Old XC90 crash worthiness

[xc90driver2]

One of the main reasons I purchased a 2007 XC90 was due to its safety credentials and that got me thinking recently....

I'm wondering how the old moel XC 90 would fair in a crash with a modern crossover such as a Rav 4 / Hyundai Tuscon etc.

The bumper height on these "smaller" SUVs seems to be higher than that of the old XC90 and gives the impression of a stronger front end.

Would be interesting to see how the old Xc90 would stack up in the real world against these modern crossovers since they are absolutely everywhere now!

[Dastardly Diesel]

Probably very well. No occupant of an XC90 has ever died in a vehicle-on-vehicle collision in the UK.

[Clan]

Originally Posted by xc90driver2

One of the main reasons I purchased a 2007 XC90 was due to its safety credentials and that got me thinking recently....

I'm wondering how the old moel XC 90 would fair in a crash with a modern crossover such as a Rav 4 / Hyundai Tuscon etc.

The bumper height on these "smaller" SUVs seems to be higher than that of the old XC90 and gives the impression of a stronger front end.

Would be interesting to see how the old Xc90 would stack up in the real world against these modern crossovers since they are absolutely everywhere now!

Don't let appearances fool you , it is the underlying construction which matters , The Old XC90 will be right up there or ahead with any modern Large car today ..
Volvo are world leaders in this kind of thing ...

[XJSDriver]

Seems the old is still as good as the new! In this comparison the new car's bonnet detaches where old is fine:

Crash test XC90 new vs old - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHvuUJSbyI8

[paddy74]

Don't misinterpret this. Basically everything that takes up energy, away from the passengers, is good. A "flying" bonnet takes more energy away, hence is better.

But what you can also see in this video, how good Volvo already worked in the old XC90. Take this video as a comparison: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shydexEjZ4I

You practically see, how hard the passengers must be stopped in there movement forward, when the Q7 hits the wall. It stops nearly instantly, forcing the still available energy inside the car, to the passengers.

Both XC90 divert the crash energy away from the car, using a special structure. You can see it in this picture (new XC): https://www.media.volvocars.com/glob...body-structure. Especially the grey and yellow parts in the front.

In a pic of the old XC structure, you see the first version of this technique:
https://www.media.volvocars.com/us/e...dia/photos/591

And back on the question, how would the old compare to newer cars: very well, you can see the two vertical structures, that should fit nearly every height of oncoming car or barrier.

[cheshired5]

Originally Posted by paddy74

A "flying" bonnet takes more energy away, hence is better.

As a pedestrian and motorcyclist, I disagree.

[paddy74]

Originally Posted by cheshired5

As a pedestrian and motorcyclist, I disagree.

That's for sure! In this video it is only taken off on the left side, so would hopefully not flying around.

But tbh, it's kind of an ethical dilemma... Sure I'd like to safe any pedestrian, cyclist or animal, but if that interfers with my own safety...hard to say. That's why I love Volvo. It seems like the best way, to achieve this for both sides. Break assistants together with a lot of thought into pedestrian safety, but still best in passenger safety. That's the way to go!

[XC90Mk1]

I think that the principle protection offered is via both crumple zones and restraining the passenger with belts and air bags.

By 2002 the xc90 was totally designed for safety and is around 2.2t with plenty of crumple zones.

I would expect the later version to be far better in passive terms, Palestrina warning, auto braking etc etc but physically I would think the old xc90 would compare really well to a smaller modern car.

[xc90driver2]

Some very interesting posts there, thanks to all that contributed.

From looking at the underlying structure of the xc90, it would seem that bumper or crash barrier height would be crucial, since a higher SUV could override lower crash defences and effectivly override the lower crash barrier which could push the engine into the cabin.

Thats probably a very simplistic observation but would be interesting to see the outcome. Pity NCAP cannot demonstate real life crashes!

[Clan]

Originally Posted by xc90driver2

Some very interesting posts there, thanks to all that contributed.

From looking at the underlying structure of the xc90, it would seem that bumper or crash barrier height would be crucial, since a higher SUV could override lower crash defences and effectivly override the lower crash barrier which could push the engine into the cabin.

Thats probably a very simplistic observation but would be interesting to see the outcome. Pity NCAP cannot demonstate real life crashes!

There are two barriers on the front of the old xc90 . The bumper beam which is obvious and the lower so called skid plate under the bumper is a sturdy crash member which engages with a smaller car's crash beam rather than ride over the top of it .