600 replacement.
It was the precursor to the mythical 6.3 and 6.9 Q-ships, if not quite to the same magnitude.
I’ll let CCognoscento and 300 SE owner DefAmChris take the wheel;
This is the first alloy block motor made by M-B. The last 12 or so 300SL Roadsters also had alloy blocks on the same pattern. The engine block was 88 pounds lighter than the iron version. A complete M189 is very slightly lighter than the equivalent M127 if the M127 has air con and the M189 does not.
Engine made 160hp, but with appropriate changes (Gullwing pistons and camshaft) could be coaxed into making 225hp without too much drama and with complete reliability.
Mods for 300SE over Adenauer 300d (which is essentially the donor) were: alloy block over iron, two plunger mechanically governed injection pump instead of 6 plunger vacuum governed pump, many other adjustments to throttle linkage, fan etc. W112 engine has hydraulic clutch in fan hub, hydraulic engine idle speed adjust for full lock power steering, electronic adjust for idle when in gear.
The automatic they designed is interesting. Four speed at a time when two was common and three considered generous. Primary and secondary oil pumps mean the car can be push started. Mechanical governing as a function of engine vacuum was a new innovation at the time, and the electrical control was also to remain a novelty for more than 30 years on other makes.
It used about 2% of the engine output (down from the BW unit at about 10%) and this meant that top speed was only marginally lower. This is comparable to modern units. Uhlenhaut did a flying lap of the Nurburgring in an auto 230SL within 40 sec of the then current Ferrari road car…
But it was designed for the W112, and made it’s debut in that vehicle.
Air suspension was first used by MB on the W112, as a test bed for the upcoming 600 though the system is not the same. Air suspension pump was integral to the engine, and included a link into the lubrication system to supply the compressor. I’ve had people ask what modern suspension system I have in the W112 when they ride in it, as it is so far advanced over anything else 1962 had to offer, except perhaps the Citroen, although that system was quirky and didn’t do well with high speed cornering work: the W112 most definitely did.
So, in a nutshell, the W112 offered significantly better performance than the W111, used a lot more fuel (tank size was increased from 62 to 82 litres in 1963 for this reason), had better appointments inside (they are quite something) and offered an air suspension system that was unparalleled at the time for ride and handling, had better brakes (discs all round), a limited slip diff, anti-dive links on rear brakes that are astonishingly effective, anti roll bar on the back axle as well as the front and a myriad of other interesting things that made it a far better car to drive than the W111.
I’ve owned both as everyday drivers.
That’s Chris’ W112 above – the Grey Goose.
Externally, the differences were mostly apparent in the application of chrome; a lengthwise strip along the side from stem to stern. It was also added over both wheelarches with the rear arch strip continuing along the bodycrease to the rear bumperette.
300 was an important number for Mercedes. The c-pillar vent received a little panel with a ‘300 SE’ callout and the decklid a (unique) thin box surrounding the type. It’s an excessive use of chromeware, even if not using the same trowel-size as the US.
With Q-ship status pending retrospectively, the 300 SE was a bit of a lost soul.
However, when the 600 series was launched in 1963 Daimler-Benz kept the 300 SE in production.
In fact, they even created a long wheel base version.
The 1963 300 SE lang (long) gave the chauffeur-driven W112 customer an extra 100 mm in rear cabin space.
There was no ‘L’ added to badge, so the quickest way to identify the 300 SE lang was by looking at the c-pillar. For some reason, the decoration and badging of the SWB 300 SE was dispensed with completely and replaced with a blank body coloured panel with discrete chrome trim. It still served as an air vent, with egress at the trailing edge. Note the optional curtains in the rear window.
Door window frames were now fully chromed as per the 600.
The standard 300 SE also got the new door frames. The engine for both was tweaked to 170 hp.
5202 normal and 1546 lang W112s were produced; a real gem of a find under any circumstances.
One reason for the W112’s lack of sales may have been that it looked too much like the bread-and-butter taxi body.
Daimler-Benz originally intended to replace the lower strata of the pontoon range with a bespoke new body designated W122.
A number of styling prototypes have emerged, as shown bottom row. However, it was ultimately decided to use the heckflosse instead for the new base-model Mercedes-Benz, and the W122 program was canceled.
The W110, launched in 1961, used the heckflosse body from the firewall back. The wheelbase was reduced by 50mm and the new front clip shorter by 145mm.
The mainstay of this range was the four-cylinder engine derived from the ponton models.
The diesel version proved especially popular, comprising more than 380,000 of the 630,000-odd W110s produced. Frugal, yes, but factor in the improved dynamics and you can see why taxi owners and drivers loved them.
The W110 was instantly identifiable by the absence of the senior models’ composite headlight arrangement.
Early versions had turning signals fender-mounted near the a-pillar with optional driving lights under the headlights. In 1965, the turning signals and driving lights were combined in the unit under the headlights.
At bottom is a curiosity in the 219 vein; it’s a 6 cyl 230 model. With that shortnose it is considered a W110, whereas the base 6 cyl 220 it replaced had the longer nose and was a W111.
Initially, the W110 used the same lovely catseye rear lights as the base W111 220.
In 1965, these lights were redesigned with squarer edging and more chrome strips added to the rear panel. The fins lost their chromed endcaps, which rather ironically added to the cost of W110 production as the body seams now had to be hand-finished.
At this point, a summation of the heckflosse range is in order.
W112: 300 SE (1961-65), 300 SE Lang (1963-65)
W111: 220 SE (1959-65), 220 S (1959-65), 220 (1959-65), 230 S (1965-68)
W110: 190 (1961-65), 190 D (1961-65), 200 (1965-68), 200 D (1965-68), 230 (1965-68)
In early 1965, a factory wagon was also offered. Though wagons, van and ambulances had been built on the ponton by various coachbuilders, the Universal was the first longroof to make the Mercedes-Benz family brochure.
It was built by IMA in Belgium, but production didn’t last long. Only around 2000 were built before bankruptcy afflicted IMA in late 1966.
Top of the range was the longnose 230 S, but the vast majority of Universals were W110 shortnosers. The works Sindlefingen sent partially built bodies which were finished with a much-admired and well engineered flat longroof panel.
The taillights looked like the cornerpieces from the senior saloons, but they were in fact bespoke – with a large amber lens and smaller clear lens set in the lower trim. The base offering was the blanked-out van, and only one pickup seems to have been made.
Both Binz and Miesen of Germany specialized in ambulances and funeral cars, and the heckflosse came to the aid with a variety of wheelbase lengths and roof heights. As to their rears, Miesen appear to have used the catseye’s whereas Binz tend to have a jerry-built cluster. I’m not sure whether the IMA cornerpieces were used by others after their demise.
The Peugeot 404 saloons fins were canted similarly to those on the heckflosse.
But on the Peugeot 404 wagon the cant was reversed similarly to those on the Cadillac Starlight. Lengthening the wagon’s body also helped but for me the difference between the two are almost night and day.
This was an opportunity missed for Mercedes.
You can see the difficulties involved with removing the fins in this Binz factory shot. For some reason, they considered it necessary to remove most of the skin at the rear of the car’s side, but they keep the perimeter as defined by the fin. It would have been too hard (and too laborious) to remove the fins and replace them with something as graceful.
There was this one heckflosse wagon, though.
Built by Jacques Coune of France, this one uses the sedan’s c-pillar for the wagon’s d-pillar. The steady arc of the roofline, the perfectly placed roof rack rail echoing that arc. The cavernous clamshell tailgate uses the sedan’s deep rear window and sits well at the end. The wicker pattern on the rear flanks is a nice touch. Despite the fins it works as a shape.
There was also a uberheckflossewagen – the Messwagen.
The Messwagen wasn’t based on the heckflosse, but on the Adenauer 300 limousine. The long roof body appears to have been designed and fabricated by the factory, with a more pronounced set of fins than the saloon and a greenhouse in blue.
It was built as a mobile laboratory for Daimler-Benz, adding another crazy toy to the development program’s arsenal. In the front was the same 3 litre as the 300 SE and in the rear was cumbersome diagnostic equipment for speed, temperature, air-quality, power and torque. It analyzed the signal running over the washing line from the car in front (or to the side).
Introduced in 1960, the Messwagen was immediately sent chasing heckflosse.
The Adenauer’s replacement might too have sprouted fins.
That’s a signed Paul Bracq sketch at top. When I first saw it I thought it was just a bit of a lark. Then I found this photo of a 600 prototype. Similar face, which gives legitimacy to the rest of the sketch. Possibly Packard-linked? Scary.
IMA also made a stretch sedan on the W110 body. No rival for either the Adenauer or the 600, this was for the taxi/airport runner market.
Yep, the fins are still there.
Even the coupe had fins.
Or at least Corgi thought so. This image is from the 1963/64 Corgi Toys catalogue announcing a new model in their range. Clearly Mercedes-Benz had not yet supplied images or plans, and the Corgi marketing people were left guessing.
That guess was a two-door, pillarless version of the sedan – roofline, fins and all.
Whereas the real coupe actually looked like this. Perfect.
CCognoscento and W111 coupe owner Ashley brings closer to the truth. He once wrote to Paul Bracq about the coupe and fins, and I’ve taken these words from his comment in another CC story;
‘The question about the W111 coupe concerned the absence of tail fins, given that the sedans had them. Apparently the original drafts of the coupe did have fins and – rather unusually – a grille derived from the SL series (ie the sports grille with the star in the grille, something they ended up doing in the 1980’s with the S class coupes). It appears that the reason behind deleting the fins was the feeling that buyers of the more luxurious (and more expensive) coupe models were a rather conservative lot – a case of “if in doubt go without”.’
The coupe was at the very least considered with fins by the factory. Top is a Bracq sketch, and below are two in the flesh examples, maybe the same one. The finished car lower right is said to be an authentic styling prototype. Can’t say I miss those fins though.
To let Ashley continue;
‘As Mr Bracq pointed out, the fins are actually there on the coupe, but subdued and, thicker and rounded off. I have a W108 as well and side by side you can see that on the 111 coupe there are stubby fins, which are totally gone by the time of the 108. The cabriolet was developed off the coupe so the questions of fins on it never arose.’
Here we can see fins with a sharper crease up top.
This is a nice matching set. Both heckflosse saloon and targa/landaulet coupe wear the widemouth of the gullwing, a variation Bracq mentioned. This solution is remarkably successful on both cars.
In having the shorter stumpier fins, these really are the closest production effort to a pluckenhecklosse. But they have only two-doors, so they fall out of consideration for this piece.
Karl Wilfert tried to have the heckflosse’s fins removed.
Being the executive in charge of body engineering and styling for Daimler-Benz, he had considerable sway on the issue. But he came to his decision too late as the body tooling had already been made.
There was a false sighting of a proto-pluckenheckflosse.
Apart from what I’ve shown you already, there’s very little evidence of pre-production sketches and concepts for the heckflosse. It’s hard to know whether they considered the shape without fins as an alternative.
An otherwise distinguished book pointed to these drawings as an early proposal for the W111 program. But this isn’t W110, 111, or 112.
It’s W122. This shape was in fact one of the proposals for the still-born junior series.
And it’s a nifty little nugget, nicer than the heckflosse if a little stumpier. But no pluckenheckflosse.
This is the genuine and elusive pluckenheckflosse.
It’s a 300 SE body proposal, and with that rear door it looks like a lang.
The rear and roofline are cadged directly from the coupe, but the added height does the sedan no favours.
The main problem seems to be that the sedan lost its sharper roofline and c-pillar, and with that shallower fin treatment the whole shape loses the lightness of the heckflosse.
So what might the ideal pluckenheckflosse look like?
Here I’ve reversed the cant of the trailing edge (and slightly lengthened the trunk). To my eyes it looks much better, but too much like its eventual replacement.
At top I’ve added the Peugeot wagon’s tailights, and beneath I’ve stepped the trailing edge with a clean side.
This last one is probably my favourite option here.
There was a small run of pluckenheckflossen. Italian toy train manufacturer Lima built these HO-scale for inclusion on a car-transport carriage. Don’t know how many they produced, but there were two series. One had rolling brass discs for wheels, the other had fixed plastic tires.
The shoulder line retains the crisp creasing of the real thing, but the line falls gracefully to the rear and is met with a stepped reverse-cant trailing edge.
I think it’s the nicest pluckenheckflosse ever made.
And, of course.
There are those for whom the heckflosse is perfect as is.
The next Mercedes also had heckflosse, but only for pretend.
The dummy fins disguised a new, larger range to replace the seniors, which arrived in 1965.
In 1968 a new, slightly smaller range pushed the remaining fintails out of production.
Both new cars were deeply indebted to the heckflosse.
I don’t know what Béla Barényi thought of the heckflosse’s fins, but I suspect he would not have been too impressed. Not so much for their aesthetics, but because of the hazard they presented to pedestrians.
In 1966 Barényi, along with Hans Scherenberg, codified the distinction between active and passive safety. Active safety concerned itself with operational driving safety of the vehicle. Passive safety had two factors; internal and external, and concerned itself with the protection of people, whether occupant or pedestrian. These concepts still apply today.
Béla Barényi retired from Daimler-Benz in 1972, just as their new soft-cornered pedestrian-friendlier cars were hitting the streets.
Thanks to Chris, Ashley, Jim, Brad and AVL for their contribution
and to Mr. Paul Niedermeyer for his gentle yet authoritative editorship.
Further Reading
Heckflosse.nl – My primary source
and the best online overview of all things heckflosse
Phil Carney’s superb article on the trials of Béla Barényi in the 1950s
Early Mercedes-Benz crash test footage
2010 Ponton crash test footage
Daimler Global Media page on the Ponton
AteUpWithMotor on the two-door W111/112
CC articles are linked within.
Terrific article! I have to say that I’ve never been a big fan of the fintail Mercedes sedans. The coupes are lovely and the vertical instrument cluster of the low-line models is kind of neat. However, the styling of the sedans is a little too close to the 1958 Rambler for my taste.
Hi. Look
You lucky son of a gun .
-Nate
What a great article to find after just purchasing a ‘61 MB 220S on 12/30/2019. It is a completely restored beautiful black w/red inside. Less than 8000 new miles. In the US we have the tri-fives (55,56,57 Chevys and the amazing Stingrays (63 thru 67). It seems the 59-65 Fintails also have a special niche in history, and I won’t be surprised to see them attract more attention. Thanks, again.
This is great! The one and only Mercedes in my family was a 230 that that my Dad bought in 1977. I was in college, but had the chance to take it down a few twisty country roads. It was much more fun than the floaty American cars of the ’70’s we had around the house. The 230 was/is fairly rare. Parts were difficult, being a 10-year-old upscale foreign car in the south. It eventually got rear-ended, sold to my brother-in-law, repaired, then swapped for a Scirocco. It’s still one of the few family cars, like my Granddad’s ’57 Star Chief, I wish I still had.
There was a debate in the family at the time as to whether the car was really a 1965 model titled a ’67, since the senior fintails went out in ’65. This article helps clear that up. Thanks.
Excellent write-up and history. Thank you/
+1
Truly a superb article. While I have not (yet) owned one, I have always admired these beautiful cars.
Count me among “those for whom the heckflosse is perfect as is.”
What an exhaustive and interesting history.
I loved the fintail for that fin, to me it always felt like a little bit of an “American” touch to a slightly stuffy (but elegant) German sedan. I guess as a German-American that had its appeal. 😉
The only one I’ve seen in the wild is outside of Nashville TN (Hermitage area) where there’s a repair shop specializing in foreign cars. They have a fintail sitting inside their fence. My sister-in-law lives in the area but it is generally the holidays when I’m there so I never actually get to see the place open.
The old MB doesn’t seem to be decaying to rapidly but it has been sitting there since 2010 or so.
What a piece of work. Thankyou for this, Don.
I’m very conflicted by the heckflosse. I drove a 220s years ago, which went remarkably for a 2.2 litre, had very little wind noise, rode beautifully and handled like something much newer, but had very average over-assisted drums, a column change typically clumsy of it’s type, and simply awful ’50’s vague (and heavy) manual steering. As for the looks, the fins bugged me. I cannot tell you how often I wondered what a de-finned one would look like; till I saw a Van Den Plas 4 litre R tail one day and realised it mightn’t help. I had to admit I just didn’t like the look of the whole car much. Even out front, where you see the (gloriously described) amber eggs, I see oversized church windows that are making the lugubrious looking, face-heavy car fall forwards onto the pavement. Pushed, I’d take a short-nosed 220 with the cats eyes and as little chrome as possible. Do like your renderings, though.
I also cannot agree more that the 404 wagon is a large aesthetic leap from the sedan, for the reasons you give. For reasons you might be able to explain, the coupe and convertible 404’s, with forward-cant tails, don’t work so well, I reckon.
Are you able to you explain what legal landscape prevented the remarkable Barenyi from continuing to work from 46-48?
Great call on the Princess VdP 4-litre — that’s exactly what the finless W112 looks like!
The 404 C is a PF design like the other 404s, and about as close to the Starlight as you can get, though it does mash that with the Fiat 1500 coupe (bottom car, also PF) quite a bit. Question of scale, perhaps, i.e. the Peugeot’s tail seems a bit short compared to the Cadillac?
Yes, I think you have it. The rear wheels need to come towards the doors (which also look too short). I forgot too that it got an ill-fitting coke hump, which does not help. Thanks for the photos, I’ve never seen the 1500 coupe before, quite pretty.
Re: the legal landscape. I didn’t look too deeply into it, but it was something to do with his national service.
Thanks Don, and I owe you an explanation. I was wondering why the question interested me (having already typed it!), thinking that it was often the fate of geniuses to end up irritating the law, then it dawned on me that I had a dim recall that Barenyi knew a fellow called Josef Ganz, one of a few persons with highly defensible claims to be the Beetle inventor. Ganz was a Jew, and fled following arrest in ’34, and ultimately ended up in Melbourne of all places, and worked for Holden. He apparently corresponded with Hans Nibel for years, and others at VW too (Nordhoff?). Ofcourse, there may be some assumptions about Barenyi (ala F. Porsche) implied by asking the question, hot buttons which I did not intentionally touch & that don’t belong here.
No, it belongs if its relevant but it didn’t seem to be here.
Have a read of the Phil Carney piece I’ve linked above. That gives really good context at a specific time in Barenyi’s life and explains the intricacies around the Porsche credit.
There’s no doubt that Porsche constantly relied on ideas that were floating around, but to say that someone else (Ganz, Barenyl, etc.) was the true inventor of the volkswagen strikes me as somewhat absurd. Of course it’s not ok to use others’ patents (and VW had to apy after the war for using the Tatra cooling system), but the reality is that many were working towards a small, cheap volkswagen since the 1910s or so. One early step in that direction was the Hanomag “Komissbrot”, built in the early 20s.
The problem I have with Berenyl’s claims about the central tube frame is that it was already in production for years in the Tatra 11, as well as other aspects of his designs. And the rear engine was hardly new either. Edmund Rumpler’s 1921 Tropfenwagen had a rear engine, swing axles, highly aerodynamic shape, large passenger compartment, etc.
I’m sorry, but when I look at Berenyl’s 1925 drawing, I see a Tropfenwage updated somewhat. I don’t see anything truly original.
The same goes for Ganz and other litigants about being the “inventor” of the volkswagen. I don’t buy any of it.
Hitler was the true “inventor” of the Volkswagen, because he caused it to be built, which meant that Porsche had to quickly utilize is own experiences with his previous small cars and utilize the current state of the art (such as the Tatra cooling) and make it happen, pronto.
There was no inventor of the VW in the true meaning of the word. Many contributed to the flow of ideas for a modern small car, and Porsche synthesized them, Did Elon Musk “invent’ the modern EV?
If anyone should get the biggest credits, it would be Ledwinka and Rumpler. Between the two of them, they invented (and actually produced) cars with all the key features that were later found in the Volkswagen.
I can see why Ganz and Berenyl wanted a share of the credit; something as massively successful as the VW was bound to have many alleged fathers. But here’s the thing; If Hitler had really wanted a front engined, RWD conventional sedan, that’s what the VW would have ended up being. And then Ganz and Berenyl would never have been heard from.
I hope I don’t sound too crass, but given the headstrong nature of a brilliant but quite young engineer, I’m not surprised at Berenyl wanting to be recognized. But there’s a difference between drawing numerous configurations for cars (as he did, including six cylinder FWD versions), and then finding that a successful small car that actually got built happens to look somewhat similar in layout as one of those that he also drew.
I do wonder if Hitler had military applications in mind when he decided on the design parameters for the Volkswagen car.
I do wonder if Hitler had military applications in mind when he decided on the design parameters for the Volkswagen car.
It shows no evidence of that. Looking at it retrospectively, it’s easy to make that assumption, since it was developed into the Kubelwagen. But that was actually quite a big jump from the Beetle, including a raised ride height, a totally new body, and the reduction gears, as well as a larger engine. The rear engine was there because that was the current hot fad at the time.
Almost any passenger car could have been developed into a military vehicle with similar efforts, and a number of them were.
Hitler mandated a difficult design brief for the VW: to cruise the autobahn at 100 kmh and consume no more than 7.5 L/100km in the process. It took a relatively low and streamlined car to do that. The Beetle was the Prius of its time, which is hardly what you’d start with for a military vehicle.
Well, Paul, I actually said one of a few people with highly defensible CLAIMS to be the inventor, so I largely agree with you, as the originality of most ideas is rarely as traceable as an old Greek leaping out of a bathtub. But Ganz actually combined the ideas of swing axles, fully independent, backbone chassis, streamlined, & rear engined and price not over 1000 RM (sounds familiar) as Editor of Motor Kritik. Further, he later built it as the volkswagen Standard Superior, and it was the only 4 wheeled production rear-engined car at the ’33 Berlin show, and Hitler saw it at the show and apparently liked it. Not a bad claim to parenthood surely, but ofcourse by ’34 Ganz was under arrest on nonsense charges, and gone thereafter. Hitler might have insisted on a “front engined rear drive car” & got it, but he wanted something he saw (or more likely was told) that was good; one way or another, he wanted what was present in THAT car. Ofcourse, beyond that point, it was indeed Hitlers car, insofar as everything in a fascist state is the work of the leader. He doubtless got Dr Porsche involved as the leading motor engineer of the era.
I agree entirely on one thing. No-one turns up desperately trying to prove that they were, say, the real father of the Edsel…
On a sidetrack, take a look at the Pathe footage of Ganz driving his May Bug proto he built for Adler, demonstrating how good the suspension is. It’s actually impressive, also, it’s rather amusing. And find the photo of the chassis naked from the back. (My apologies for inability to do links, kids still haven’t taught me yet!) The swing axle design looks to my untrained eye to be really clever, preventing massive camber change or tuck-under. It looks simple, cheap & safer than the standard swingers Porsche installed.
justy: not denying anything you’ve said. But there’s many threads in this story, not just that one. And here’s what Hitler was really drooling over in 1933: the Tatra 77.
Clinton, New Jersey 1992:
Stellar article, I am really really impressed. And a lot of things I actually didn’t know.
I have seen the pics of the sedan without fins, but I have never seen the alleged prototype coupé WITH fins. And I think it looks remarkably good! Perhaps the only instance where the fins actually improves the shape. It makes the car look like some of those Studebaker coupes, almost batmanesque.
Wow, that was a heckflosse of a post! Best one I’ve read all year. Bravissimo, Don.
I don’t share your detestation of the Benz fins — it’s a matter of personal preference. They are quite widely reviled, and it’s true that the following generation does look better in many ways. But my detestation lies with the ’50s Ponton design, which I find to be without any merit, grace or flair. So by contrast, the Fintails are beautiful, though the low-spec ones look a bit half-done, face-wise.
And it is interesting to see one Pluckenflosse (no, heck no) was made and that it was an esthetic shambles. The fins made the design work. Only a complete (yet subtle) redesign of the whole car by Bracq would enable a successful fin-plucking, as he started to do on the W111 coupe, on the W108 saloon.
I remember seeing a “hand-made” Pluckenflosse somewheres out on Ye Olde Webbe… I’ll see if I can find it again. Meantime, here’s one Mercedes-Hearse that was sort of plucked, or more accurately concealed. No idea what fin-plucker did this, but it’s got Dutch plates.
Too much frivolities on its roof for a Dutch hearse, I think it’s got Portugese plates. A Movauto job?
And Don, what a high-quality article, again. Das Beste oder nichts, in Benz-language. Fabelhaft!
100% right you are, Johannes. Portuguese plates delivered in 1963-64. I should have looked closer!
Another pic of the same car. Strange little caps on those fins. I can’t make out where they came from — made by the coachbuilder?
That wagon is a killer find. You beat me to this and the Messwagen. hehehe
cheers Johannes
It almost looks as though they’d planned to use ’63 Pontiac units and either couldn’t get them or found out too late they wouldn’t fit and either way had to improvise.
Oh, I’m with you on the Ponton. The heckflosse is a shimmering jewel compared to the Ponton, a spinster dowdy Morris Oxford twin (though ofcourse, unlike the Morrie, it had an actual engine and proper suspension).
To me, the fintail M-B is pure class! One of my art teachers bought one of these after he either sold or traded his Citroen DS.
These Mercedes have been among my favorites through the years.
Another fantastic contribution by Don! I was totally unaware of the safety design and testing history; although I knew these cars had a rep for safety, I assumed that it was due to old-school rigidity and strength. The parents of my best friend in jr high and high school had a fintail 190, gasoline, a Euro-delivery car with the fender-top front turn signals. I was fortunate to drive that car a few times, and while it felt dated already (early ’70’s) it was certainly solid. Their fintail was supplemented by a then-newly launched W114 which seemed very refined, though still a 4 cylinder 4-on-the-tree. I just realized, that other than neighbors and colleagues, that family were the only close friends I’ve known with a Mercedes in the subsequent 50 years. Around that time (1968 or so) we got a Ponton 219 loaner from the independent shop which serviced our Volvo. Now it seemed pretty old-fashioned, though it probably wasn’t more than 10-12 years old at the time.
Where to start? Such a meaty subject for me, and one you have done great justice to.
First off, I don’t consider the PF ’59 Cadillac Starlight to have fins. To me, a genuine fin needs to rise above the belt line or the horizontal top edge of the rear fender protrude definitively above or beyond the body to be considered a genuine fin. What the Starlight (and many others with similar treatment) have is simply an extension of the belt line whereas the trunk droops slightly. Does the ’55 Chevy have fins?
Of course, that’s a subjective thing, as defining something like an automotive fin. Moving on.
Obviously, Wilfert was against the fin, and was successful in having it removed from subsequent models. Which was handled very well on the coupe and convertible. But your one example of the true pluckenheckflosse, that 300 sedan concept, doesn’t work for me, as well as some of your photoshops, because the top edge of the rear fender droop, which they don’t on the W111 coupe/cabrio. And this makes all the difference. Having the tail droop from the side view, even slightly so, destroys the critical balance of the “trapezium form”.
I was very aware of when the flossen first appeared in 1959, in our last year in Austria. It was a big deal, a new Mercedes, and one with fins. Very controversial; it really had folks talking.
Needless to say, these were excellent cars overall, but there were a few questionable choices. The biggest (or little, literally) was the choice to stick with 13″ wheels and tires, and drum brakes. Frankly, why Mercedes used 13″ on the ponton is beyond me. It seems very counter-intuitive, for such objective-thinking Krauts to use such small wheels.
The flossen really should have had a disc brake system from the start; it was a rather serious omission for such a performance and safety oriented vehicle, and the drums obviously had to be small in diameter to fit into the 13″ wheels. They were finned, and the wheels ventilated, but still…
The 300SE sedan is a real mixed bag for me, then and now. I didn’t know about the alloy block of the engine; interesting. But the excess chrome slathered all over this poor thing is a it of a travesty. yes, the squared in 300SE emblem is one small but perfect example of that. But I mean all of the trim on its sides.
It’s ironic, because Bill Mitchell at GM had long figured out that having less chrome trim on the sides made the top end models/trim version look decidedly more elegant and “richer”; hence the Fleetwood Cadillacs had no chrome spear running on the middle of its flanks as the DeVille did. The 300SE should have taken that same approach, but I guess they were too concerned about making it look as different from a “taxi” 190 as possible. So curious about the 300SE Lang not having that trim on its C Pillar. A step in the right direction.
So if someone can graft the rear fenders and trunk lid of the W111 onto the W110, we’d have the perfect pluckenheckflosse.
Appreciate your help with this one, cheers
I have to agree aesthetically regarding the finless 300 sedan prototype. I’m a big fan of the W111/112 hardtop, which is a model of sober grace. To my eyes, the vestigial fins (which, without looking to start a taxonomic argument, seems the most accurate term) are a vital aspect of the complete look, giving a sense of visual balance without looking gimmicky the way the heckflossen sedans do.
The flat rear fenders of the sedan model feel like they’re of a completely different era from the roof and and front clip. The combination ends up looking to me like 1968 rear fenders grafted onto a 1950s shape. With the hardtop, the relationship of the curved decklid and the upright fender tips feels like a discreet echo of the relationship between the trailing edge of the roof and the backlight, which is very pleasing to the eye; combining that roof and backlight with the squared-off fenders seems mismatched.
I wonder how much the mismatch is a matter of perception because we associate that rear end form with the next generation car? I think that there would have been some more detail refinement of the roofline and possibly even front fenders to match had they progressed with this change. It could have been an effective modernization, of mid cycle refresh.
Great post as always Don, I defy anyone not to learn something new here!
I am a fan of the Finnie, it may have been slightly behind the trend away from fins, but it has such an individual style that it really has some personality.
The W110 is interesting in that it fits the six cylinder engine after all, also a version that I think is perhaps less common in Australia – was it only the 220 that was locally assembled?
Don’t know which models were assembled here. This shot of Clayton (note the Standards and Triumph Herald) shows W111 headlights.
That would be AMI in Port Melbourne (subsequently Toyota) rather than VW Clayton. I found the following about what models were produced.
“the following figures were quoted by Dietmar G. Haug, the Group Manager, National Car Sales, Mercedes-Benz (Australia) in the 1980’s.
W121 190 90
W121 190b 216
W121 190D 48
W121 190Db 90
W110 190c 222
W110 190c auto 78
W180 220S 354
W111 220Sb 2304
W111 220Sb auto 912
W128 220SE 18
W111 220SEb 810
W111 220SEb auto 1248
Total 6390 “
Thanks for the location correction John. And the figures. Interesting to see both W110 and W111 assembled here.
Very nice Don, a fantastic read that needs to be read more than once to fully appreciate/understand.
That W122 rear shot – I see a lot of VW Type 3 notchback (one of VW’s prettiest shapes ever, IMO) in that for some reason, maybe it’s mainly the taillights but the shape as well a bit. Or I suppose it should be the other way around, I should see W122 in the VW. Either way, the rear is wonderful, overall though the shape works better as a coupe than a sedan.
Also this nugget – “The then-unproven principle of the crumple zone might have carried with it too much of an implied structural weakness – particularly with the unibody process itself still smarting from similar rumours a few years earlier.: – There are still people who don’t/won’t understand the idea of a crumple zone and think a car that doesn’t deform at all or just minimally in a wreck is the “better” solution.
That Type 3 notchback rear is definitely a looker. And you’re right about the W122 similarity. Better front on the M-B though
As to my personal experiences with these, we had a neighbor in Iowa City, a doctor, who had a 220SE, and I rode in it a few times. It made a big impression on me; quite the contrast from our Fairlane, yet similar-sized. I wrote about it here:
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/auto-biography/loyalties-tested-auto-biography-part-7/
About the Binz factory photo; the reason for removing the skin at the rear fender is that they used the space for the spare wheel, there will be a door there when finished.
Thanks for that Chris.
Thanks so much for giving us the ‘Cliff’s Notes’ on this model and its countless derivations and variations along with many photos!
This article is what cleared up so much confusion on my part regarding the Heckflosse variations. I didn’t realise that one model could spawn so many different variations based on equipment levels, motors, body design, and so forth.
One thing I noticed when seeing W113, W114, W115, W116, W123, and R107/C107 up close. All of them have tiny Heckflosse (about two millimetres), and I thought at first was a quality issue. Look at the red arrow in the photo.
My late grandfather had a 220S (1959 or 1960). He did so well as a salesman at Greiff-Werke (one of major German clothing manufacturers), replacing his older 1953 180 Ponton with something more luxurious. When I was very little, I did recall watching in fascination how the vertical speedometer functioned.
Thoroughly enjoyable, bookmark-able piece, Don. Now, I’ll be saying “Heckflosse” all day, today, seeing that German cuisine was pre-planned for dinner tonight.
Ooh, it’s an earworm alright, even when you aren’t eating Germans.
Heckflosse, sorry, I meant German.
Intentionally or not, the Pontoons have what you could call a modern crash structure. If you notice those sharp angles and creases where the fender inner structure meets the firewall, you can just Imagine how the entire front structure will fold like an accordion on impact. Perhaps it was only theoretical gueswork, but ut seems like an intentional thought to me. In any case, it seems to work perfectly.
Looking at some of Barényi’s patents for the Terracruiser, the tripartite structure had a secondary purpose that was quite interesting. Barényi originally intended (as you may surmise from the Terracruiser photo) that the front and rear substructures (which carried the suspensions) be able to swivel longitudinally to absorb bumps. The idea of controlled longitudinal compression for better ride quality was, so far as I know, still pretty novel in the ’40s, although it was adopted in less dramatic form on American cars of the ’60s. (Ford actually briefly tried (on 1963 full-size cars) allowing one set of suspension arms to swivel slightly rearward in a comparable way, although they pretty quickly went instead to a combination of lateral control arm and compressible trailing link, which they’d introduced on the 1961 Lincoln Continental.)
Wow what memories
In 1978 I passed my driving test aged 18, and the first car I drove after was my father’s dark blue 1963 220Sb, Mercedes were not that common in South Wales in the 70s
I remember that summer driving it to school to pick up my ‘A’ level results, and whenever I could afford the petrol, driving my friends around, happy days
Loved the distinctive headlamps, the ivory steering wheel which felt so good in the hand. It had 4 speed column mounted gearlever and the vertical speedometer that changed colour as the max speed of each gear was reached. One of the pushdown door locks broke so I turned new ones out of solid Aluminium which looked great.
I still remember the smell of that car and feel of a big German saloon, I was vividly reminded of it about 10 years ago driving my Audi A6 along Chepstow Rd in Newport, I was instantly transported back to the mid 70s when we drove the Mercedes home along that road returning from our summer holidays in the Isle of Wight
Similar memories here too although it was Israel, and the 62 220S was mine and my first ever car at that. By that time it was a tired old thing and much of the glamour was dulled. However, even at such state, you KNEW that if only you had the budget and knowledge to sort out all the troubles it would shine. At the age of 17 I had neither and upon being recruited by the IDF it was sold…
That was an impressive post- and a wonderful trip down memory lane. My dad ordered a ’60 220S with the infamous Hydrak transmission, which we picked up at the factory. His thinking was mom had never learned to drive a manual, but maybe she’d learn on the Hydrak. Mom, on the other hand, was thinking “I have a T-Bird, why would I want to drive that car.” The car served us well for the following 4 years, but it did eat two clutches and one entire transmission. On the road, it was a tremendous car for the day- the perfect car for a guy that was happiest rolling down a freeway at 80 mph (or more). Around town… between the Hydrak and the manual steering, it was a chore to drive. I know this first hand- I learned how to drive on my uncles ’61 220S. Four speed column shift, manual steering. He and my dad figured if I could master that car, I could drive just about anything. They were right.
The ’60 was replaced with a ’64 220SE, also delivered at the factory. This car addressed mom’s two major complaints. It had an Automatic transmission, and Power Steering! Unfortunately, the car met an untimely end a year later, when dad lost control on a gravel road and slammed into a truck. Although the car was destroyed, we walked away with bumps and bruises- a graphic demonstration of the value of crumple zones and seat belts. Those seat belts were an option, and dad insisted we use them. Luck was with us.
Re: the slow sales of the W112. As I recall at the time, the 300’s were crazy expensive when compared to the similar W111 models, and the air suspension could be troublesome as the years and miles rolled on. In Southern California in the 60’s, Mercedes’s were bought primarily by German immigrants, Engineers, and members of the Entertainment Industry. That sure changed over the years.
With you on the seat belts, they had very chunky chromed steel clasps. It wasn’t a legal requirement to wear them in the UK until 83, but the law of physics was a bit obvious so I always wore them.
We also had a very good British Public Information Film to promote the wearing of seatbelts, the clunk click campaign where an egg was put in a box, the box shaken, then the smashed egg dripped out, quite graphic and convincing
The campaign was fronted by a well known TV presenter and disc jockey now deceased, Jimmy Savile who unfortunately was recently revealed to be an extreme sex offended and now a public bogyman. Were they simpler times, not so sure
The small wheels of post-war German autos caught my eye at the time; not only the ponton MB but Borgward and perhaps others. Yet we had simultaneously the large-wheeled VW to look at. At first I thought it must be a rubber- price or -availability issue — but why would it affect some German manufacturers and not others ? I gave up after that.
The tiny “fin” pointed to by Oliver might be a matter of DNA — once in the organism it never completely disappears ? Heh-heh . . .
What a great piece ! My MB friends will be delighted.
Don and CC – thanks for this comprehensive fintail expose.
Daimler-Benz has long been a historical interest for me (along with Ford). The detailed look at this model has me anticipating a similar article about another of Don’s Mercedes interests.
I don’t like the fintail and never did. I think my age may have something to do with it. When the fintail was new we in America had just gotten done with tail fins on our cars; we were going cold turkey with ’61 Impalas, ’62 Galaxies and various Chryslers. Yet the new cars the Mercedes dealer was now introducing added what was clearly going away – fins. This, to me at the time, was the second strike against Mercedes. The first was that they had been selling a pontoon (which looked to me like a 1949 Chevrolet) in the late ’50s when Thunderbirds and Furys looked so much better to me. To me back then Mercedes always looked dated by a a decade or so.
I matured, learned more and my first Mercedes of many was a ’79 123. I appreciate them greatly but the fintail sedan still irks me.
In ’61, our fintail shared garage space with a ’61 T-Bird (mom had a thing about those cars). As a child, if you had told me the Mercedes was more expensive than that Thunderbird, I wouldn’t have believed you. I do remember, on our many road trips, that we were constantly being asked what kind of car it was, and where it came from. Mercedes’s were fairly rare once you left the West Coast. By the time we got our ’67 250SE, though, that had all changed.
Fantastic writeup!
As it happens, my one and only M-B experience was with my late father’s ’63 220. He bought it as a non-runner, and swapped another camshaft in it to get it going.
It looked as if it had been painted with a brush. The interior was ripped. It had the 4-speed manual transmission with the shift lever on the column, and puffed blue oil smoke in every gear.
But it was utterly reliable and rode/drove better than our then-new 1985 Ford Tempo.
Wowwww. This is a grand article, with lots of juicy seldom-seen images and a level of attention to detail that held even my pathetically short attention span right from start to finish.
»thundrous applause«
(And I’ve always found these cars quite attractive)
Another one for you, actually two. Top is early catseye lens in side view, bottom is late catseye before the whole shape was altered in 1965. Could the top one have inadvertently led to the crinklecut?
Interesting!
Great work Don. Your passion for design, and the great designers, is one of the best features of Paul’s site. Though the heckflosse dated these prematurely, I appreciated the understated luxury these M-Bs always exuded. Even years after their introduction, when I first saw one on the street as a kid, and later on the cover of Kraftwerk’s Autobahn. I wish we had more exposure to these gems in North America, but they were rare exotics for many. I suspect your post would have many more comments, if more readers in the US and Canada had first or secondhand exposure to these.
ps. Love your choice for the lead photo. Those ovoid headlights and front clip, will always represent quintessential Mercedes-Benz design.
Fabulous stuff, Don! These were sort of ciphers to me, as MB didn’t become a real factor in the States until later with the W108. Also, I have a few vague memories of my grandmother driving one of the last Pontons. These were never in my life.
Unlike some others, I really like the fintail.
What a fantastic article! I don’t have a lot of MB knowledge so this is all new to me.
Another who likes the Fintail and always has. Tried to buy one a few years ago but ended up with the W108 instead. Nobody would second my idea of running it as a daily driver 🙁
Great writing and selection of illustrations as always, thank you Don.
And thank you in return, jim
Excellent article! I am exhausted just reading it. As a Fintail lover, you told me many things I never knew. Thank you for all the work!
Appreciate all the kind words. I came to this piece deadset against the fins, but exposure to the CCognoscenti shifted my view. A bit.
My father, a career officer in the American Army, ordered a 1967 W110 while he was stationed in Germany. One of my earliest memories is of our family picking it up at the factory in Stuttgart on a lovely summer day. It was a US-spec 230 model, ivory in color with a manual transmission.
The car was a major upgrade – we had had a succession of VW Beetles as our family car since the early 1960s. My mother is a native of Germany, and I think that is why my dad was an early adopter of German cars (he had been a Ford man before he met my mother). The only thing he ever complained about was that Mercedes changed the body style and removed the fins so soon after he bought the car – it already looked dated when he bought it, and be the early 70s was rather old-fashioned in appearance.
The 230 was the first in a series of Mercedes sedans that served as our family cars. It was our primary vehicle for ten years, and then was relegated to back-up duty when we moved to San Antonio, Texas, and my mom decided she needed something newer with air conditioning for her new job as a realtor. It was passed on to me in 1980, and I took it to college in Houston – not sure how I survived my time there without AC. The car was then passed on to my sister, and she used in through her college years and during her first job in Denver, finally trading it in in 1987 on a new VW Fox.
As I remember, it was a solid road car, and it made the drive between San Antonio and Houston many times and was rather comfortable doing so. Plenty of room in the back sear for friends to ride along or for “activities” with girlfriends, and the trunk held a sizable quantity of stuff. The MB-Tex upholstery wore like iron, and the car looked good with its original paint until the end of our ownership.
The car did have a few downsides, though. Performance was not that great. I was not able to find this exact model listed online, but other 6-cylinder W110s seem to have accelerations in the 15 second 0-60 range, and by the time I was driving ours I’m sure it was a bit tired and didn’t come close to that figure. It would cruise just fine once up to speed, and the 6-cylinder was quiet, but it was rather a pig around town.
It was also pretty reliable, but I did have to replace one door window mechanism, the carburetor, and the rear axle, all of which cost a pretty penny compared to parts for an American car. The rear axles on these seem to be a weak point – we had a very hard time finding a replacement, as all the used ones in junkyards had failed rear axles as well. In fact, the axle failed a second time, though fortunately the day after my sister traded it in – she had to go to the dealership to pick up paperwork and they told her how lucky she was.
The final peculiarity was the smell of the fabrics inside the car. This was the good old days before environmental controls, and I remember as a kid being sickened by the smell while riding in the back seat – it took a good ten years before out-gassing made things tolerable for me.
Overall, it’s a car I remember with fondness, but I would not want one today unless I had the money to resto-mod it with better brakes and a big V-8 under the hood. I’d keep the interior, though – the dash, particularly the vertical speedometer, always looked good to me. And I’d keep the fins, despite what my dad thought – I still think they look pretty good.
Simply plucking the wings on a car which had them as an integrated design feature almost never works. I thought I’ll put this here as a reference…
Don, this is a magnificent piece. Thanks for all the pictures.
I love the simplicity of the body strutcture, and also the effectiveness of it. This is something students @ uni should slap into their CAE models and run it.
The frame picture above shows that GM was not alone on the X-Frame train back then, but these guys went and did the perimeter members for side impacts… and for stiffening the thing.
Regarding the snake ridges you mention, I see some crush initiators and also plenty of sheet metal stiffening for (mostly) NVH. Not sure if what you are referring is the 2 rail like stampings in the picture. The 2 pictures do not correlate, so to me they are 2 different cars.
Paul isn’t sure the sideturned shell is a Ponton either.
You’re right that it doesn’t correlate with the other pic on that page, or the perimeter frame with drivetrain image.
I’ve highlighted one of the snakes in red.
They are not from the same car. Many differences, not just the ones previously mentioned. The front suspension mounting subframe is another.
Let’s face it, the folks at MB’s web site/historical dept. are not perfect, contrary to what they might want us to believe.
Thanks Don. Those are either structural or make clearance for a rail that is.
The above picture (white body) has plenty of interesting elements there. Look at how the front rails split after the firewall. Then have a look @ a modern body structure 😉 If you are really interested, I can point you to a gold mine that has plenty of presentations on the matter.
I may be wrong here, but I noticed in the pictures that the front rails have a very particular shape, like an inverted “U”, which very likely will make them buckle in a certain way during a crash.
Another of your pictures shows a very rough version of what is called the “shot gun”.
I have no data on those cars, but from here it looks like they had a very stiff (for the times) body structure.
Looks to me like the front rails split just after where the crossmember would go, an evolution of the W180 “rolling chassis” photo. The body on its side looks closer to the Terracruiser model – surely those large cylindrical crossmembers wouldn’t be a production layout.
Please post the links!
Help yourself and dig in sir:
http://www.autosteel.org/great-designs-in-steel
I had a ’59 220S in the late 1980’s. Lovely car with thick leather seats and the oh-so-classy white steering wheel. Drove and cornered with aplomb – but I would echo the comments about the 13 inch wheels – mine always felt undergeared and ‘fussy’ at motorway (freeway) speeds even through it had a 2.2 litre 6-cylinder under it’s elegant hood. Rust killed it alas.
Under gearing is a valid criticism of virtually all European cars of the 60s and 70s.
My 78 350SE saloon , even with a 3.5 litre v8 and 3sp autobox felt like it was reving high at 80-90 plus where the fuel consumption just dived to obscene
Almost every old car I drive now feels like it is reving its nuts off at 70 in comparison to cars with 5 speed gearboxes which appeared on normal cars in the 80s
I find it so annoying that I would have to retrofit a 5 speed or overdrive to an old car now and uprate the brakes just to make it usable
It’s because the overall gearing in top (direct) gear was set to maximize top speed, which was a big deal back then in Germany (autobahn bragging rights). But that meant that small high-revving engines were already in a pretty high rev range at more typical cruising speed.
In the 50s and 60s, European driving patterns were still quite different than Americans’. They would take occasional longer trips, but that usually involved intense higher-speed driving, if one had a car capable of that, like a Mercedes. In the US, lots of time at relaxed highway cruising was the norm. So these European cars felt undergeared for American driving patterns.
The VW was one notable exception, being designed to not rev high, and thus its top speed coincided with its cruising speed, and the engine didn’t feel like it was a about to explode. And that was a characteristic that suited American driving patterns well, and contributed materially to its success in the US.
Unfortunately, some small cars are still like this, despite having an overdrive 5th. My Scion xB turns 4000 rpm at 80. That’s not exactly a relaxed engine speed.
Thanks for such an informative and comprehensive article. I like the “finback’ Mercedes just as it is. The front end styling established the marque’s image in my generation, growing up in the late Sixties and into the Seventies. I had a high school teacher that had what I guess was a five or six year old 220 sedan. I thought that the car was stately and dignified but lacking in the pizazz that a ’70 Coupe de Ville would have had. Back in those days public perception was that the Benz, even though superior in engineering, was not quite the equivalent of a Cadillac. The Benz got your respect, but the Caddy was something to generate envy, especially if it was a first gen Eldorado. Mercedes has definitely contributed an enormous amount safety engineering, something that was sadly lacking for a long time in our domestic manufacturers.
That Cadillac Starlight, just exquisite. somewhat Exner like.
Don, this was quite the achievement. Thanks very much for this piece, I will have to go back and re-read it for complete comprehension.
Don, this has come together and provided a fantastic read! A very balanced take on something that has occasionally been a controversial topic, and some things in amongst it that I’ve never seen before.
Without turning it into a COAL, we’ve had our W111 220SE for about 12 years now, including running the car as our daily driver for two or three years. We’ve done around 50 000 miles in the car over that time, and has also resulted in the addition of two W112 300SE Langs as a long term project in the shed at home. So I guess yo could say that I’m a bit of a fan…
The 300SE concept with the coupe roofline is a new one on me, and as with many other commenters, I agree that it is just all a bit not quite right. Part of it for me is the retention of the slightly convex surfacing on the boot (trunk…sorry) lid that carried over from the W111/2 sedan, rather than the flatter coupe lid. Sorry Don, the fins need to stay!
And thanks again for the article. Once I’ve got the 220SE all back together and running, we’ll organise a drive, and then you can really get a handle on what it’s all about!
Cheers, and thanks for your help Brad.
Just have to chime in and say this was a fantastic Sunday read.
My Mom loves to tell the story about how my Dad picked her up on their first date in his Corvette. But by the second date he owned a “stodgy stinky diesel Mercedes” of this generation. Well, she married him anyway and they’re heading up to 50 years. (And Dad turned out to be more of a VW guy than a Mercedes one.)
And even though my father sold the Mercedes when I was four, I can still remember the dashboard and how it had a manual choke and had to be warmed up. Funny how you’re not supposed to remember things from that age, but little things stick with you. Perhaps it was because my mom wold complaining about it. Fantastic engineering and safety? She thought it was a stinkmobile.
Don thank you for your contribution. If I may say it was a heck flosse of a read just fintastick.
First time in a long time I’ve had time to visit CC, and what a magnificent feast this article is Don! The level of knowledge and detail is breathtaking. I’ve always loved the fins, although they do make the car look more fussy, not to mention more ‘of its time’.
As a young child I drooled over a lovely 220SE in my Ladybird book of cars, and found further inspiration in Wheels magazine – Peter Robinson wrote that when Steve Cropley applied to work for Wheels, he said it’d take “a month to get there because I had to rebuild the cylinder head of my old fintail 220 Mercedes and Sydney was 2000 miles away”. As an impressionable youngster that made the fintail even more cool in my eyes. Later I tried to buy one as my first car; my parents were strangely unenthusiastic and my plan failed – probably just as well… Even now though, the sight of a nice fintail on Trademe sets my heart aflutter!
Anyway, brilliant Don, thanks again!
Don, Brilliant, well done, outstanding, it’s hard to find the superlative necessary to show appreciation for your Opus.
For the past two years in the Colorado Silver Summit Rally (2016 & 2017), two brothers from Colorado alternatively drove/navigated a white Heckflosse/Tailfin through the mountainous passes of Colorado, some with snow during the May 2017 rally, captivating us all and receiving the “best enthusiasts” award for the 2017 Rally.
Time has made the Heckflosse attractive because of its unique, distinctive for Mercedes, tailfins. Its uniqueness was no longer an acquired taste, but for our rally participants always gave us a smile especially when seeing it capable at speed, easily handling the mountainous roads at ease, grace with pace (forgive me for stealing a Jaguar phrase).
Cheers.
just skimmed this and waiting to savor it fully during some uninterrupted hour(s) this weekend like i used to do when car mags were worth the time to read cover to cover. mr. andreina eclipses even “automobile” magazine which runs some great research pieces and pics on various models and makes.
CC effect. noticed while youtubing some music. Kraftwerks Autobahn album cover.
Don a Masterpiece and thanks for the credit. The Fintails are fantastic cars and light years ahead of anything else at the time. In many ways this was the car that built the Mercedes reputation post-war. I am constantly amazed by the quality of these whenever I drive my W111 280 3.5. Ride, handling all feel remarkably modern.
In mainly ways the elusive Fintail sans Fins is……the W108! These were really derived from the Fintails which in turn trace their roots to the Ponton as you correctly pointed out.
Again, great article. Now I feel like another drive in my W111 but…… I’m in Brazil so that will have to wait!
And thanks for posting an account of your correspondence with Mr. Bracq, Ashley. That really set the cogs in motion for this piece. Cheers.
Great post about a car I love.
My Swedish grandfather had a 220S when I was born – it was later replaced by a compact 230.6 which I remember more of.
I attach a shot of a modified car I spotted in Lima, Peru a few years back… weird but not too bad!
Ha! Nice one PKW. cheers
In 50 years of detailing and restoring cars I always enjoyed the fintails and following body style. To me, one of the most beautiful cars Mercedes built were the 300 SE Cabriolet. Through my friendship with Doc (he was very generous allowing friends to drive his cars, but it also kept them in good condition.) I drove everything from his ’36 and ’38 Buick Century convertible coupes to his Ferrari’s, SM’s, DS’, and American’s from his new condition ’49 Cadillac series 62 sedan to a ’70 Buick GS 455 Stage 1 convertible. One of the star’s of the collection was his 300 SE Cabriolet, in burgundy with palomino interior, tan top, whitewalls, and full power, even a/c, believe it was a 4.5 V8, had automatic, and visually looked perfect. Between driving with Doc to shows and points of interest, and driving it myself as a loaner, I was behind the wheel for around 15,000 miles. One show we attended in So-Cal, a pearlesant white Fintail , done to perfection sat there, I’d never seen one before, but it was beautiful.
Great article. I can’t believe it took so long for me to discover it! If you are interested I have a fair number of pretty photos of my (not so pretty) 67 230S in my gallery at http://frontseatdriving.com.
Equally great to see all the love for the model!!
The car has been an absolute pleasure to own, and will likely remain in the stable permanently. I was adamant that I wanted a floor shift model, which was a challenge to find, but adds to the sporting feel of the car.
My father has two of W110 1963. I love to drive them ! http://mercedesy-do-slubu.pl/
Hi,i have for sale my rare Mercedes W110 Universal 200D .The kombi is with a new painting,new Classic tires and interior carpet.The engine is excellent.It is in Portugal,and i could help to transport the kombi to anywere..
Great article, thank you for researching and posting.
Nice article, I recently picked up a 190c for £500 on ebay. But it has no engine, gearbox or floors. Thought about putting and amg underneath.
Here is a nice 1961 For Sale if anyone is interested.
https://denver.craigslist.org/cto/d/englewood-original-very-rare-classic/7478321996.html
Located in Denver, Colorado
great classic Mercedes Benz 220s Fintail.
great condition, no rust.
rare, classic beauty.
find on Craigslist in Denver, Colorado
interior is immaculate. engine, drive train and under are very clean. starts, runs, and drives perfect. 😊👍🏼
At this point, a summation of the heckflosse range is in order.
W112: 300 SE (1961-65), 300 SE Lang (1963-65)
W111: 220 SE (1959-65), 220 S (1959-65), 220 (1959-65), 230 S (1965-68)
W110: 190 (1961-65), 190 D (1961-65), 200 (1965-68), 200 D (1965-68), 230 (1965-68)
Next time, put this at or near the beginning. I went scrolling up when I got confused, but I should have scrolled down a little further.
I’ve always liked the M-B “fintail” body, viewing it as a restrained and refreshing modern update to the ponton models, not at all over the top as some like to opine, light and airy on the inside. I owned a mint condition ’60 220SE 4 sp (column) in black over red leather and drove it daily as a long distance commuter car in the mid ’70s. These were made at the height of modern (post-war) M-B quality, truly beautifully built cars, their weaknesses being mainly smallish engines that had to be really wound-out for power and speed, weak hvac, iffy automatic for those who wanted it, and no a/c. I also didn’t care for the vertical speedo and have to say I prefer the side-by-side quad light front-end design proposal ala Packard shown above. That said M-B build in this era was as good as it gets, impeccable and tank-like. Such a shame Benz lost this kind of quality mojo in subsequent decades to come.