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).
