gen1 850 crash performance/general safety

zanzabar · Post by **zanzabar** » 14 Apr 2011, 16:28

Ok, general discussion question here - I know Volvo's have a great reputation for safety, etc. But modern cars, even the cheap ones, have made leaps in terms of crash safety as well as accident avoidance. I saw a youtube video recently where some english chaps crashed two cars in an offset head-on scenario, one was a mid-90s Volvo 940 and the other a late-2000s hatchback of some kind (some brand they don't offer here in the US, can't remember what it was). The small hatchback fared much better in the competition.

Now, I'd love to keep driving my '94 850 as it costs me nearly nothing to operate, but I do cart two little girls around in it multiple times a day and do some fast highway driving in traffic as well as some twisty mountain roads. Basically I'm willing to pay for all of our safety, but I want to evaluate what I'm paying for, because it's really not obvious to me what the exact tradeoffs are.

My question is this: should I consider, strictly from a saftey standpoint - BUT bounded by $$$, getting a more modern vehicle when/if this one dies? At this point my preferences would be: #1 a $2500 98 V70, #2 a $10k 2004 Mercedes C320, or #3 a $15k 2010 Scion xD. Those cars are simply representative of the general tradeoffs I'm considering - I can see being happy to drive any of them, but if saftey is not notably different between any of the three I'd rather save the dough and drive the 98 Volvo.

instarx · Post by **instarx** » 14 Apr 2011, 17:36

I saw that video too, and the Volvo definitely came out on the short end of the passenger safety contest. But it is old technology and was good for its day.

Don't extrapolate to all new cars using the test car in the video. Newer does not necessarily mean safer. The car they tested the Volvo 940 against is a leader in safety crash testing in Europe with a very stiff cage around the passengers. I believe it is the cream of the crop and exceptional even in Europe. Plus because it was extremely stiff it probably caused more damage to the Volvo than your typical non-caged US econo car.

It is just my opinion, but for safety forget the Scion Xb. It has nowhere near the safety cage the European test car did and it is extremely small. Again, newer is not automatically safer.

So that pretty much leaves the Mercedes or the Volvo V70. i suspect they will be about similar. The curb weight of the Mercedes is 3,300 lbs and the Volvo 3,250 lbs. Soooo, given the advances in side impact airbags from 1998 to 2004 I'd go with the Mercedes (although the Volvo may have SIPS, it was available in 1998 but I don't know if it was standard or an option).

volvobaggen · Post by **volvobaggen** » 14 Apr 2011, 17:57

I have seen the same video.

There is a lot more deformation of the front of the Volvo than the renault modus, but I believe the speed and energy of impact would kill humans buckled up in both cars.

I dont think even the most crashproof car would change the outcome because of the massive g-force applied to the body, imagine the displacement internal organs (i.e the heavy blood filled aorta) as you decelerate and bounce back in a split of a second.

I personally believe the stiffer renault is even more dangerous because it would seem logical that more g-force applied to passengers when the car decellerates to inertia and bounces back.

Post by **kcodyjr** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:07

I draw the line between the 940 and 850 series - very simply, the longitudinal engine leaves a big empty hole where the transverse engine becomes part of the "crash kit" across the whole width of the car.

The Renault intruded on the passenger space of the Volvo because solid anvil met hollow box, simple as that.

I'm content putting a newborn in the 2nd row center seat of a 1996 855, come November, for what it's worth.

zanzabar · Post by **zanzabar** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:13

Well, that's good to know. I'm not familiar with the 940s so didn't realize it was longitudinal.

http://forums.swedespeed.com/showthread ... er-Compact

Found the above discussion, but there just doesn't seem to be much out there on this topic. Seems odd to me. Surely somebody has studied this, no? Google search results in a few dozen references to the Volvo vs. Renault video and one with a 2009 Malibu vs. a 1959 Malibu. Hardly the enlightening example I was looking for.

zanzabar · Post by **zanzabar** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:15

kcodyjr wrote:
... a newborn ... come November...

Congrats!

Post by **jblackburn** » 14 Apr 2011, 18:42

If looking towards a new car, I would look in the direction of the "mainstream" sedans - Chevy Impala, Camry, and Accord, 2006 or newer. Not only are they good, reliable cars, they are engineered at the top of their class for safety and have airbags and side-impact protection nearly everywhere. The Merc would be a good choice safety-wise, but they're also unreliable and expensive to maintain. Scions are crap to drive and have a puny Corolla engine; I wouldn't bother.

I can tell you from personal experience that that 850 is built tough. I had a blowout from a piece of shrapanel in the road thrown up at me that sent my car into a skid and up over a curb at close to 40 mph. NOTHING was harmed except a bent control arm, the blown tire, and a bent rim. I also slid into a snowplow on a steep, icy downhill sideways at 5 mph. The car took the impact from the huge plow in the rear quarter panel, and it didn't do anything besides dent it and scrape the paint.

Both impacts probably would have totaled my 1988 Accord - I was clipped at <5 mph in that car by a Ford Expedition and it crumpled up like a tin can and caused $900 worth of damage - nearly what the entire car itself was worth.

New cars are a lot safer - even a 1990's Merc is only a 2-star car by today's Euro crash standards. But the 850's were at the top of any car class for 1990's safety standards, and still would fair well today. In their recent safety campaign showcase, Volvo did a demonstration themselves with a 1998 V70 vs a brand-new model V70 - see if you can find that somewhere. I think they basically said that the 1998 would fair as a 3-star car today due to a little passenger compartment deformation in a frontal collision. Honestly, there's no other older car I'd rather be in in a crash.

Post by **kcodyjr** » 14 Apr 2011, 19:23

Honestly, a new Ford is about as safe as they get, too. Currently, the Taurus is tied with the S80 for safest car on the road.

You knew there had to be a reason why Ford bought Volvo, crapped 'em up, and then sold it to China.

Post by **1997volvo850** » 14 Apr 2011, 20:08

I've seen this video. My understanding is the Volvo front end is designed to crumple to absorb
an impact. The Renault seems much more rigid and jerks around drastically during impact.
If you watch carefully you see the Renault's passenger dummy's head fly out the window due
to the impact.

I believe the video post-crash analysis states the Volvo passenger's legs are likely broken (if they
actually survive) yet they don't mention the driver and passenger in the safer Renault only suffered
broken necks. But the Renault does look better after the accident.

It seems crashing a rigid vehicle into a vehicle designed to crumple is going to make the later look
worse after the crash. But I'm not sure this is a bad thing....

I would like to see a manufacture drive their new vehicle off a cliff like the Volvo 850 crash test.

I have to agree with Justin that sticking with mainstream sedans Chevy/Toyota/Ford/Honda is probably
a good idea.

Post by **kcodyjr** » 14 Apr 2011, 20:50

zanzabar: thanks!

1997volvo850: not sure if it's a bad thing...

You're exactly right. The fact that crumpling goes deeper, also means it TAKES LONGER. Since force equals mass times acceleration, and acceleration is change in speed per unit time, the occupant experiences lesser forces than they otherwise might have. Thus, whatever damage the vehicle takes, the passenger didn't.

This is the most fundamental point of modern crash safety design, and a Volvo cornerstone since about forever.

In the case of that crash, I do believe the Renault's occupants were killed instantly, a front passenger in the 960 suffered broken legs, and any other occupant in the Volvo walked away unscathed. I've seen and experienced a few of those myself, from the inside and outside of various Volvos.

When I rear-ended an 850 into a Grand Marquis at 20, my coffee did not spill. The fascia was toast.

When I ran my first car, a 242 Turbo Coupe, off the road at 60+ and down the length of one of those low New England style stone walls, I was 17 and had neglected my seat belt, and walked away without a mark on me. The engine was still running, by the way.

Most recently, I saw (and heard and felt) an S40 rear end a stopped Camry at 50. The front end of the S40 was mildly compressed but rebuildable, while the Camry was nonexistent behind the rear window. The two young ladies in that hapless Toyota stayed in their seats (in hysterics) until lifted out by paramedics, while the family of four was out of their Volvo and sitting on the side of the road faster than I could dial 911. On their own steam, all four of them. Mom alone had injuries, a few knocked teeth, and Mom alone wasn't wearing her seat belt. The teenage girl paced incessantly until the paramedics made her sit her butt down. I do believe a rear passenger in that Camry would have been critically injured or worse.

I also mentioned that S40 looked rebuildable; that would be a full front clip, and isn't a very good idea. This is key: you can only trust the structure for one high impact event. This is also called the beer can principle. Take an empty and stack some weights on top. If the can is straight, it can hold many pounds, even though it's a featherweight piece of hollow aluminum. Now put the slightest ding in one side - see how many fractions of an ounce it'll take to crumple it completely.

Bottom line, I'll take a Volvo 850,S70,V70,S60,S80 over anything else on wheels; a military edition HMMWV would be the minimum acceptable alternative from a crash safety point of view. You could give me a brand new fully loaded Benz and I'd sell it for a pair of used Volvos.

In the interest of a balanced view, it's true that newer Volvos trump the 850 for side impacts; the 850 doesn't have the high side or any rear side curtains, and that ugly looking hip down the body does serve to create more crumple time.