Volvo safety and foot handbrakes
 

Hi,
did anyone else read in the daily mail that the safety record of the 400 series is on the low side? On the matter of safety is the change to foot operated hand brakes a good idea? In effect a hand brake is also an emergency brake and in most cars could be operated by the passenger if needed. Making it foot operated gives full control to the driver only and I doubt if there are many drivers who have been glad that they can reach in and put it on for whatever reason. I am paricularly aware of the availability of a handbrake as my daughter has been learning to drive!!!!!! Following on from this a friend had a merc with foot operated handbrake but because he wasnt used to it had severe clutch wear by 11000 miles. Instead of putting the handbrake on on hills he just slipped the clutch. Cheers Nige

RE: Volvo safety and foot handbrakes
 

As far as foot-operated 'parking brakes' are concerned, I've driven a couple of late 90s Merc C class with this dubious device and found it to be rather a pain. With the cars being autos (a lovely transmission, mind you) I found myself only usiing the p/brake for... parking! I am unable to figure out how one accomplishes a hill start in a manual car...

Only done a few miles in 400s, but they havent felt as tough as the larger Volvos, or even as robust as my old 360.

RE: Volvo safety and foot handbrakes
 

I just don't like the idea of a foot parking brake. Give me the nice hand brake any day. Although I must admit that I haven't tried one....

As for the 440's. I loved my '96 440. Felt completely solid, a lovely car to drive - far better than I was expecting it to be. From what I have heard from other people they seem to stand up in accidents quite well. Was this the same research that put a Megane as a better car to have an accident in than an S80?

Stu

RE: Volvo safety and foot handbrakes
 

Reminds me of the guy who designed a car with a sharp pointed nose so that head on crashes caused the two cars to glance off each other. Forgot about side and rear impacts. Safety is a funny subject and as such difficult to measur. Reference megane v s80 Ive seen the research. The megane is fairly well up the safety stakes but other factors have to be taken into account. Just because a car is big and heavy does not mean its safer. My old Lanchester weighs in a 2 ton but would fall to bits in an accident. Its how passengers are packaged and bringing the old equation of the egg in an egg box into play it might seem that a big car allows the occupants to fly about in an accident. What has worried me in the past about Volvos safety is the lack of follow up if I repoted a safety fault. I had a 240 where the seatbelt reel was fitted incorrectly from new allowing the belt to fray but never spotted unless the belt was fully extended. Another time...in a 440 ...I had the seat belt tensioner explode as I turned a corner. Nearly caused an accident and gives me worries about airbags. If one goes off and causes the accident as my seatbelt did you know what the reply will be...it did its job!!!! chicken and egg. Yep I know which car Iwould rather be in to!!!!!

RE: Volvo safety and foot handbrakes
 

The issue I have with the Euro ncap is just how wrong their data seems to be.

My parents drive a 98 Omega saloon. It was side swiped by a drunk in an Escort (IIRC). The Escort was completely totaled, front wheel ripped off, much damage and injury to driver. My parents said the Omega didn't even move - they heard the accident. A couple of weeks later and it was returned to them good as new - the accident had only damaged outer panels.

A friend was invovled ina horific accident a few monthsa back. 50mph head on collision with a 106 (or 206). He, his pregnant wife and baby got out with bruises.

According to NCAP both these cars only warrent a 3 star rating - personally I would own either after seeing the way they looked after the ocupants.

Stu