Volvo RWD 200 Forum

INDEX FOR 2/2026(CURRENT) INDEX FOR 11/2000 200 INDEX

[<<]  [>>]


THREADED THREADED EXPANDED FLAT PRINT ALL
MESSAGES IN THIS THREAD




  REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

NTSB (or whomever) data 200 1982

Well, I tried to post this last week, but apparently I hit the "140/160" filter instead of the "200." Anyway, my question is:

We all know that the 240 is a "very safe" car. Does anyone know of a source of documentation to prove this in quantifiable terms? I assume there is some criteria, such as deaths per 100,000 passenger miles, or whatever, right? Does anyone know where to get this sort of data? Maybe the NTSB web site . . . ?








  •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

    Re: NTSB (or whomever) data 200 1982

    There is an Institute for Highway Safety study from about 1993 that looked at driver deaths per 100,000 registered vehicles for the model years 1988-1992. Some hundreds of car and truck models were studied. The study concluded that two Volvo models led the field for safety as measured by driver deaths. The 240 came in first at ZERO deaths followed by the 700 series at 0.7 deaths per 100,000 (I think the latter is correct but it is from memory. The rest of the top ten were all airbag equipped cars. At the very bottom of the safety list with 36 deaths per 100,000 cars was that fiberglass/all engine, no body wonder, the Corvette. I have a copy of a summary of that study that I cut out of Parade years ago. Don't give me handwaving arguments about Driver demographics, ZERO deaths, is an indisputable hard number and speaks volumes. Together with Volvos invention of the 3-point safety harness, safety glass, collapsible steering columns, padded dash, diagonal circuit brakes, submarining engine and on and on, does any informed person actually dispute Volvos supremacy in the field of safety?








    •   REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE    PRINT   SAVE 

      Re: NTSB (or whomever) data 200 1982

      Thanks for the info.

      Do you know if the Institute for Highway Safety does such studies on a regular basis, or was this a one-shot deal?

      I know there has been an on-going debate on the 'Board about the relative merits (in terms of crash-worthiness) of the pre-1983 bumpers vs. the 1983 & later bumpers . . . It would be interesting to see some hard data to support one side of the argument or the other. Clearly, if you bumped into something with a 4' x 6' x 4" steel plate for a bumper, you'd probably win most of the time (although you'd probably have to use a navagation aid similar to Lindbergh's). However, if you didn't bump into things (I think most of us usually try not to), no bumper at all would suffice.

      I'm not trying to stir anything up, I just like data. Gives me warm fuzzies (my wife thinks engineers are boring . . . I have no idea why). (And no wife/warm fuzzy comments from the peanut gallery!)







<< < > >>



©Jarrod Stenberg 1997-2022. All material except where indicated.


All participants agree to these terms.

Brickboard.com is not affiliated with nor sponsored by AB Volvo, Volvo Car Corporation, Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. or Ford Motor Company. Brickboard.com is a Volvo owner/enthusiast site, similar to a club, and does not intend to pose as an official Volvo site. The official Volvo site can be found here.