posted by
someone claiming to be Punxsutawney Phil
on
Sun Feb 16 13:42 CST 2003 [ RELATED]
|
|
I posted this link below, but I think it might be worth a thread all by itself.
IIHS/HDLI recently published an 40mph offset barrier crash test on a 1983 Volvo 240. This is the insurance test that's "above and beyond" DOT gov't requirements and tends to drive most manufacturers crazy.
See the pictures of the 240's passenger compartment.
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fratings/ce/html/02003.htm
There are also 40mph offset test results available for most recent Volvos, S40 thru S80 in fact most recent cars in general.
http://www.carsafety.org/
-Punxsutawney Phil
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
No doubt other makes are doing much better in the IIHS and other tests. Even marginal brands like Suzuki and Kia are getting great scores on some of these tests than new Volvos'. Problem is are these other makes truly interested in safety or just building to pass the test. Things that are not tested but may well be in the future are roll-overs, rear end bashing (fuel tank test), side impack (they are testing now). Volvo has been building, testing and studying safety improvements in many areas that no one ever tested. Some of the cars that are doing well in tests still show poor in safety when you see them in actual accidents. Ever see a Taurus that was in a side impact, or Accords flattened, split in two, gone up in flames from a rear ender? You have to ask yourself would you rather be in a new Accord, Camry, Taurus vs 240 in a severe rollover, straight into a tree, rear ender or side impact? How about any of the newer models vs a new S80?
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Phil,
You must be hell bent on proving that the older models Volvos are unsafe, polluters, etc.
This particular example, which may or may not be representative of others on the road, obviously fared quite poorly in the lab. But it is a well documented fact that in real world accidents, the 240 has one of the lowest fatality rates ever. I think that is more meaningful and more useful information, unless of course you plan on driving a 1983 240 (condition unknown) into a solid concrete barrier at 40mph.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
I'm not Hell-bent on anything! In the thread below:
http://www.brickboard.com/OPINIONS/index.htm?id=589704
Towards the end of the thread the assertion is made by C. Wagner that a 240 is safer than a late model Camry.
The 240 crashtest wasn't even what I was looking for. I was lookin for "driver death rate" data for the 240. The 240 crashtest appeared, "deus ex machina" from the search engine at the IIHS website.
Now, I'd SEEN the IIHS claims - death and injury - data for the late model Volvos (850-70) vs. the late model Camry. (It's also available for the 9xx). I also know that the 240 was always considered the "gold standard" for safety so it was included in the first batch of 4 cars that DOT/NHTSA tested in their 35mph full-frontal barrier test back in 1979.
The 240 received one star (out of five) something that most observers, including this poster, found implausible. NHTSA did a re-test of the 240 in 1982, that one received 4 stars for the driver and 5 for the passenger, by the 1985 240 they were up to 5 and 5. Again, those were full frontal barrier and 35mph tests.
IIHS chose 40mph and offset because it was felt that it more realistically reflected what happens in the real world vs. the DOT 35mph full frontal barrier test.
There's a common folkloric belief that the 240 was and is the safest automobile ever. Whie I've always been skeptical of that claim, I never thought the 240 would perform as badly in a contemporary crashtest as it did. While the 240 was certainly among the very safest of cars at the time it was designed, it appears that many other manufacturers have improved their own results to the point of comfortably surpassing the 240. Volvo has also significantly improved it's results since they designed the 240.
The only assertions that I'd make are that 1.) people who are concerned with safety appear to buy Volvos (and Saabs, and Mercedes and minivans) and are responsible for fewer accidents and people who are clueless and don't think things through buy Daewoos (and Kias, and Hyundais) 2.) lower-powered cars such as the Volvo 240 are involved in fewer accidents, something inurance underwiters have said for years and 3.) it's unlikely that a group of engineers using sliderules in the mid-1960s could design a 3000 pound car that's significantly safer than a 3000 pound car that a group of engineers using CAD and computer crash simulations could design in the 1990s. That is, if they wanted to.
Many other manufacturers still don't. Caveat emptor, as they say.
-Punxsutawney Phil
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Phil,
No one would argue that the saftey development of other models besides Volvos and Mercedes has come a long way in the last decade or so. Imagine that the 240 was design from the late 60's that so surpassed anyting else it took until 93 before a non swedish car came to run parallel in the form of the awful Taurus.
I know that much of this comes from very well thought out work done in modeling and so forth. But what the model does is make such research cheaper, not necessarily better. How often has stuff that has been designed beautifully on the drawing board come of the maufacturing line into reality to be a huge failure? TONS. One will learn as much from flinging a car off a cliff and then seeing what REALLY happens, than simualting it all on a computer. Frankly, after walking through junkyards I have, and seeing Volvos literally go off a cliff and drop 35 feet straight into pavement, and then having the passangers walk away, but seeing SUV driving flip once and die, or watching someone be burried after their 855 folded in half crushing them, says all I need to know.
My impression from the reading and so forth is that cars aren't really safer-in that you are more likely to survive-they have been designed with lots of nerf material and gizmos in the hope that you will not have as many injuries. The G forces the body expereiences in a 2000 Volvo when crashing head on at 30 MPH are higher than the 240. These things make a differnce. And airbag may keep you from hitting the wheel and breaking your nose, but the brains still slosh, and slosh even harder. Of course, other than a bag for the passenger in a car, and maybe a bag thatdrops down to keep a tall person from smakcing the glass in a t-bone, I think they are not very useful.
Also keep in mind, the same studies in 81 the rated the Saab 900 a very dangerous car rated the Chevette a 4 star. What was the reality?
Yes, how we drive makes a differnce, and that is a factor. But that assumes all drivers are at fault for the accidents they are in. Those stats come from number of accidents involved, not cars on the road, and the reality is the death rate is the lowest.Place some of those fancy gizmos in the 244, and you'de hear all the raves about "how safe"they are again.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Here's the 850/S70 crash results.
Now what do you think?
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle%5Fratings/ce/html/95005.htm
-Sam
--
'87 744 Ti 173K (mine!), '91 940 SE 208K(mom's), '85 Mercedes-Benz 380SE (dad's) 197K
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
I read a long time ago that in between 1979 and 1982, Volvo redesigned the seat belts in the 200-series. The supposed problem in 1979 was that the seat belts were too long and stretched too much, allowing the crash test dummies to hit the interior of the car too hard (remember that this was before seat belt pretensioners and such things), even though the passenger compartment held up well.
Perhaps if someone with a 1979 or older and 1982 or newer 200-series car can pull out the seat belts to see if the newer one has shorter seat belts than the older one, it can be found whether this story is the true one (and if it is, whether the 1980 and 1981 models have the older or newer version of the seat belts).
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Okay, so it's a deformable alumnium barrier...slight exaggeration on my part.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
If you replace the 02003 with 02004 in the URL above, you'll get a crash test of a 1986 Dodge Caravan.
Is there any place on the IIHS web site where the crash tests of these older models is pointed to?
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
That's an very severe crash. Most of the test crashes are done at 35 mph now. To take such an old design and compare it to todays cars is too much of a stretch for me. I wonder how much rust had degraded the car's structure?
--
Warren Bain - '86 744Ti M46 >290Kmi, '99 V70Glt > 45K mi, '96 965 >100Kmi Wifemobile near Manassas Va.. Check the 700/900 FAQ via the 'features' pull down menu.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Actually, 40mph offset is used in today's EuroNCAP as well as the IIHS. The US NHTSA does 35mph full front and side crash tests.
They probably got the car for free or very cheap and wanted to compare how one of the best old (1970s / 1980s) designs for crash protection would compare with more recent designs just to see the progress that has been made.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
I wonder how much of an impact the diesel had on how this car crashed? Do you imagine a car with the shorter B23 may have done better? Also, what sort of structural degradation is a 20 year old car going to undergo? Not that the last point really matters, b/c I'm sure the ratings would be consistent with other examples still on the road.
--
Jonathan Knauer - 90 with 277.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
In a full-on frontal collision (90 degrees to an object) it might have had some impact on, well... the impact.
However, the offset crash clearly caused the wheel and suspension assembly to intrude into the passenger compartment. I have a feeling that a more uniform hit would have resulted in much cleaner crash test scores.
Overall the 240 is still a very safe car, and considering the company that it is keeping (cars that are specifically designed with newer safety regulations in mind) it did very well. Especially considering the lack of airbag. The airbag would've been a realistic choice for a test vehicle because there are so many airbag-equipped 240s on the road now. That would've probably improved the head/neck scores. But who knows... maybe someone there was interested in testing the 240 in light of it's legendary safety. They might've gotten the 240 test car for free... so that's what they used.
--
chris herbst, near chicago
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Actually, I just went out and measured the difference in engine clearance between my '84 diesel and my '90 gas burner.
The diesel had 1" to the firewall and 4" to the radiator.
The gas burner had 1 1/2 " to the firewall and 10 1/2 " to the radiator.
I may be wrong but it seems like even in the offset crash test, that extra 7" of clearance on the gas burner would allow the energy of the crash to be absorbed over a greater area of folding metal at the front of the car, where on the diesel , the folding metal comes very quickly to an immovable object(the engine) so the remaining energy would then have to be absorbed directly to the parts on the drivers side.
Any thoughts?
--
-------Robert, '90 240 wagon, '84 240 diesel , '80 245 diesel
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
It wouldn't be surprising if someone gave it to them because it overheated and died and there was no mechanic around who was willing to try fixing it.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Here is a comparison.between the stats of a 94-96 Camry (which is basically a 92-93 with dual airbags).
The Camry did better in "Overall", and "Structural safety cage".
It also did better in injury categories:
"Head/Neck"
"Leg/foot Left"
"Dummy kinematics"
Some of that might have been because the Volvo 240 was a non-airbag model, and the Camry had driver's side airbag that kept the dummy's head/neck restrained.
The 97-01 Camry was a "Best Pick", and understandably so.
While the 240 is no doubt a safe car, the 850 scores better (measurement and weight very similar). However it is worth mentioning, that the 240 still outdoes a lot of current year cars, which is something of a statement about overbuilt it was in that department.
Scroll down to see the comparison.
|
83 Volvo 240 |
94 Toyota Camry |
Curb weight |
3067 lbs |
3056 lbs |
wheelbase |
104 in |
103 in |
length |
189 in |
188 in |
width |
67 in |
70 in |
engine |
2.4L 6 cyl |
2.2L 4 cyl |
--
chris herbst, near chicago
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
A better comparison would be with an 83 Camry.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
I believe that even the ID tags in the later diesel cars were labeled "244", "245", etc. (Not "264" or "265".) I could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure Volvo dumped the "260" designation in the early 80s despite the existence of the 6cyl VW/Audi diesel.
Volvo's website lists the "83 240GL Diesel Sedan".
Similarly, I remember the 740TD being ID-Tagged "744", not "764". And so on.
Anyway, it's an issue of nomenclature since the vehicle is fundamentally the same. The naming convention would call for it to be a 264, but the general reference to the 200 series Volvo is 240. Even the curb weight is just about the same. (or within ~ 100#)
--
chris herbst, near chicago
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
nmi
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
The US site refers to it the 240GL Diesel. I imagine that between IIHS, Volvo, and the vehicle ID tag, they arrived at the 240 name. I suspect the test car was probably badged "DIESEL" but it could've been badged 240 and it would've still been the same platform.
Probably if they had used the "proper" naming convention of '264', nobody would've known what it was (well, except for us Volvo people). Also it would probably skew the search feature of their site.
--
chris herbst, near chicago
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
The car that was tested was a 260 diesel (inline VW-derived six). Same chassis as the 4cyl cars, though.
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
Actually, it was a 260 (6-cylinder diesel, probably one whose engine overheated one too many times).
The result isn't too unexpected, since the design dates back to 1975 (or 1967), presumably when offset crash testing wasn't even imagined. But the sad thing is that there are vehicles sold today on much newer designs that did worse (GM minivans, Ford F150 pickup, Chevrolet Blazer).
How did you find that crash test result? Are there any other results for old designs (older than the early to mid 1990s)?
|
|
-
posted by
someone claiming to be
on
Wed Dec 31 18:00 CST 1969 [ RELATED]
|
|
I wasn't looking for the test, it just popped out of the IIHS search engine when I was looking for death and injury claims information about the 240.
Probably the idea behind the tests was to see how much progress (if any) has been made since the 1980s. I'll take a guess that the 240 and the Chrysler minivan (that you found) were chosen because they were statistically among the safest cars from the 1980s when they were new, based on insurance claims data. I'll also guess that they were 2 models that it was possible to obtain rust free examples of relatively cheaply (so the Volvo diesel). I haven't heard any IIHS presentations about these two tests of older cars on the cable news channels, or any headlines at the IIHS website, but I thought they were very interesting. IIHS is usually a publicity hound.
Maybe it wasn't unentirely unexpected that a 1983 240 wouldn't crashtest as well as a 2002 S80 (although it probably IS a surprise to some of the 240 devotees here!) but I surely didn't expect it to do as badly as it did, by which I mean the obvious deformation and intrusion of the passenger compartment in the crashtest picture.
-Punxsutawney Phil
|
|
|
|
|
