So How Safe is your "Tank"?

[John_C]

I remember this kicked up a stink last time because people couldn't cope with the facts which were being plainly presented, so we had the "missing engine" and "Volvo deliberately weakened" conspiracy theories.

In reality all that happened is a relatively modern car and an old car of pretty much equal mass hit each other and the newer car came off better. Why that's a surprise to anyone I'll never know!

The test was performed purely to test the theory that a big old barge was safer than a smaller modern car as it was often mooted at the time that a big old Volvo or Merc (for example) would come off better in a crash than a smaller newer car. That theory ignored both the increase in weight and improved safety systems of newer cars and was nicely debunked by the test IMO.

Cheers,
John

[s.hammond]

Originally Posted by wooble

I can't find any proof, but there's a lot of rumours that there was no engine in the 940, which affects both its mass and its front-end strength.

I can tell you I've been in a 40mph offset head-on collision with another car in a 240. The 240 was battered, but it still drove, and 700/900s are MORE durable than a 240, if anything.

EDIT: Whatever your opinion of clarkson/top gear, I think he proved the durability of old volvos by driving a 760 through a brick wall at 40, then driving away.

not forgetting the sad destruction of this mint 940 which was for sale on here!

Top gear teenage challenge volvo 940 sorry about the advert at the beginning it's the only footage i could find!

[Daim]

The engine is visible in the engine compartment.

The difference or reason WHY the 940 failed can be a lot:

1. age
Looks like a 1991 model, as the head rests are the older 740 style

2. damage
who knows if it had damage first= Not known... So no one can say.

3. impact area
if you look closely at the area where the impact was, it is JUST past the main beams through the car. So it basically could simply "by pass" and wack into the drivers wheel well.

4. design
the 940 is a safety design basing back on designs thought of in the 60ies and 70ies. As it is only a 760 with a few minor modifications, it isn't really anything different and is the same construction.

5. RWD
the 940 has a layout with front engine, rear drive. Means, the only section of the engine, which can be use to absorb impact, is the front cambelt section. A FWD vehicle (mainly also the reason Volvo changed to FWD) has the whole side of the engine to use to absorb energy.

In total, we're comparing an overaged vehicle, which was safe AT IT'S TIME (it is safe regarding older vehicles), like comparing it with an Opel Ascona/Vauxhall Cavalier:

+ YouTube Video

The Modus is a very safe car. It is built using modern engineering with lots and lots of information collected using crash tests. Instead of using the old "crash test rules" of making the car chassis harder and stiffer, they made the modus absorb as much energy as possible. Even a Dacia Logan is nowadays more safe (in a crash test) than a Volvo 200/700/900/800... That isn't crap, it is fact.

Volvos are still safe - you must keep in mind: they were always the safest vehicles at the time they were marketed!

[thealchemyst]

not a volvo but youd still rather be in a 940 then this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-U...eature=related
i'm a vw fan but i still dont fancy your chances of surviving!

[Palmer]

Originally Posted by thealchemyst

not a volvo but youd still rather be in a 940 then this! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ukq-U...eature=related
i'm a vw fan but i still dont fancy your chances of surviving!

I lol'd at one of the comments on that vid.

"at least the mexicans survived"

****ing lol'd

[222s]

That video is not a crash test of the VW pickup - it's a test of the facility. The truck is VERY heavily loaded, in order to show what the crash test barriers can withstand.

[Bernard333]

Originally Posted by Daim

The engine is visible in the engine compartment.

The difference or reason WHY the 940 failed can be a lot:


5. RWD
the 940 has a layout with front engine, rear drive. Means, the only section of the engine, which can be use to absorb impact, is the front cambelt section. A FWD vehicle (mainly also the reason Volvo changed to FWD) has the whole side of the engine to use to absorb energy.

In total, we're comparing an overaged vehicle, which was safe AT IT'S TIME (it is safe regarding older vehicles), like comparing it with an Opel Ascona/Vauxhall Cavalier:



The Modus is a very safe car. It is built using modern engineering with lots and lots of information collected using crash tests. Instead of using the old "crash test rules" of making the car chassis harder and stiffer, they made the modus absorb as much energy as possible. Even a Dacia Logan is nowadays more safe (in a crash test) than a Volvo 200/700/900/800... That isn't crap, it is fact.

Volvos are still safe - you must keep in mind: they were always the safest vehicles at the time they were marketed!

Daim , My first FWD was a 1964 Austin 1100 ( I foolishly went on and owned three in succession ) and I learned about crumble zones which was an extensive feature of these cars and made it one of the most dangerous cars ever made , they were all written off in accidents and I learned how fragile a car body can be . But seriously I believe that at higher speeds crumple zones are not going to help unless both vehicles are exactly the same design and weight, the big one is more likely to squash the small one. I think Volvo changed to FWD because its cheaper to make , I agree its safer in a head on crash but I doubt they made the change for that reason . I drive a FWD P2 V70 but I dont particularly like the front wheel drive feature , its got no grip compared to a RWD.

I still dont agree that the Renault is safer than an old Volvo , I want to see the result of 140mph closing speed crash testing done with a number of runs before I make up my mind . The 80mph closing speed test is not as meaningful to me , there were 9 people killed nearby when two cars had a head on glancing impact similar to the test on Utube but the closing speed was high , both cars were modern ( approx 5 years old ) , I see people taking high speed risks almost everyday here on single track roads , they accelerate up to 80 or 90mph to get past a slow line of traffic , makes me cringe sometimes to see how close they will get to oncoming traffic .

[Jim760]

telll yous what, somone pay me and i'l crash into the nearist modus. lets see what happens. (im serious!) or, give me a modus to use for the purpose!! peole have been crashing succesfully for years, including me.

when mr clarkson hit his wall at 40 or so it didn't buckle well.. i mean the damage wa smore than we all would of thought considering theres videos on youtube of a 440 raming the back of an estate the 440 gets minced, theres not a mark on the estate ive seen pictures from around the world of what happens when an old 2/7/9's gets a wack, heard stories from owners who have crashed them and weighed up the results myself..

in summary , i conclude that if a 700 series can withstand a T bone form a dodge ram and still drive in a stright line, get flattened by a truck and the driver be totaly unhurt, then that should be proof enough, that even though as old those cars may be, its still going to save your life. (in the most typical crashes at least)

i have to say i have taken a wall out with a 760 before, talking 6 years ago mind you but it went right through, into the garden.. drove round the garden and out the house owners drive way broken headlights, bumper dampers stuck in and the bloomin bricks smashed the windscreen. on mr clarksons test he was unlucky because his radiator got damaged.. he wouldnt of gotten too far. no damage to my radiator ahaha.

[rogerthechorister]

The incident the subject of my rant with Aviva resulted in my Volvo 760T getting a little dent in the front wing and needing a sidelight.

The rear passenger door of the red hatchback that hit me was stove in several inches and the doorframe looked out of shape.

[owyn]

I think its brilliant how far modern cars have come in terms of safety, I can remember it becoming a major selling point about 20 years ago when vw, volvo etc started putting bars in the doors for side impact protection.
Since then modern techniques of finite element modelling and a serious look at what makes a crash survivable.
The whole idea of maintaining a survival cell for the occupants and using the rest of the car to dissipate the energy of the crash has proven very effective and is where older cars are found wanting as can be seen with the Volvo and the Renault.
This concept was brilliantly demonstrated at that recent crash in Le Mans, the car appeared to have been destroyed but the driver compartment was fully intact and the driver walked away. Obviously road going cars don't have this level of stifness and stability in the passenger compartment, doors and the fact its made from metal get in the way but its certainly better than it was.