Fifth Gear Crash Test Next Week

[Philip Fisher]

Originally Posted by dodgyken

Shame they didnt crash the Volvo into a P(r)ious

Think the Volvo would have still come off worse...
http://www.theaa.com/allaboutcars/nc...ate=2004-06-01

Regards

[LankyTim]

Just drill a hole in the top of the sills and chassis and fill them full of concrete. That should ward off any errant French car.

[dodgyken]

Perhaps of interest:

S80

S40

Modus

Even the S80 which is only 7 years old would stuggle to deal with the Modus. I think Renault know a thing or 2 about safety

[capt jack]

What matters isn't how crumpled the cars were, but how well the occupants were protected. Sure the Volvo sustained more physical damage than the Frog, but this isn't relevant. Both vehicles would have been write-offs anyway.

It's a shame we had to put up with excess air-minutes of a bearded wally on an ego trip, and no reasoned analysis of the 'injuries' sustained.

It seemed to me that it was the pretensioner belts and airbags in the little Frog that did most to protect the occupants. The old J-reg Volvo didn't have pretensioner belts or airbags. That is why newer Volvos have these additional protective devices. The TV presenter dwelt on the lower limb damage to the Volvo driver, but there was only a brief shot of the other driver's legs - and they looked pretty squashed to me too.

Also, the little Frog flew literally took off and bounced through 180 degrees, the Volvo stayed on track. I'd suggest that in a real smash this would make the smaller car more likely to roll, or suffer a secondary collision.

The show claimed to represent the choice for a potential buyer between the £650 Volvo and the £4.5K Renault - but this is nonsense. Who goes shopping with a budget of either £650 or £4.5K to spend?

What would have been a more realistic comparison would have been firstly to pitch a £4.5K second-hand Volvo against the £4.5K second-hand Froggie. This would have put the Renault up against a 99-ish V70. The V70 would then also have had more modern materials and design, air-bags, ABS, pretensioner belts etc etc. I don't doubt the V70's occupants would have come off significantly better.

As a second part of the test, they then should have run the £650-worth of 940 into £650-worth of 15-year old Renault. I reckon that would have been a one-sided contest too! Mind you, you'd probably need three or four 15-year old Renaults before you could achieve a combined value of £650!

The point is that if any of us are unlucky enough to be involved in a smash then we don't get to choose what we hit. People cause crashes, not cars. By choosing and driving a Volvo, the Volvo owner is already demonstrating an awareness of and commitment to car safety. Over the years, Volvo marketing has seen to it that Volvos are more likely to be driven by mature responsible people.

Will I go out and trade my old V70 for a newer Renault? Never!

By the way, Sharpe is on the telly just now - now there's a man with a much more acceptable attitude to anything French!

Cheers

Jack

[dodgyken]

A little over the £4500 froggy budget - but who cares!!

A Safer Volvo

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

It is worth noting that the euro NCAP is not necessarily a good test (a claim that Volvo makes).
Car makers are designing cars that will do well in the crash tests.

That does not necessarily make them safe in real life crashes.
As far as Volvo are concerned they have their own tests designed in-house upon which they base their own designs.
These don't necessarily match the NCAP tests and their cars don't always do well in the NCAP tests.

But Volvo's are safer than any 5* NCAP winner.
I would put my life on that.

Ohh yes, If I was given the choice of a mondeo or a V90? Mondeo - barge pole - sterilised - wouldn't touch.
Older mondeos had sponge bumbers???!!!! Yea, that will stop lots!!
Ohh... I have a V90!!! That answers that then!!

Des. . .

[capt jack]

Whatever else their faults and transgressions our Constabewlerys know a thing or two about car wrecks and how to survive them.

So when's the last time you ever saw a chariot with ECILOP on the front, and RENAULT MODUS on the back?

Jack

[John_C]

LOL chill guys, no-one is suddenly saying Volvos are inherently unsafe, the only thing this showed was that a modern car with a high safety rating mashes a 1991 car in a high speed offset collision - that's it, nothing more. Measured against their peers I have no doubt the cars stand up very well.

capt jack the Modus suffered almost zero cabin deformation, the driver's legs would have been beaten up for sure maybe even broken depending on how they flailed around but not crushed. He/She could have at worst been lifted out of the Modus, not something you could say of the hapless 940 driver.

I do have some nasty personal experience to add here mind you. I've head-on crashed a 1998 MkII Mondeo (2 1/2 NCAP stars) into a 2004 Honda Jazz (4 stars) with a closing speed of about 40 and I can assure you in my personal experience bigger isn't always better and while the NCAP methodology is certainly flawed there does seem to be something in it.

After the crash it was hard to open the driver's door, the a-pillar had a crease in it and thank god I had taken my feet off the clutch and brake or I would have had some nasty leg injuries as they'd moved significantly. The Honda looked nearly as bad externally but again the passenger cabin had no intrusion, the doors opened easily, the pedals hadn't moved. And please, no twaddle about "what do you expect from a Ford", it had the same crash test rating as the Audi A4 and a better one than the Merc C-class so the brand really isn't relevant. In retrospect do I wish I'd been in a 1998 4*NCAP S40, you betcha.

Do I wish I'd had enough driving skills and passive safety features to never have had the accident in the first place - even more so.

There have been exceptional safety improvements in the last ten years, without question, but we as drivers have a huge part to play and let's not forget that.

Cheers,
John

[Paul Fowler]

Evening all.

Having just watched the latest programme I have to say that I think they are sending out the wrong impression. They used a 15 year old Volvo to crash into a modern car. It was always going to be the new car that came off best. Technology has moved on so far in 15 years they must have known that it would make a difference. If the vehicles had of been the same age then I would bet my life on the Volvo, no contest. Why don't they try vehicles of the same age, if they did I believe we would all be driving larger cars and I know for a fact that the Renault would of been toast. I have worked for Volvo for 12 years now and I know what is inside the New Ones. Watch next year when Volvo launch 'Safety Beyond Stars'. These TV programmes really get me annoyed and it always seems to be at Volvo's expense.

[CTCNetwork]

Hi,

Originally Posted by Paul Fowler

These TV programmes really get me annoyed and it always seems to be at Volvo's expense.

When aiming for a target, it is usual to aim for the top.
And Volvo have the reputation.
Renault, on the other hand (along with a number of other manufacturers), have nothing to lose as their reputation is pretty squatt.

As mentioned, is renault sponsoring the program, or is there an ulterior motive for doing this.???

Des. . .