Hi Chaps,
Id just like to say that my favourite response so far is from nvdw, a balanced and knowledgeable view point, hes got a point about ncap as they can take or give a star just for safety stickers, and hes right to say vehicles are tested against themselves, so a modus wouldnt do too well against a 5 series, also hes correct about the XC90 having a lower front cross member to stop it riding up over the other vehicle, but theres still the problem of the weight of an xc90, have a look at the youtube vid of the xc90 vs ncap 5 star golf, the volvo parks in the Golf windscreen!

I *feel* safer in the volvo compared to the little peugeot 206 i had before, probably not like.

As for the volvo in the 5th gear vid having an engine, I'm not entirely sure but i don't think it does, I cant see the actual block anywhere, there are parts like the header tank and airbox but don't think there is owt else there. If it was in there, where did it go, bulkhead doesn't look deformed enough for an engine to have passed through. Although then the question of where does the steam come from if there is no hot coolant coming out? actually i don't think the engines would have been running so why the steam? Obv smoke off the airbags from the modus. Plus i don't like all the glass that explodes out the modus glass roof.

As for 5th gear setting it up - I wouldn't put it past them. I hate Top Gear as everything they do is staged to some degree.

Watch where you're going and don't crash.

Hence,nullifying any worries you have over NCAP ratings.

Easy.really.

sven360 wrote:Watch where you're going and don't crash.

Hence,nullifying any worries you have over NCAP ratings.

Easy.really.

'the best type of crash is one that doesn't happen'

Hi Chaps,
once again young Nimminz has to have the last word, I wonder if the recent cold snap has forced him to don his winter T shirt yet,he is a Durham boy after all!

My opinion on crashes is a 300 is going to be 80% as safe as the modern plastic boxes. That's not the point though. I'm into 80s cars and I only really like driving 80s cars. Out of all the cars from that era the 300 is one of the best for safety. Sure I'm better off in the modus but fuck the boring french wankstain.

Speedy88 wrote:My opinion on crashes is a 300 is going to be 80% as safe as the modern plastic boxes. That's not the point though. I'm into 80s cars and I only really like driving 80s cars. Out of all the cars from that era the 300 is one of the best for safety. Sure I'm better off in the modus but fuck the boring french wankstain.

Ahmen

The 5th gear test and above youtube video are rather unfair. Volvo practically invented car safety, the reason the new cars are 'safer' is because of Volvo and the money they put in to their development. The engineering level of accuracy has just increased due to technology improvements, if Volvo had that technology in those days they would have used it. If they are going to be fair then they should have done an older Volvo against a newer Volvo, is it biased presentation.

The 340 in the video I doubt a modern car would come off much better, thats a pretty high impact, note that the door is pretty straight thanks to the door bars they are campaigning for, although it may not have helped the driver.

In 20 years the current standard of cars will be just as behind in safety. A 300 is not 'unsafe' for your children, it is bad driving decisions that cause accidents and they are rare. And the chance of a dangerous accident that an ncap 5star car can save you from and an older Volvo, not, is even rarer. If you want a safe car fit the best tyres you can find and always scan the road for risks.

Ride_on wrote:The 5th gear test and above youtube video are rather unfair.

No, it's life, where we normally don't choose the opponent in a car crash - or do we?

Actually, I find 5th Gear's crash videos give a lot of insight into car safety, beyond what we are fed through EuroNCAP, the manufacturers and our own prejudices. This video debunks the myth that a classic body-on-frame 4x4 always 'wins' in a head-on collision, while this is definitely untrue. This video shows that a five star car (in this case a Fiat 500) does not 'win' in a prang with a four star Audi Q7, even though it holds itself pretty well here. No standardised test can predict the real outcome of a real crash situation.

In the Audi vs 500 test you can see how the Audi keeps going forward while the 500 stops and goes backwards in a split second, similar to the 940 vs modus test. I still maintain the best seat in the house would be in the rear of the 940 than anywhere in the modus!

Nice to see so much activity on the forum again!

good bit of banter haha

I don't mean its unfair in crash result prediction, its unfair from an publicity/advertising point of view. Its in insulting to Volvo's and they don't deserve it, this is a Volvo forum afterall

The 200/7000/900s where always know to crumple severely in crashes with smaller cars, and despite common misconception, they are actually quite light (maybe 250kg more than a 360). They probably do crumple too much and protect too well at lower energies, this is what I mean about engineering accuracy, they just needed to dial up the stiffness a bit. At some point as collision energy rises the human body cannot be decelerated slowly enough to avoid severe injury anyway, so it depends how long the car is in front of you the distance the occupants have to decelerate, the other car and so on. In some ways the Volvo protected the Renault in the crash, as already mentioned the occupants maybe worse off if both cars were Renaults. As ncap increases stiffness in cars do they increase the stiffness of their impacters?

Jaspersilus wrote:Hi Chaps,
once again young Nimminz has to have the last word, I wonder if the recent cold snap has forced him to don his winter T shirt yet,he is a Durham boy after all!

Wheyaye