seismick
I saw a video on Youtube from TV show 5th gear, where a 940 statio wagon is crashed into a small modern car.
It seemed there was no airbag. Now I believe Volvo introduced airbags in 1987, and the 940 was made in the 90s.
Even some 740s got airbags. So did they make poverty packs without airbags?
Philia_Bear
Yes. Only in continental Europe
Essbos
My old '93 940gl wagon had no airbag. Only one without I have ever seen in person, was not wired for airbag either. Maybe it was a special order, the colour was also unusual.
nugget_940
91 940GL has no airbags. My one and another one that I saw on the side of the road. But my 92 does, only a driver's side airbag though.
Spac
In Australia, the driver's airbag came sometime in 1992, along with SIPS.
I've never seen an ADM 91 model with an airbag or SIPS. I have never seen a ADM 93 model without both of those things (although Essboss' car may be the exception).
Spac
Worth noting that in the early days of airbags, they were mostly considered a substitute for seatbelts, for those people too stupid to wear seatbelts (mostly located between the Pacific and Atlantic oceans).
As Australia has extremely high seatbelt usage, airbags weren't considered particularly important here.
It took another ten or so years for manufacturers to realise that they could be a big safety improvement in conjunction with much stiffer/stronger bodyshells.
Vee_Que
The reason the airbag did not go off in that crash is more simply, the engine and ignition was off.
And really, to justify an old Volvo as a safe choice against new cars, well, the video explains it, airbag or not, your legs would be crushed by the other car sending the force back into the 940.
Volvo only had airbags from 92 as mentioned already in Australia. Only in the U.S did they fit them earlier.
familyman
I've paused it a several times. While he says 'serious lower leg injuries' it's too difficult to tell. Yes the dash and firewall has been pushed back, but I think I can see a gap (and the floor) between the two legs. So the feet might just be pushed back, pushing the legs into the seat foam, which has driven the knees up.
The location of the engine afterwards (it hasn't gone under the car - but possibly was lifted upwards by the pointy nose of the renault) also hints the firewall may not have gone as far back as he assumes, and may be why the centre dash trim has popped out.
i.e. The firewall and floor could just be lifted and pushed back - not crumpled-in crushing the legs - which is exactly what is meant to happen.
In fact I've just continued the clip and you can see the renault cut through the front side like butter UNTIL it reaches the A pillar. Then you see it stop like it's hit a brick wall, the inertia throwing it out sideways instead. Again this hints the foot area may not near as bad as he says - maybe he just can't see it because of the dash.
And again, note the 'fold' in the roof behind the drivers seat, showing the huge resistance keeping the cabin area 'inflated'. The force got all the way to the midpoint of the car and started to 'break' the car in half rather than crushing the front occupants like he implies.
Unless they got down on their knees, or showed cutting the dummy out afterwards... (Why haven't they. It would sure underline their example rather than just claiming it and then 'nothing else to see here - move along'.)
The reason I'm skeptical is I've slammed into the back of a parked car at 60km/h or more. My car was a 1976 244, his was at least 20 years newer Toyota. His was towed away and cost several thousand to repair. I drove home, swapped parts, and was driving again in 2-3 hours.
Spac
Hitting the rear of a newer car is not really a useful measure. Crash tests are about front and side impacts. I don't know of any statutory body testing rear impacts.
I agree that older Volvos generally do a good job of keeping the passenger compartment intact. Walking around the old A Class wrecking yard looking at wrecks showed a lot of trashed cars with passenger compartments that were merely distorted rather than crumpled.
However, as newer cars become heavier and 'harder', the old school Volvo safety methods are more and more challenged.
At least since the 140 era, Volvos have been ahead of the vast majority of cars of the same age for safety. But time moves on, and what was exceptional becomes ordinary, and then below standard.
familyman
It was a front impact... for me, LOL.
240
familyman;126314 wroteThe reason I'm skeptical is I've slammed into the back of a parked car at 60km/h or more. My car was a 1976 244, his was at least 20 years newer Toyota. His was towed away and cost several thousand to repair. I drove home, swapped parts, and was driving again in 2-3 hours
If anything, that only proves that a 240 is safer than a 1996 Toyota, which wouldn't be surprising at all. By contrast the car in the video is a 2000s Renault, that was a period when Renault were among the best in the world at safety.
So you would only really have a reason to be skeptical if you could assume that a car like the Toyota you hit was roughly similar in safety to the Renault in the video, which is not the case.
The truth is that even though a RWD Volvo is very solid, it's only a super safe car in comparison to other cars of the 70s, 80s and some of the 90s. Most more modern cars are way, way safer, simply because technology has progressed.
That's not to say that ALL modern cars are safer than a RWD Volvo - I wouldn't want to crash in a late 2000s Kia Rio, for example - but on the whole, they are safer and old Volvos are crap by modern standards.
Chris
Yes this is pretty much the case. They were exceptional at the time but not now. Even the P80s don't rate well any more.
The best older Volvo relatively speaking is the 1990s onward S40/V40, which has held up amazingly well. They had a 5 star used car safety rating until a couple of months ago and are still rated 4 star performers, beating out a lot of more modern cars. They are not a RWD classic Volvo however.
Vee_Que
You can be sceptical, but the sensors on the dummy ultimately tell the story and leg injuries in accidents are common with older cars. Combined with the fact the door structure is compromised.
But comparison, I saw footage of a be ute that was doing 100kmh on a country road, hit the left side of the back of a garbage collection truck and the person opened the door and got out, they had slowed slightly, but still going very fast. People can say how crap commodores are, but ve and VF are very well engineered for strength in a crash, VF more so with a high strength steel side pressing.
Chris
Yes, @Vee_Que is right. When you see that roof fold at the B pillar on any car, it means the whole cabin from footwell to roof is crushing inwards, taking the dashboard etc with it. You're talking leg injuries best case but the more the crush, well, you get the picture.
If you want a really graphic illustration of old vs new take a look on YouTube at the ANCAP old vs new Corolla demonstration. Or if you like, the NHTSA 50s Chevy Impala vs recent Malibu comparison for those who still hold that 'real steel' beats modern engineering. It's sad to see the Impala trashed but very instructive.
Spac
Also interesting watching early '00s F-truck crash tests. Their size weight makes them aggressive against cars, but they are still terrible in absolute terms.
240
It's also worth noting that that video is now a few years old, and the same amount of money now buys a wider range of much safer cars.
In the early 2000s, it was really just brands like Volvo, Renault, and some other Euro ones that led the way with safety, for the most part, but these days there's a whole range of run-of-the-mill cars that have excellent safety.
It's always funny when people see my 240 and make a comment about safety - they almost assume that that's the reason I have the car. I have to explain to them that their Subaru/Audi/etc probably beats the 240 by miles in safety.
That being said - I have plenty of friends with early 2000s Japanese cars (Toyota, Mazda etc) which according to howsafeisyourcar.com.au are less safe than a 240.
So I guess for a cheap car that you can DIY fix and fit lots of stuff in, a 2/7/9 is still an ok choice safety wise.
seismick
Vee_Que;126275 wroteThe reason the airbag did not go off in that crash is more simply, the engine and ignition was off.
But in the video, the small car airbags inflated. So they had ignition on one car?
There was a similar video with 95 GMH Berlina versus small car. Airbag was optional in that particular old car, but it looked like the airbag steering wheel to me. So curious if these people were doing apples to apples test.
seismick
Vee_Que;126332 wroteYou can be sceptical, but the sensors on the dummy ultimately tell the story and leg injuries in accidents are common with older cars. Combined with the fact the door structure is compromised.
But comparison, I saw footage of a be ute that was doing 100kmh on a country road, hit the left side of the back of a garbage collection truck and the person opened the door and got out, they had slowed slightly, but still going very fast. People can say how crap commodores are, but ve and VF are very well engineered for strength in a crash, VF more so with a high strength steel side pressing.
Holden first used high strength steel in VY Commodore pillars. It wasn't until VE that they got serious and put it in other parts of the car.
Vee_Que
seismick;126353 wroteVee_Que;126332 wroteYou can be sceptical, but the sensors on the dummy ultimately tell the story and leg injuries in accidents are common with older cars. Combined with the fact the door structure is compromised.
But comparison, I saw footage of a be ute that was doing 100kmh on a country road, hit the left side of the back of a garbage collection truck and the person opened the door and got out, they had slowed slightly, but still going very fast. People can say how crap commodores are, but ve and VF are very well engineered for strength in a crash, VF more so with a high strength steel side pressing.
Holden first used high strength steel in VY Commodore pillars. It wasn't until VE that they got serious and put it in other parts of the car.
Interesting to know, the VF was what I did know to have it across the entire cabin opening of course.
asiandriver
seismick;126353 wroteHolden first used high strength steel in VY Commodore pillars. It wasn't until VE that they got serious and put it in other parts of the car.
And Volvo first used high strength steel on 740/760 in 1986/1987, only about 15 years ahead of Commodore!!