Volvo 940 vs Renault Crash test

Discussion in 'Volvo 940' started by Russ, Oct 9, 2007.

  1. Russ

    BJ Guest

    "Espressopithecus (Java Man) >" <Espressopithecus<>
    skrev i en meddelelse

    KLIP
    I am glad for these potential owners, they able now to drive in yet not
    perfect but very good cars regarding safety.
    Great, now it has become more safe to buy an Audi.
    And this they will continue to do.

    Regards
    Bjørn J.
     
    BJ, Oct 11, 2007
    #21
  2. I would still rather the Volvo as these accidents can be staged .
     
    John Robertson, Nov 1, 2007
    #22
  3. Russ

    Joerg Lorenz Guest

    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
     
    Joerg Lorenz, Nov 1, 2007
    #23
  4. Russ

    Tony Guest

    I think that is the result of progress, the Volvo was good in its day,
    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, Nov 19, 2007
    #24
Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.