Volvo 940 vs Renault Crash test
Russ
I just came across this video on You Tube. They crash a 15 year old
Volvo 940 estate, for many people the epitome of a solid and safe
family car, into a 3 year old Renault Modus, notable as the first
small car to earn a maximum 5 Star safety rating from the European New
Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP).
You wont believe what happens...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I
Regards
Russ
Bob (but not THAT Bob)
Spoiler space
Boy, I'm happy I sold my 900 series wagon to an obnoxious schmuck
instead of somebody I like!
And glad I spend most of my driving time in a Saab.
Russ
wrote:
> Spoiler space
>
> Boy, I'm happy I sold my 900 series wagon to an obnoxious schmuck
> instead of somebody I like!
>
> And glad I spend most of my driving time in a Saab.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OmhxMf5oYc
I was really shocked to see the level of damage the Volvo suffered in
that collision. The most frightening part for me was the point when
they showed the driver's side of the volvo after the crash. The
driver would have most likely lost the use of their legs and would
require extrication from the vehicle by the rescue team because the
floor boards and dash collapsed right into the driver. I know the car
predates air bags so the driver most likely ate that steering wheel.
I drive a 96 Volvo 850 glt wagon. I now wonder how well it would hold
up in the same crash?
Russ
Roadie
It's not loading on my computer. Are the cars both rolling at the
same speed and crashed head-on?
blurp
It's a head-on offset driver-on-driver crash at 40mph/car. What it
really illustrates is not so much that a Volvo is less safe but that
crash safety standards have risen significantly. No doubt if the Volvo
was put into that crash situation with one of its contemporaries (like
a 15-year-old Renault) the result would be different as I expect it
would be with a 3-year-old Volvo vs. the Modus.
blurp
Roadie
Exactly. I think whoever the testing organization was should have
used comparable vehicles if the idea was to draw a conclusion about
each vehicle.
>
> blurp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
BJ
"Russ" <russ....@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1191944407.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
KLIP
> I drive a 96 Volvo 850 glt wagon. I now wonder how well it would hold
> up in the same crash?
For sure better than an almost 30 year old construction as the Volvo.
Try and take a new Volvo C30 and let it hit a 30 year old Renault.
You would not belive the damage the old fart would become.
See also this as a reminder of 30 years developement:
http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=TPpU5azjCB8&mode=related&search=Train%20Crash%20Test
Regards
Bjøern J.
Denmark, a country in Scandinavia.....
BJ
"Roadie" <hjs...@cs.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1191957081.0...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
KLIP
>> It's a head-on offset driver-on-driver crash at 40mph/car. What it
>> really illustrates is not so much that a Volvo is less safe but that
>> crash safety standards have risen significantly. No doubt if the Volvo
>> was put into that crash situation with one of its contemporaries (like
>> a 15-year-old Renault) the result would be different as I expect it
>> would be with a 3-year-old Volvo vs. the Modus.
>
>
> Exactly. I think whoever the testing organization was should have
> used comparable vehicles if the idea was to draw a conclusion about
> each vehicle.
Look, the Ranault can not cope with this in spite of its five star
EuroNCAP...;o)))))
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRKb6Xv2jGA&mode=related&search=
Regards
Bjørn J.
Tolian
this means it sits higher. Which means its bumper was goint probably
above volvo's bumper and was basically going through fender and such.
Not much resistance in that area and not much energy could be
dissipated so to speak. It's about the same as comparing volvo vs a
bigger and taller SUV. Would not want to be in the frontal with it, no
matter what volvo you are in (sans XC90 probably)
Also being 15 years apart also makes a big difference. I've read
somewhere about volvo crash with a big ol' american car from 60s or
70. You know a lot of steel, chrome all over, one that looks like a
ship. The volvo was smashed but the guy from volvo was able to walk
off while the guy in ol' car was dead.
BJ
"Tolian" <anatoli....@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1191959945.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
KLIP
> The volvo was smashed but the guy from volvo was able to walk
> off while the guy in ol' car was dead.
This you will see in a lot of accidents, where a Volvo or a Saab is in.
This test is also a bit interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitdqC5gHpM
Regards
Bjørn J.
Volvo S80 T6 in BSR stage 3 trim (app 330 Hk)
Volvo S40 2.4i in Göteborg trim for the wife (app 182 Hk)
~^ beancounter ~^
a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, "BJ" <mrbear_REMO...@post.tele.dk> wrote:
> "Tolian" <anatoli.milisc...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191959945.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
Roadie
> 1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
> a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
Now that's an old Volvo... LOL!
I think a meaningful test would be a Volvo PV544 into one of those
dreadful Renault Dauphine cars.
>
> On Oct 9, 2:20 pm, "BJ" <mrbear_REMO...@post.tele.dk> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tolian" <anatoli.milisc...@gmail.com> skrev i en meddelelsenews:1191959945.6...@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com...
>
> > KLIP
>
> > > The volvo was smashed but the guy from volvo was able to walk
> > > off while the guy in ol' car was dead.
>
> > This you will see in a lot of accidents, where a Volvo or a Saab is in.
>
> > This test is also a bit interesting:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CitdqC5gHpM
>
> > Regards
> > Bjørn J.
> > Volvo S80 T6 in BSR stage 3 trim (app 330 Hk)
> > Volvo S40 2.4i in Göteborg trim for the wife (app 182 Hk)- Hide quoted text -
BJ
"Roadie" <hjs...@cs.com> skrev i en meddelelse
news:1192018939.9...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com...
KLIP
>> 1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
>> a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
>Now that's an old Volvo... LOL!
I wonder what the horse power may be..;o)
>I think a meaningful test would be a Volvo PV544 into one of those
>dreadful Renault Dauphine cars.
Just to put the construction basics in perspective versus the new Renault.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_940
To something like a comparison, you should take this pile of junk and ram
togehter with a 850/V70:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_9
Regards
Bjørn J.
JM Albuquerque
"~^ beancounter ~^" <richb...@gmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:1192018107....@o3g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
See at 2:28 min. - 2:38 min what a Volvo does
to a car same age (Renault ?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCKuZPUn2nQ
BJ
"JM Albuquerque" <jmD...@clix.pt> skrev i en meddelelse
news:5n43ngF...@mid.individual.net...
KLIP
> See at 2:28 min. - 2:38 min what a Volvo does
> to a car same age (Renault ?)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XCKuZPUn2nQ
It is an Opel Vectra or in UK a Vauxhall Vectra.
Regards
Bjørn J.
JM Albuquerque
"Russ" <russ....@gmail.com> escreveu na mensagem
news:1191944407.0...@o80g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> I drive a 96 Volvo 850 glt wagon. I now wonder how well it would hold
> up in the same crash?
Volvo 850 T5 (1996) has a very large frontal beam
made from aluminium, much larger then that of the
Renault, and such beam is bolted at both frontal ends
and it won't allow to happen the same thing that
happened to the 940.
The 940 doesn't have a frontal beam, required to avoid
that only one side of the front sustains all the impact.
The 850 against that new Renault won't be the same.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aN4o8TERuoY
In a 25 meters fall the final speed will be 25m/s
which is about 100 km/h.
Volvo 850 is 4.7 meters long.
Espressopithecus <Espressopithecus>
richb...@gmail.com says...
> 1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
> a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
>
a pioneer in auto safety, has lost most of its lead in vehicle safety --
not because Volvos aren't safe anymore, but because now MANY vehicles
are much, much safer than in the past.
Java
~^ beancounter ~^
two cars sure do come to a "fast" stop...lots
of energy there...
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
BJ
"Espressopithecus (Java Man) >" <Espressopithecus<jav...@espresso.org>
skrev i en meddelelse
news:MPG.2176b5b6...@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net...
KLIP
>> 1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
>> a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
>>
> There is one lesson we can take from the video, though. Volvo, although
> a pioneer in auto safety, has lost most of its lead in vehicle safety --
> not because Volvos aren't safe anymore, but because now MANY vehicles
> are much, much safer than in the past.
It would also be a tradigy if it not were so.
Still I belive, Volvo and Saab will be some of the pioneers in auto safety
and a lot others just very late copy cats.
Regards
Bjørn J.
Espressopithecus <Espressopithecus>
mrbear_...@post.tele.dk says...
unfortunately for Volvo and Saab, the others are now very good copy
cats.
Check out the crash test results for Audi, Honda and Subaru vehicles.
They're not perfect yet, but they're very good.
I remember when Audis were DANGEROUS in a frontal crash because the
steering column was likely to cause fatal head injury to the driver.
Not any more!
Volvo and Saab can't differentiate themselves with safety any more.
They have to be safe AND something else.
Java
BJ
KLIP
>> >> 1992 technology vs. 2006 techno;ogy...interesting...how about crashing
>> >> a 1992 renuault into a 1002 volvo...where is that video?
>> >>
>> > There is one lesson we can take from the video, though. Volvo,
>> > although
>> > a pioneer in auto safety, has lost most of its lead in vehicle
>> > safety --
>> > not because Volvos aren't safe anymore, but because now MANY vehicles
>> > are much, much safer than in the past.
>>
>> It would also be a tradigy if it not were so.
>>
>> Still I belive, Volvo and Saab will be some of the pioneers in auto
>> safety
>> and a lot others just very late copy cats.
>>
> I agree -- they should be known as important pioneers. But
> unfortunately for Volvo and Saab, the others are now very good copy
> cats.
>
> Check out the crash test results for Audi, Honda and Subaru vehicles.
> They're not perfect yet, but they're very good.
I am glad for these potential owners, they able now to drive in yet not
perfect but very good cars regarding safety.
> I remember when Audis were DANGEROUS in a frontal crash because the
> steering column was likely to cause fatal head injury to the driver.
> Not any more!
Great, now it has become more safe to buy an Audi.
> Volvo and Saab can't differentiate themselves with safety any more.
> They have to be safe AND something else.
And this they will continue to do.
Regards
Bjørn J.
John Robertson
"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:470B15...@nowhere.com...
Joerg Lorenz
> I would still rather the Volvo as these accidents can be staged .
> "Bob (but not THAT Bob)" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:470B15...@nowhere.com...
Please do not top post!
I have seen a similar crash test between a 87 Ford Sierra and a new Ford
Fiesta: Exactly the same outcome as in the Renault/Volvo-Crash.
That says a lot about the development in the safety area in the last
couple of years.
Even we Volvo-driver should accept such facts of life....
Joerg
--
Reclaim your inbox! Thunderbird makes emailing safer, faster, and easier
than ever before with the industry's best implementations of features
such as intelligent spam filters, built-in RSS reader, quick search, and
much more. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/de/products/thunderbird/
Tony
however I think the point made was a little messed up, and perhaps a
little disrespective of Volvo. They seemed to be saying that its a big
heavy strong old car against a light modern car. This is not the case,
Volvo 900 series are well know for being very soft at the front, and
that can protect the occupants very well upto a certain speed. Almost
no Volvo will 'plough through another car', even hitting a Mini Metro
will result in a Volvo being written off as the front crumples. Its
certainly unfair to say its made from girders as if its rigid. The
whole reason it failed was because its soft, a rigid car would survive
more but also cause fatal injuries due to the severe deceleration (at
lower speeds).
In those days the alternative was a heavy ridig car (like a big Jag) or
a really soft light one (like a Mini Metro). Volvo made the first steps
into Engineering the crumple zone. Nowadays every mfr on has to do it
by law, many more cars have been tested and the engineering is much
better understood, so you can control the speed/ crumpleness / energy
dissappation spread etc, leading to a lower overall deceleration of the
occupant at higher speeds of impact. As well as understanding more what
the human body can take.
I also thought it was unfair they mentioned air bags and seatbelt
pretensions that the volvo didn't have. My 1995 940 has SIPS, seatbelt
pretensioners and front air bags. The ABS has helped save at least one
kid (also reliable,.. the ABS in my partners younger BMW died recently
due to a failed sensor).
--
Tony
Mark Drayford
--
For full context, visit https://www.motorsforum.com/volvo/volvo-940-vs-renault-crash-test-27024-.htm