What’s safest - big and old or small and new(ish)?

[Turbodave]

Originally Posted by Clan

you are not as familiar as I am with examining probably 300,000 + volvo bodies of all versions in my life time V70's from 2000 do not rust they have zinc coated steel ... and will be as strong as they were new today ...

You've examined 300,000+ Volvos in your lifetime? That'd be 125 cars a week for 50 years... I'm inclined to call bull**** on that one. In what capacity were these examinations carried out? Genuinely interested to know.

However, I simply do not accept that a 25 year old shell, regardless of however well it's protected is as strong as the day it left the factory. Any corrosion will weaken a structure and on the likes is say the 900 series with it's rusty floor pans, that will all make a difference in an accident.

But I digress and with regards to the OP's thought process, to be honest it's a bit of an unanswerable question as every impact is unique and thus cars will behave in very different ways. Then you start taking in to consideration the child seat design and position in relation to the car structure.

We have an 05 plate V70 and an 07 plate V50 and a toddler... I'd keep myself awake for hours wondering which is "best" as far as his safety was concerned but to add some balance, my Mum has a newer Mazda 2 which is hardly the last word in safety but when he's in it, he's a damn sight closer to the door and the back of the car... the latter being a couple of feet at best whereas in the Volvo, there's a good five feet between him and the back. Is that safer, I honestly don't know as it's something I try not to dwell on.

Ultimately, I'd rather have him in something newer than say an old 240 or something of that era. I don't buy in to this "it's a tank" stuff as I've seen first hand how the forces of a big shunt effects such cars. Granted they may not deform as much and be built from strong steel, but the forces of an accident have to go somewhere and if the car isn't absorbing the energy... the soft, fragile humans inside will and that's when internal injuries occur.

It still astounds me when the hard of learning start gushing over how amazing an older Volvo is after one of the obligitory "Volvo gets rear ended" images pops up showing little damage to the back of a Volvo and the front of something else looking destroyed. There seems to be a genuine lack of understanding as to how cars are built and why the front end of any given cars always tends to look worse than the rear of another.

But I concur, Volvo's do bend rather well and they do rust rather well and whilst we're on the subject of cliches, no they aren't bombproof and no they won't last forever...

[Dippydog]

I much prefer bigger/older cars to smaller/newer ones but there is no denying that as with all things time has moved on technology has brought about improvements-an Amazon would be safer than a PV because of such things as seatbelts for example-so yes I'd say a newer car is better from a safety aspect than an older design.Of course you're always going to get collisions where a new[er] car is destroyed the occupants hurt/killed because at the end of the day you can't legislate against every possible permutation of circumstances.

[Volvo6]

I’d go for the 2001 V70 over a small modern car - the P2 was a big step forward in safety terms from the 850 which in turn had been a big step up from the 700/900 series.

The Fifth gear test is a poor reference for small vs large - the 900 series was built before Volvo started to look at the offset collision scenario more seriously. 850 and onwards with transverse mounted engine is much better in that regard. What always annoyed me about that episode is that they could have bought an early 850 with airbags etc and the outcome would have been rather different.

The P2 V70 has a much stronger bulkhead than the 850 and is better at isolating the damaged to the front of the car without the A pillar bending.

For a lot of modern cars (Volvo excluded) I’m unconvinced there was been much change in passive safety since late 00s - there were big improvements compared to 90s cars, but since then a lot of industry tests such as NCAP have not changed much in the last ten years.

[classicswede]

Originally Posted by DaveNP

There was a youtube video doing the rounds a few years back of an older Volvo (940 I think) versus a newer Hatchback, conventional wisdom was that a big ol' Volvo would obliterate the Hatchback, in the event due to the superior engineering of the modern car whilst both cars sustained a lot of damage it was the Volvo driver who would have had the worst injuries.
I'd venture a 2001 V70 would be safe, as would the 2013 Jazz, which would be safest may come down to the detail of the particular accident.

It was a 940 and a Renault Modus and there are a number of reasons the 940 did so bad. The main reason is the 940 uses crumple zones to absorb impact and the modus uses safety cell. We all know how Volvo's use crumple zones to fold up slowing the car down gradually. New small cars use a safety cell and some engry is spent by some panels flying off.

In the case of that corner to corner 940vModus the modus driver will walk out as the 940 saved them. The 940 driver could well have broken leg(s)

If we take crashing into a tree at 100MPH the 940 will look in a very bad shape but you might live. The modus would not look so bad but with such rapid decelleration you would most likely die from internal injuries.

These small cars are well and good but they do rely on hitting a big car with crumple zones.

The biggest investment in safety is not the car but in the driver

[Clan]

Originally Posted by john.wigley

Seriously, 'Clan'? Would they be allowed to do that?? Would they be allowed to get away with it ???

Unless the demonstration was sponsored by Renault, who would possibly gain from the deception? I really don't think that Volvo, would start or condone such 'rumours', even if they were disappointed by the 945's showing, do you? Or do you think that it was just a publicity stunt by the producers of the programme?

Regards, John.

those were the stories in the motoring press back then ..

Here is a picture of a genuine 940 crash , it was doing 50 mph up hill and hit by a stolen ford sierra doing 100 mph coming the wrong way along a motorway on a bend ...

[john.wigley]

Originally Posted by Clan

those were the stories in the motoring press back then ..

Here is a picture of a genuine 940 crash , it was doing 50 mph up hill and hit by a stolen ford sierra doing 100 mph coming the wrong way along a motorway on a bend ...

They do say that a picture is worth a 1000 words ...

Regards, John.

[Parisien]

Originally Posted by classicswede

The modus would not look so bad but with such rapid decelleration you would most likely die from internal injuries.

Cant agree with this statement, the front absorption zone does just that, any energy that gets past it is routed through the outer aspects of the passenger safety cage, most effective in frontal and rear crashes not so brilliant in side impacts in a smaller car even with side airbags.

P

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Parisien

Cant agree with this statement, the front absorption zone does just that, any energy that gets past it is routed through the outer aspects of the passenger safety cage, most effective in frontal and rear crashes not so brilliant in side impacts in a smaller car even with side airbags.

P

The Smart for example ? only about 6 inches of crumple zone ... very strong as top gear crash test showed , but those forces are felt by the occupant , probably fatally ...

[Parisien]

Originally Posted by Clan

The Smart for example ? only about 6 inches of crumple zone ... very strong as top gear crash test showed , but those forces are felt by the occupant , probably fatally ...

As ever extreme examples don't win an argument, the vast majority of small new cars will be light years ahead of older cars in nearly every instance, full stop.

P

[Clan]

Originally Posted by Parisien

As ever extreme examples don't win an argument, the vast majority of small new cars will be light years ahead of older cars in nearly every instance, full stop.

P

I wasn't aware we were arguing.... Smarts are still new cars ...