Seems like the S40 didn't do all that well in the most recent Insurance Institute side impact crash with a SUV. It did receive an acceptable, but the Saab 9.3 walked away with the honors. thought that the Volvo Suits were a bit condescending about it.... something to the effect: "our cars are designed for real-world crashes that vary across the board. This test doesn't reflect the real world." The point they missed, of course, (or maybe they didn't) is that you have to conduct standardized test in order to provide a fair comparison. To just dismiss this as not valid, it pretty arrogant. Perhaps since the results have no meaning, they'd care to subject themselves to an SUV (or even the surrogate used in the tests) side impact while sitting in the driver's seat. Perhaps we could allow them the choice of either a S40 or a Saab 9.3!
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 105K

What rating system does the Insurance Institute using in rating a car? If it's repair cost, I can understand the low rating. Multiple airbags, and crumple zones will drive up the repair cost, but may be an inverse proportion to safety. As long as the "cage" stays intact, I don't care what happens to the rest. My only concern now is that my insurance company will now increase my rates given this information.

The results are also not surprising given the size/weight of the S40, and the size/weight of an average SUV. I'd like to see how the larger models faired in the test.

No, actually an insurance company's biggest worry is injury and death to an occupant, not the vehicle. The tests only looked at car damage as it related to insult to the driver (in this case an average female driver and a person riding in the back seat behind the driver, using crash test dummies, of course

The S40 was in a 'comparison' test with other similar models, although you certainly might argue that there were others in the group that should be classified as a larger car. The important point, however, is that the rating is criteron based not norm referenced. in other words they're ratings hve nothing to do with the relative differences between the cars tested. They are grouped by level of safety. results. Recall that I said the Saab 9.2, not a particularly large car, came out on top of the heap, so to speak.

The very point of the testing was to see how these 'mid-sized sedans would fair against a larger SUV that is likely to hit the side at a higher point than a normal car.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 105K

http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/details/midmod_side.htm

I'm confused as to why the Torso rating for the 9-3 was considered "good" but the S40 was "marginal". The two seem pretty close to me.

I'm sure the XC90 will test better than either the S40 or the 9-3.

-BTC

Good observation. I don't kow the metrics of these tests, but my guess is that the scale is such that what may look like small incremental differences are vast differences in consequences. If you've recall lab reports from your last physical exam, it is hard to predict what is normal and what abnormal, as the scales are not equivalent. and change from test to test. So in one 2 to 3 points is an alert in one test, while 20 or 30 points is normal in another.

As for the XC90, it's comparing apples and oranges. The test ws very focused, that is on the injury effect of when a SUV hit a mid-sized car. It was likely prompted by the incredible proliferation of SUVs on the road today and therefore the institute wanted to know are they involved in more side impact injury or death.
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 105K

shouldn't we all just be saying that suv's are dangerous and requiring they have lower front & rear bumpers....or am i being stupid....

otherwise lets crash a big rig into the side of an suv and see how well THAT does....

kind of bored with all this crash testing...if you come nose to nose with a big rig your loosing...if u come face to face with a 940 in a mini...well lets say i wana be in the 940...

I think you've got it! The Insurance Institute, however, knows that data counts (at least they're hoping for that), because for them it cuts both ways. Who wants to insure a behemoth SUV when you're that much more likely to cause serious bodily injury or death to just about any mid-sized car you wack?
--
John Shatzer, '97 V90 @ 110K