5th Gear: Interesting Crash Test
 

It's an opinion I've seen expressed on here before, big, heavy, well made older cars are safer than modern small cars. So which would you pick in a head-on collision, a Volvo 940 wagon or a Renault 4 door city car?

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/k3ygYUYia9I"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/k3ygYUYia9I" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

What's the deal with Volvos? Look what happens when a VV Vanagon hits a Volvo.

http://www.vanagon.com/info/safety/volvo-crash/

Ouch!

I'd take the renault, as long as i had really good insurance coverage. I think the difference is they use softer ductile materials in the "crumple" zone of modern vehicles, which absorb the energy transfer of impact that you do not want your neck being inflicted with. The downfall of using these softer impact absorbing materials is that chances are that the car will be easier to total in a collision.
A good example was when i was rear ended by a late model chevy cavalier, and i was in a 1985 mercedes 300SD. The merc is a heavy diesel engined all steel boat size of a car. He totaled his car into the back of the merc. What was nice is that the rear bumper just slightly buckled and you'd have to look close to see it. The part that sucks is that my neck was soar for a couple of days and i had a bad headache. My body felt all of it, but the car needed little to no repair. The cavalier on the other hand was totaled and had the imprint of the rear bumper of the merc embedded into it's mashed up front end. The driver on the cavalier was perfectly fine, and in decent spirits considering the circumstances.

Without a question i would rather have the reanult. I don't really care how bad the front of the car is bashed up in an accident, as long as the passenger compartment stays intact, which it does with the reanult and it clearly didn't do as well with the Volvo.

I think it was on a "what car to buy my teen daughter" thread that someone suggested that an old Volvo wagon was far safer than one of these new fangled small cars. What some people don't understand is that modern cars are designed to sacrifice themselves to absorb the impact energy. That's where crumple zones come into play. Some people think it's a conspiracy for cars to be totalled after even a minor accident, but in reality it's just good engineering. As stated above, it's all about keeping the passenger compartment intact.

With our fairly high crash standards, I wonder if many older cars would even be capable of passing?