I've yet to see any witness accounts that are consistent with an explosion (and trust me, I've spent a fair amount of time looking). The post crash video looks like an 'ordinary' post crash vehicle fire to me. I don't see any signs of an explosion.

What happens to the engine depends very much on how the impact occurred, and the energies involved. I've seen a handful of wrecks where some substantial piece of the vehicle (engine, transmission, etc) was tossed a long distance. Incidentally, all of those were very high speed collisions, and they all involved at least one fatality. There were all slightly off-axis impacts trees or very solid posts, where the point of impact was about halfway between the midline of the vehicle and one of the front corners.

So I know almost nothing of the circumstances of the crash, but I think there is more to consider. For instance, how fast was he going? My 2006 accord is much safer than some car from the 1950's. But also, I get 260-hp out of a 3 liter engine, and its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's. If you hit a tree going 90mph, there's little a bunch of airbags will do for you. People dying, things exploding, parts flying - how strange that is really depends on the circumstances of the crash I'd argue.

> its faster than a Mustang GT from the 90's

What?

I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast. Unfortunately horsepower != speed.

lol. Source: http://www.zeroto60times.com/

1996 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 6.7 Quarter mile 15.1 1999 Ford Mustang GT 0-60 mph 5.4 Quarter mile 13.9 2006 Honda Accord EX (V6) 0-60 mph 5.8 Quarter mile 14.3

Only when they re-designed the GT in the late 90's did it get faster - which isn't really relevant, I was making the general point that modern cars have gotten a ridiculous amount of power, often in a lighter vehicle (e.g. the 2006 honda accord I drive).

> Unfortunately horsepower != speed

Horsepower doesn't give a direct comparison across vehicles, but generally speaking, yes horsepower = speed.

> I have that car and I can attest to it not being incredibly fast.

Perhaps you dont have the v6 manual? Any car that gets to 60mph in under 6 seconds is fast. And again - my comparison with the mustang GT was to paint a picture - we all recognize that as a fast car, and are perhaps surprised that modern sedan's are as fast - and often faster, while typically having a smaller (i.e. lighter) engine. Hell, look at the list of Mercede's on the same site (http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.ht...). There's cars on there coming in the 4 second range.

So - just wanted to point out that without more details, the story isn't complete, and perhaps not as surprising as first-pass suggests.

> When a car crashes isn't an engine pushed back into the cabin, not thrown forwards?

It certainly can be, but considering that he hit a tree -- a narrow object, not like a wall -- I could imagine that if the impact point was not in the center of the car, the tree might not have been directly in front of the engine, and thus it could come out.

Obviously he had to have been going petty fast, though.

More to the point, is the engine being thrown 100 feet somehow more consistent with an assassination plot than with a general high-speed collision? I can't see how it could be.

It could be the result of an explosion near the engine.

How can you possibly assert that the car "crashed by itself" and not because the driver did any number of things to yank the steering wheel and throw the car out of control?

I own a 2006 525i BMW Sedan and I was recently in a situation about 2 months ago where a car pulled out of a side-street as I was passing on a main road, I had no choice but to yank my steering wheel and hard-brake (fortunately no other cars where behind me at the time). The car is 7 years old, but has steering assist which works with the brake assist technology the car has in which the computer takes over both the steering and braking to prevent a spin out and it worked well. The computer actually corrected the steering for me the best it could and stopped the vehicle. I could have easily gone into a power or light pole, but the car prevented it. I was doing 80km/hr which is essentially 50mph. Hastings was going 16km/hr at 60mph faster than what I was so it's not the same, but if a 7 year old BMW can do that, then I'd imagine a 2013 Mercedes would be better (that's just an assumption however).

I am not fuelling conspiracies, I am just trying to say that we should always dig deeper into an unexplained situation like this. Especially one surrounded by controversy. I would actually be interested in hearing what Mercedes has to say about the accident and perhaps even seeing Mercedes trying to replicate the crash using the same car and known data. Because controversy aside, this doesn't bode well for Mercedes' image especially considering Princess Diana suffered a similar fate in a Mercedes at similar speeds, only her Mercedes didn't explode that I am aware of. This is a potential PR disaster for Mercedes, regardless of speeds or safety features of the car perception is what sells car and if a modern Mercedes is perceived as being a moving exploding bomb which isn't a good image for any company to have regardless of what the real facts are.

Those gizmos trade having the car slide instead of spin or flip, they don't break the laws of physics, so be safe out there you don't want to under steer into the oncoming lane someday. Regarding this accident, it's happened that people black-out/pass-out/fall-asleep/have-a-heart-attack/and-so-forth and the weight of their foot on the accelerator - well guess what - accelerates the car.

I believe recent car models, or at least luxury ones, are designed to eject the engine as a safety feature. An engine projected into the cabin sound quite lethal.

Of course, flying car engines don't sound too good for passers-by... oO;