Volvo 940 safety? - Page 3

Ade B · Apr 1st, 2013, 23:08

Anyone arguing that a modern euroblob is infinitely better than a Volvo 940 is obviously highly blinkered, massively duped by PR, and trying to justify their own choice of car.
Oh yeah, and clueless!

popuptoaster · Apr 2nd, 2013, 11:36

Modern stuff is much safer, it may look worse after a crash but thats because the modern cars crumple up to absorb the impact forces, an older car might crumple less and still look drivable, but that just means more of the crash forces made it through to the occupants.

I use to banger race and at the time I was racing we all wanted mk1 and 2 Granadas, a hard hit from one of those would chop a 740 in half or shorten it by several feet without doing much damage at all to the Granny yet the Volvos were much safer out on the road than the Fords were.

Toughness isnt everything, my cousin rammed one of my Granadas by accident, he was in a 4 year old Mk1 Sierra and I was in 10 year old Mk2 Granada, his Sierra was un drivable afterwards but on my Granny the rear bumper had been pushed up enough to just chip a rear light on the bottom, there was no other damage, I bet the Sierra had less occupant injuries in testing though.

OvlovS70 · Apr 2nd, 2013, 12:01

Remind her that Volvo invented the seat belt.

terrywilde07 · Apr 2nd, 2013, 12:10

someone suggested that the Volvo in that crash test with the Modus had the engine removed before the test... watch the video again and make you own mind up... I'll bet the chassis leg was also tampered with to make the test more dramatic for the cameras...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

I've crashed a highly tuned K reg 940 Wentworth with 371bhp (at the wheels) at high speed and walked away without a bruise or graze... this went up the A1 North on it's roof at 128mph, I was doing 145mph when the rear tyre decided to depart, I wished I'd got better and more pictures of the wreck.... it was quite a ride

This is my L reg 940 Wentworth which got hit at 30 mph by a Landrover 300TDi whilst the Volvo was parked up, (the bumper hasn't been touched due to the Land Rover riding over it)

So... Safe or not... I rather be in an old Volvo that some French Nonsense...

red baron · Apr 2nd, 2013, 13:41

I think said relative should remove their head from their behind. In what reality is a vauxhall astra safer than a volvo?

When I had my 240 saloon I hit a nissan note at less than 30mph in the snow. I had a bent wing and smashed drivers window, the nissan needed 3x doors [one was stoved in by tree at passenger side] a rear bumper and an alloy wheel. Needless to say I didn't fix the wing as the dent hammered out, repaced the rub strip and drivers glass. Bloody nissan cost £2800 to fix

As for fuel economy, if you wanted fuel economy you'd drive a prius, if you wanted the safest thing on the road you'd drive an articulated lorry (or a 940)

Rant over. I think some volvo owners like to think they're high and mighty. I once spotted a reasonably fresh C70 with a sticker saying 'driven by choice not budget'. What on earth is that meant to mean? Volvo's generally aren't cheap and bearing in mind the C70 in question hadn't even had it's first MOT meaning it was less than 3/4 years old.

Rant definitely over

TonyS9 · Apr 2nd, 2013, 14:06

Interesting watching the video again. I can't call the lack of engine or chassis mods, but it does back up my theory the Volvo is softer not stiffer as some people seem to think. The Renault passenger cage still deforms and I imagine that if it met another Renault at 80mph would deform more.

5mph more the Renault driver would be dust too, 5mph less the Volvo driver probably not injured.

Additionally they don't mention the weight of the Renault, its around 1200Kg. My 940 is 1300kg but much wider, therefore you have a much denser car hitting a relatively light soft car. My 'heavy' 360 weights 1100kg. Modern cars are heavier, they are going to win the crash battle the same way 4x4s do.

A further critisim of the article is that they mention seatbelt pretensioners as 'more advanced'. My 95 940 has explosive seatbelt pretensioners.

They also chose an offset crash, and avoided the 940s Engine and drive, slightly over and I think the result might have been different. This is the main weight of the car and would certainly help slow the renault down.

In comparison to other cars of the time, like Serria's or French tin the Volvo is streets ahead, stiffer but able to absorb high speed collision.

The choice of test can show anything, but it does show that the NCAP test has some value and has improved safety. Trying to show the Volvo as unsafe is just wrong and I'm sure the original Volvo management team where seathing at this program.

davebslater(uk) · Apr 2nd, 2013, 14:29

371 at the wheels ?

Palmer · Apr 2nd, 2013, 14:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by davebslater(uk)

371 at the wheels ?

Arent wentworths the 2 ltr?

Blue 8 · Apr 2nd, 2013, 18:22

Terry wilde07 are you saying that car in your picture was the car running 371 bhp at the wheel's ?

rippedoffagain · Apr 2nd, 2013, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by terrywilde07

someone suggested that the Volvo in that crash test with the Modus had the engine removed before the test... watch the video again and make you own mind up... I'll bet the chassis leg was also tampered with to make the test more dramatic for the cameras...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs

I've just watched the video again, pausing at appropriate bits.

You have a point. Maybe I'm being blind, but I failed to see any engine in there. I couldn't even see the radiator or any sign of any hoses.

Apr 1st, 2013, 23:08	#21
Ade B Senior Member Last Online: Apr 29th, 2019 01:30 Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Glasgow	Anyone arguing that a modern euroblob is infinitely better than a Volvo 940 is obviously highly blinkered, massively duped by PR, and trying to justify their own choice of car. Oh yeah, and clueless! __________________ http://www.facebook.com/ABCARPIX

Apr 2nd, 2013, 11:36	#22
popuptoaster Master Member Last Online: Aug 2nd, 2018 19:03 Join Date: May 2011 Location: Essex	Modern stuff is much safer, it may look worse after a crash but thats because the modern cars crumple up to absorb the impact forces, an older car might crumple less and still look drivable, but that just means more of the crash forces made it through to the occupants. I use to banger race and at the time I was racing we all wanted mk1 and 2 Granadas, a hard hit from one of those would chop a 740 in half or shorten it by several feet without doing much damage at all to the Granny yet the Volvos were much safer out on the road than the Fords were. Toughness isnt everything, my cousin rammed one of my Granadas by accident, he was in a 4 year old Mk1 Sierra and I was in 10 year old Mk2 Granada, his Sierra was un drivable afterwards but on my Granny the rear bumper had been pushed up enough to just chip a rear light on the bottom, there was no other damage, I bet the Sierra had less occupant injuries in testing though. __________________ 2.3 Turbo "Celebration"

Apr 2nd, 2013, 12:10	#24
terrywilde07 Senior Member Last Online: Aug 31st, 2015 03:01 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: chesterfield	someone suggested that the Volvo in that crash test with the Modus had the engine removed before the test... watch the video again and make you own mind up... I'll bet the chassis leg was also tampered with to make the test more dramatic for the cameras... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs I've crashed a highly tuned K reg 940 Wentworth with 371bhp (at the wheels) at high speed and walked away without a bruise or graze... this went up the A1 North on it's roof at 128mph, I was doing 145mph when the rear tyre decided to depart, I wished I'd got better and more pictures of the wreck.... it was quite a ride This is my L reg 940 Wentworth which got hit at 30 mph by a Landrover 300TDi whilst the Volvo was parked up, (the bumper hasn't been touched due to the Land Rover riding over it) So... Safe or not... I rather be in an old Volvo that some French Nonsense... __________________ Current: 05 Mercedes C55 AMG, 97(R) V40 1.9 TD, 02(51) S40 S Past: 86(C) 360 GLT, 93(K) 940 Wentworth, 95(M) 440 Si, 94(L) 940 Wentworth, 91(J) 460 GLEi Auto, 98(R) S90 Executive II

Apr 2nd, 2013, 13:41	#25
red baron under the bonnet Last Online: Aug 29th, 2018 11:27 Join Date: May 2010 Location: Portadown	I think said relative should remove their head from their behind. In what reality is a vauxhall astra safer than a volvo? When I had my 240 saloon I hit a nissan note at less than 30mph in the snow. I had a bent wing and smashed drivers window, the nissan needed 3x doors [one was stoved in by tree at passenger side] a rear bumper and an alloy wheel. Needless to say I didn't fix the wing as the dent hammered out, repaced the rub strip and drivers glass. Bloody nissan cost £2800 to fix As for fuel economy, if you wanted fuel economy you'd drive a prius, if you wanted the safest thing on the road you'd drive an articulated lorry (or a 940) Rant over. I think some volvo owners like to think they're high and mighty. I once spotted a reasonably fresh C70 with a sticker saying 'driven by choice not budget'. What on earth is that meant to mean? Volvo's generally aren't cheap and bearing in mind the C70 in question hadn't even had it's first MOT meaning it was less than 3/4 years old. Rant definitely over __________________ CCM 710 Supermoto Suzuki GSX-R 600 940 Turbo V50 D5 Last edited by red baron; Apr 2nd, 2013 at 13:45.

Apr 2nd, 2013, 14:29	#27
davebslater(uk) redbollock guru Last Online: Jun 30th, 2016 23:54 Join Date: Jan 1970 Location: lincoln	371 at the wheels ? __________________ www.dbsmotorsport.co.uk

Apr 2nd, 2013, 12:01	#23
OvlovS70 Still a learning member Last Online: Aug 17th, 2022 18:49 Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Ayrshire	Remind her that Volvo invented the seat belt.

Apr 2nd, 2013, 14:06	#26
TonyS9 Premier Member Last Online: Apr 9th, 2024 21:44 Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Holywood	Interesting watching the video again. I can't call the lack of engine or chassis mods, but it does back up my theory the Volvo is softer not stiffer as some people seem to think. The Renault passenger cage still deforms and I imagine that if it met another Renault at 80mph would deform more. 5mph more the Renault driver would be dust too, 5mph less the Volvo driver probably not injured. Additionally they don't mention the weight of the Renault, its around 1200Kg. My 940 is 1300kg but much wider, therefore you have a much denser car hitting a relatively light soft car. My 'heavy' 360 weights 1100kg. Modern cars are heavier, they are going to win the crash battle the same way 4x4s do. A further critisim of the article is that they mention seatbelt pretensioners as 'more advanced'. My 95 940 has explosive seatbelt pretensioners. They also chose an offset crash, and avoided the 940s Engine and drive, slightly over and I think the result might have been different. This is the main weight of the car and would certainly help slow the renault down. In comparison to other cars of the time, like Serria's or French tin the Volvo is streets ahead, stiffer but able to absorb high speed collision. The choice of test can show anything, but it does show that the NCAP test has some value and has improved safety. Trying to show the Volvo as unsafe is just wrong and I'm sure the original Volvo management team where seathing at this program.

Apr 2nd, 2013, 18:22	#29
Blue 8 Premier Member Last Online: Aug 13th, 2015 17:06 Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Medway Towns	Terry wilde07 are you saying that car in your picture was the car running 371 bhp at the wheel's ? __________________ Stay away from negative people they have a problem for every solution. Ruby-red pearl 854 GLT 2.5 20v 62k.....Andy

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)