Want to drive the safest car on the planet?

Status
Not open for further replies.
It happens to be a Volvo?

Gee, who would've guessed...

grin.gif
 
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Let’s put it up against an F-250.

SF


The immovable concrete barrier is a bit more of an obstacle than an F-250.

If there's any doubt about crashing a bigger vehicle into a smaller one check this...
 
Ratings by committee are one thing. Data is another.

While I have no doubt that Volvo is committed to making some of the safest cars on the roads, actual data doesn't support that a Volvo is significantly safer than many other cars on the road. Look at the data on pg 2 of this IIHS report.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5203.pdf

Then look on page 5 in the midsize Luxury SUV section to find the Volvo XC60. If I understand correctly, this is data for MY 2012 thru 2014 cars and trucks.

Volvo's goal of of no deaths in a Vovlo by 2020 is very admirable. But clearly, they have a way to go still.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: BHopkins
Ratings by committee are one thing. Data is another.

While I have no doubt that Volvo is committed to making some of the safest cars on the roads, actual data doesn't support that a Volvo is significantly safer than many other cars on the road. Look at the data on pg 2 of this IIHS report.

http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr5203.pdf

Then look on page 5 in the midsize Luxury SUV section to find the Volvo XC60. If I understand correctly, this is data for MY 2012 thru 2014 cars and trucks.

Volvo's goal of of no deaths in a Vovlo by 2020 is very admirable. But clearly, they have a way to go still.





Interesting....some of those stats are not the same as their crash tests would indicate.
 
BMW built some sturdy cars back in the pre-airbag era. Cars built for US had side beams in the doors and real clunky looking 5 MPH bumpers. The monoque chassis/body had crush zones that shoved the engine underneath the cabin. As well as a transverse bulkhead behind rear seat that was the anvil for the trunk to fold into. About the only way to die in an E28 is not wear the belt and get ejected. The cabin is very stout. Airbags are helpful. I'm sure, but maintaining cabin integrity is key too. Race cars don't use airbags and drivers walk away from some pretty terrible crashes...
 
Originally Posted By: andyd
BMW built some sturdy cars back in the pre-airbag era. Cars built for US had side beams in the doors and real clunky looking 5 MPH bumpers. The monoque chassis/body had crush zones that shoved the engine underneath the cabin. As well as a transverse bulkhead behind rear seat that was the anvil for the trunk to fold into. About the only way to die in an E28 is not wear the belt and get ejected. The cabin is very stout. Airbags are helpful. I'm sure, but maintaining cabin integrity is key too. Race cars don't use airbags and drivers walk away from some pretty terrible crashes...


Good points. The hand-wringing bed wetters went nuts when I mentioned that my son's first car was going to be a 1975 2002. The thing was, I had installed new belts- and in 1975 the US standards mandated survivability of a belted driver in a 35 mph barrier crash.
Today the standards require survivability of an unrestrained driver- which I believe is an unwarranted interference with the Law of Natural Selection...
 
Originally Posted By: andyd
Race cars don't use airbags and drivers walk away from some pretty terrible crashes...


I think those things on their heads called crash helmets perform that function.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: andyd
Race cars don't use airbags and drivers walk away from some pretty terrible crashes...


I think those things on their heads called crash helmets perform that function.
\



And the hans devices.
 
Originally Posted By: CharlieBauer
Originally Posted By: andyd
Race cars don't use airbags and drivers walk away from some pretty terrible crashes...


I think those things on their heads called crash helmets perform that function.


Helmets help. But they are not by themselves why drivers walk away from accidents. Dale Earnhart Sr. was wearing a helmet.
 
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Let’s put it up against an F-250.

SF


The immovable concrete barrier is a bit more of an obstacle than an F-250.

If there's any doubt about crashing a bigger vehicle into a smaller one check this...


I take it you think the bigger car is the 1959 Chev. A 2009 Chev Malibu weighs 3640 lbs. A 1959 Chev weighs 3625 LBS. The Chev Malibu was the bigger car. What you saw was the advantage of modern car saftey design vs old car design, not anything to do with size.

Also your comment on the immovable concrete barrier is worse than an F-250. Yes but only if the F-250 was at rest. If it was travelling at towards the Volvo at the same speed as the Volvo the conservation of energy would annihilate the Volvo. The truck weights 6000 lbs and the Volvo weights 4600 lbs. Grant you if I was going to be hit by an F-250, being inside the Volvo would be better than any other car of similar weight.
 
If you can't build a durable car, at least build a safe car
thumbsup2.gif


Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Apparently, I really do NOT want to drive the safest car on the planet...

+1
 
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Originally Posted By: OneEyeJack
Originally Posted By: Snagglefoot
Let’s put it up against an F-250.

SF


The immovable concrete barrier is a bit more of an obstacle than an F-250.

If there's any doubt about crashing a bigger vehicle into a smaller one check this...


I take it you think the bigger car is the 1959 Chev. A 2009 Chev Malibu weighs 3640 lbs. A 1959 Chev weighs 3625 LBS. The Chev Malibu was the bigger car. What you saw was the advantage of modern car saftey design vs old car design, not anything to do with size.

Also your comment on the immovable concrete barrier is worse than an F-250. Yes but only if the F-250 was at rest. If it was travelling at towards the Volvo at the same speed as the Volvo the conservation of energy would annihilate the Volvo. The truck weights 6000 lbs and the Volvo weights 4600 lbs. Grant you if I was going to be hit by an F-250, being inside the Volvo would be better than any other car of similar weight.



Crash testing can never exactly duplicate real life and every possible scenario. What crash testing can do is produce vehicles that are safer in most crashes. People today with less than adequate driving skills are surviving accidents that they probably caused. Our best hope is to avoid them and finally to be able to survive.

My wife walked away from a spectacular crash in a 96 850 Volvo wagon caused by a distracted driver that would have killed her in my 84 Civic wagon. And today cars are even better.

LINK
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top