spotted a 300 in this vid

[Nimminz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0sqBu1i ... re=related

its about side impacts, spotted the blue 300 at about 36 seconds in

[theo2468]

And the mangled red car at 22 is a 340

[Jaspersilus]

Hi Chaps,
I think its safe to say that if an 80s car did that to the side of a 300,its best not even to imagine what a modern 5 star ncap car would do to it!

actually if you cant imagine what a modern car would do to one, check out the vid on youtube where 5th gear do a head on between a Renault Modus and a Volvo 940, if you ve not seen it before, you will be shocked and amazed!!!!!!!!!!!

I would link it but dont know how, Im sure some one will though!

[Hell Driver]

Had to laugh at the one of the daft comments below the youtube clip about buying old cars, the F reg rover was only about 2 years old at the time, as the police car in the clip was a J reg and they always have quite new cars. Also the cavalier was an A reg and it looked like that accident happened in the mid to late 80's. The whole point of the of the video was about problems of new(ish) car safety at the time. Non of the cars shown was probably over 7 years old at the times of the accidents.

Just can't stand some of the morons who can't even engage the brain before posting comments on youtube!. You'd be hard pressed to find a second hand car these days without reasonable side impact protection compared with 80's cars.

Rant over...Well spotted clip.

Unlike all(?) other non volvos (maybe saabs too?) from the 70's, 300's have at least had side impact bars since the start in 1976

(although I'm sure these may be canceled out by rusty inner sills an floorpans )

[theo2468]

That 5th gear video was set up to make the modus look alot stronger, they were advertising for Renault to get bit more cash and also the engine was taken out of the volvo so that's why it's crumbles alot.

Another thing that 300 in the video could of been hit by a lorry or anything also it looks like that picture was taken after the fire men had done there Job cutting someone out

[Hell Driver]

I saw that test too, although the Volvo came off worst for leg injuries, I'm not sure the sudden deceleration and re-acceleration experienced in the Renault would have done much good to the internal organs. No account was made of this in the video, they had no way of measuring it. That Renault bounced back with some serious G forces felt I'm sure. Also the fact that the Volvo was an in line engine help the Renault by allowing it to carve through the wing and wheel arch, there was a lot of space there. (actually the volvo crumpled itself into the Renault as it's crumple zones are designed to do, to reduce spreed slowly). Had it been transverse engined big older car it might have been a different outcome. But you can't fault the total lack of serious damage to the small Renault passenger cage, there's no doubt that car safety design has come on a huge amount. Just a pity that so many new cars are just much more uglier than the 300

[Jaspersilus]

Hi Chaps,
old volvos are my favourite cars, 300s 700s 900s were the cars I and my parents had, and in their day they were the safest cars on the road, but this vid was not sponsored by Renault, if it had they would have used a Laguna and totally destroyed the Volvo, yes in 1976-1987 volvos were built like tanks in comparison to other cars of the time, cars have had to get stronger to pass legislation and sell to more safety concious buyers, also remember that 940 had exactly the same safety features and chassis as a 1983 Volvo 760, so in reality it was a 2005 Modus versus a 1982 Volvo ( with an engine ) !

Make no mistakes if you re in a 300 and you have an accident with a new Fiat 500 you re in real trouble!

[Hell Driver]

Just noticed the engine is missing...bloody TV/Renault con merchants. Don't believe anything you see on TV.

Now there is a really ugly car, the Modus. A disjointed jumble of lines and shapes pushed together like a bag of shopping...even makes a shopping trolley look good.

[Hell Driver]

This story keeps changing, engine or no engine in the Volvo, the modus is still ugly! Sorry 300 fans with modus as 2nd car

[Hell Driver]

Make no mistakes if you re in a 300 and you have an accident with a new Fiat 500 you re in real trouble!

Even if I accidentally drive off a multistory car park in a 300 and land on top of a 500 dummy style:P
(now I am being silly )

[Jaspersilus]

Hi Chaps,
if you watch the vid very closely, it does have an engine as you can see the top of it in the crash, Im pretty sure that 5th gear dont stage crashes to suit Renault,they would just bull Renaults up in the road tests, between 1998 and 2006, no manufacturer spent more on safety innovation and testing than Renault, while Volvo just got a new body on Ford chassis and engines,the last car Volvo designed before Ford raped them was the XC90, a massive selling super safe car,Ford is also the reason we have to buy parts for our 300s off each other and ebay, if Volvo had remained independent all the parts would still be available from Volvo.

OK rant over, but safe to say my kids wont be going far in my 360, they will be in a ncap 5 star car!

ps I do not have, and would not buy a Modus! Hell Driver,should nt you be clearing snow!

[Hell Driver]

I'd say the best place to be out of both cars was the rear of the Volvo, just where the kids would be! Wouldn't have wanted to be driving. We got a scenic for the school run/general use etc. for the safety aspect, as the wife wanted a good safety rating for her car. Ironically we've still ended up driving around 3000 miles in the 340 with the caravan this year! I didn't trust the scenic for towing anyway, as the syncromesh on the gearbox seamed to be failing. We got rid recently and got a colt (not for towing!). Not sure what the rating is but it feels solid. I do tend to feel like I watch out for my (and especially other people's) driving when driving with the family in the 340 or the 360. Mostly because I know how insurance companies automatically write off older cars, but I do sometimes wonder how the cars would stand up to a serious crash. Judging from the one I saw recently after very heavy front impact from banger racing, not that bad in a medium crash, despite having no bumper and half the lower front lower wings cut away. The engine had shoved the prop-shaft back into the gearbox, but the main body of the car was fine. They can hit at up to 40-50mph.


I was clearing snow, I stopped when I noticed that the car cover on the 340 was frozen to the car and pinned down with icicles like tent poles. I would have shredded it trying to get it off the car. Just hope it hasn't wreaked the paint, waiting for the big thaw 2moro.

[classicswede]

I saw that test too, although the Volvo came off worst for leg injuries, I'm not sure the sudden deceleration and re-acceleration experienced in the Renault would have done much good to the internal organs. No account was made of this in the video, they had no way of measuring it. That Renault bounced back with some serious G forces felt I'm sure. Also the fact that the Volvo was an in line engine help the Renault by allowing it to carve through the wing and wheel arch, there was a lot of space there. (actually the volvo crumpled itself into the Renault as it's crumple zones are designed to do, to reduce spreed slowly). Had it been transverse engined big older car it might have been a different outcome. But you can't fault the total lack of serious damage to the small Renault passenger cage, there's no doubt that car safety design has come on a huge amount. Just a pity that so many new cars are just much more uglier than the 300

Lucky for the passengers of the renault that the Volvo's crumple zones saved their lives. Imagine that renault hitting a solid lump of concreat! The passangers would have died on the spot due to internal injuries. A crash test was done with a smart car that shows this point. The tiny but tough smart car would have a solid shell with little distortion to the cock pit but hitting something solid (another smart car for example) would have reulted in severe injury or more likely death due to the rapid deceleration.

I personaly feel safest in in amazons 140's 240's and 740's due to their solid build yet built in crumple zones. I dislike air bags (deadly for children) but do accept in some situations they can be a life saver. The 300 series in not quite in the same league as the bigger volvo's or the era but if I had to be in a servere accident in a car of that size the 300 would be my choice to do it in (but not a minter as the numer of good 300's is on the decline )

Genral safety levels of modern car is much higher than what they were in the 80's or even 90's and there in no denying that.

[vØlvØfreak]

This one is also nice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0

@ Jaspersilus: NCAP doesn't mean anything to me. Manufacturers only focus on the things that NCAP tests, and forgett othter things.. My dad worked by Nedcar, where they made the Volvo S/V40 and the mitsibishi carisma. When the airbags in the roof came in by the end of the 90's, the Volvo roof was strong enough, but the mitsibishi roof wasn't! When the airbag came off, the roof folded. Mitsibishi said then, just make the roof stronger on the drivers side, so for LHD cars only on the left, and for RHD cars only on the right.. Why? Now just because NCAP only tested the drivers side in that time.
So NCAP safety my *** Just give me a proper German or Sweden car!
But I agree with you that I don't want to drive my old Volvo 360 into a modern car, even if it is only a small Renault modus or Toyota yaris.
Also I agree that Ford had some very bad influences on Volvo. But I can't agree that a Renault is safer. Even if a Volvo does have less points in NCAP, I think it is safer then a Renault with the maximum NCAP score, just remember the mitsibishi carisma story....

[nvdw]

One thing to note about EuroNCAP is that all the ratings are based on how well the car fares against a vehicle of similar size and mass. That other vehicle is represented by a block of aluminium. A 5 star Fiat 500 would stand up very well against a 5 star Ford Fiesta for example, but might not do so good against a 5 star BMW X5. And that's one of the things EuroNCAP doesn't address: incompatibility between vehicles. Volvo has taken issue with that one by designing the XC90 to protect smaller vehicles in a frontal impact. A beam in the lower front end makes sure the XC90 does not 'drive over' another car with a lower bonnet. The high speed in the EuroNCAP test (40 mph; the official legislation requires 35) is one of the main reasons why modern age cars, especially the small ones, are as hard as a tree. They don't have that much crumple zone, so they compensate by using the crumple zones of other objects (look at the Renault Modus in the 5th Gear vid), in this case the aluminium block or the other car. It's all checks and balances when it comes to this. Modern cars have huge A-beams (the ones next to the windscreen) to facilitate crash safety, although in real life they may actually cause accidents because they impair visibility.

The (old) TopGear vid on side impact safety is a bit off when it blames the car manufacturers; even though they have sorely lacked by not providing even the simplest solution, such as the door beams our cars are fitted with, the reality is that it is very hard to protect passengers in a high speed side impact. Just recently in Holland, a couple in a Volvo S60 died when their car was hit in the side by a Mazda 323 at approximately 30 mph. The airbags did their work, so did the car itself, and yet its occupants lost their lives, probably due to the forces put on their internal organs, such as the brain. Just goes to show that crash safety goes deeper than just star ratings. The amount of effort Volvo put and puts in for safety (even under Ford ownership) is probably only matched by Saab or Mercedes-Benz.