Crash Test Safety

[randywebb]

We all believe that the 911 is a very strong car -- but that belief is based on anecdotal evidence. To see if there wer any data, I checked with both the Ins. Inst. for Hwy Safety and with NHTSA (the feds). Neither did any crash tests of 911s prior to 1990.

Naturally, the 911 complied with US safety stds. -- which changed periodically. I don't know what changed when (except for the side impact door beams, sometime in 1973).

Here is a handy site for federal regulations (CFR) promulgated by the agency:
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_02/49cfr571_02.html



There might be some data collected by safety agencies for other countries (Germany for example), and the factory surely has some, but I've never seen it. Here are some sites for other countries that NHTSA sent me (note, we'd be looking for historical data, not current data):

There are other organizations throughout the world who also crash test vehicles. NHTSA, in addition to its frontal and side-impact crash tests, is the only organization in the world that currently rates vehicles on rollover resistance. Vehicle crash test ratings can also be found at the following
addresses:
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS):
http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ratings.htm
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Link=http://www.hwysafety.org/vehicle_ratings
/ratings.htm>
European New Car Assessment Program (Euro NCAP):
http://www.euroncap.com
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Link=http://www.euroncap.com/>
Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP):
http://www.aaa.asn.au/ancap.htm
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Link=http://www.aaa.asn.au/ancap.htm>
New Car Assessment Japan:
http://www.nasva.go.jp/english
<http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/exit.cfm?Link=http://www.nasva.go.jp/english>
Note: Each organization's test results are generally for vehicles sold in its respective country or region. Vehicle specifications, and therefore crash results, may vary between countries. As such, comparing the test results for a similarly named vehicle model from different countries should be done with care, as there can be differences in the testing protocols and rating systems as well as the vehicle model itself.

[Craig 930 RS]

Anecdotal is right. Nothing but guesses, mine included.

I've seen crumpled 911s that don't look too impressive - but holy cow, these were designed eons ago when no one gave a hoot about crashes.

FWIW and as an aside, note how C2 gas tanks are WAY back in the chassis compared to ours -----

[911mot]

[rant]
I am sick and tired of everyone pandering to the saftey brigade these days - it's the driver that determines how dangerous a car is and better driver education is whats needed.
(e.g. What's the point of ABS when some moron rear ends you because he didn't realise ABS means you can brake AND steer at the same time?)

And in modern cars today the driver sits there cocooned away from the real world, surrounded by air bags, side beams and thick saftey glass, oblivious to what's going on around them.

Its a vicious circle - when two cars crash it's the heavier one that wins. And as manufacturers strive to make their cars safer they end up heavier. And thus more dangerous to earlier built cars.
Take a 1980 golf GTi and crash it into the 2005 behemoth and see what comes out worse.
New cars are more dangerous to the wider public. Only those inside are safe...

P.S. If all steering wheel air bags were replaced by a sharp spike pointing at the drivers face I think the accident toll would drop quite quickly

[/rant]

[randywebb]

"no one gave a hoot about crashes"

- Not true. The Germans (esp. MB and Porsche) have been working on crash safety for decades before NHTSA, etc. MB's development goes back at least to the 1950's.


The rant doesn't really deserve a response. Obviously, the driver is important. Since I can't control the other idiots out there, or the deer or pronghorn (one of which helped me roll an SUV when I lived in Wyoming), I support making the car safer -- just like race organizations do.

[911mot]

"Since I can't control the other idiots out there"

My point exactly. Driver education, driver education, driver education.
Not build tanks and ignore the problem

[Scott Clarke]

The assumption that heavier cars are safer than light cars is just that- an assumption. Which would you rather crash at 200mph- a 5000# SUV or a 1300# F1 car? Randy raises an interesting point. Just how good is the 911 from a safety standpoint? I've always assumed that it was pretty good, but would be interested to see evidence to suport my assumption.

[buster73]

Without data we sure can only guess, but the 911 shell certainly is a solid and stiff structure in comparison to many other cars built in the same era (talking about the Coupe). Unfortunately solid and stiff does not automatically mean good crash characteristics. There are some design aspects that should be beneficial, such as the rear engine, which means that in a front impact the whole front structure can deform freely, without an engine or drivetrain being in the way or even intruding into the passenger cell. On the other hand the roof structure (A and B pillars) is not too strong and some of the early seats without headrests are almost a liability. A roll bar, a good pair of seats and a proper set of seat belts can make a big difference. Of course no older 911 can match the safety performance of modern cars including modern Porsches. Anyway I "feel" much safer driving in my old 911 than in many other classic cars and I hope it is not just anecdotal.

[Jgordon]

There have been some pretty spectacular wrecks on here (swbsam's off the top of my head) where the unibody construction and general strength of the chassis saved the driver from some serious injury, while crumpling up. I feel pretty safe in mine, although it is a little alarming that most suv's bumpers are right at eye/forehead/temple level.

[Craig 930 RS]

A 996 GT3 with an aluminum bar about 5 inches tall and 3 feet wide behind it -

[edward993]

Good thread, Randy! I always appreciate any info I can get on car safety, particularly with our 911s. When I bought my 993 years ago, I recall a thread on Rennlist regarding safety and the 911. While I can't remember the source of the findings or the specifics, I DO recall that the data complied showed markedly lower fatalities and "serious" injury for 911s than for other cars of it's ilk (weight/dimensions).

Some could, reasonably, account for the lower fatalities/serious injury to fewer miles driven annually, or the nature or "type" of driver that buys a Porsche, or even the "active safety" of a car with better brakes and suspension. Sure, maybe. But one can also, reasonably, attribute some of the apparent safety and crashworthiness to the testing that the Germans were performing for decades (as you had already referenced) before NHTSA was even born.

I'd be interested in more safety data, especially a more recent study, or perhaps even on how our 20+ year old 911s compare with today's safety-laden vehicles.

Edward

[adamb113]

The Highway safety site doesn't have Porsche under their manufacturer list for most of the tests. They must have tested 911's in the 90's??? Where can I find the ratings for 993's?

[randywebb]

adam113 - You'll have to Email them and ask. They have an archive of stuff that isn't on the site database. But they skew towards the most common cars = max. lives saved. So, they may not have tested it. You can also ask the IIHS folks.
- Guess they'll wonder why they're getting Porsche questions all of a sudden.

edward993 - often they adjust for mileage driven, and often other factors, like driver age, gender, etc. The adjustments are usually linear ones, so if the effects are not linear, then they aren't as accurate.


Knowing the Germans, they are _bound_ to have tons of safety data. We just need a German speaking person to find their web sites and ask them...

[buster73]

Originally posted by randywebb
Knowing the Germans, they are _bound_ to have tons of safety data. We just need a German speaking person to find their web sites and ask them...

I was browsing a bit through German sources, but could not find too much valuable information so far. Just some general data that Porsches are "relatively" cheap to insure because of their good safety record. One statistic on car fires where the older 911's (pre 76) were clearly leading the statistics regarding engine fires (no surprise there). I'll keep looking.

[rdane]

Take a look here and see how many bad crashes (Sam's comes to mind) that have been survivable.

20+ year old cars @ 2500# taking terrible hits with the cars totaled and the drivers living through it.

By design or chance the 911 is a very survivable design in a major accident. Knowing the engineering I would think it is by design.

[randywebb]

I wonder if the TUV does that? They certify items used on cars for safety (e.g. wheels) but they may cover a variety of products (like Underwiters Labs, UL) and not do crash testing.

[randywebb]

Here is a NHTSA doc that gives the changes in safety year by year and how much they added to the wt. of an avg. vehicle:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/rules/regrev/evaluate/809834.html

[Craig 930 RS]

Indeed a major reason why economy cars from the 1980s get slightly better mileage than today's greenmobiles.......WEIGHT.

They are a lot heavier now.

[724doorE]

Yea, I belive my aunt had an 82(or so) rabbit that got in the neighborhood of 50mpg, of course it was the diesel version.

[randywebb]

"They are a lot heavier now."

- Ah, but the interesting thing is that very little of the wt. gain is for safety equipment.

[adamb113]

I just heard a funny story about an 82 diesel rabbit. A guy did one of those conversions to vegetable oil. He lived in the woods of Vermont. One morning he came out to his car and it was torn to shreds. A bear smeeled the vegetable oil and tore the car apart to get to it.
Now that's a safety concern!