which would be better in a crash

endplate

an old big car like a carina E, or a modern small car with airbags like a yaris

Tivoli

endplate wrote:

an old big car like a carina E, or a modern small car with airbags like a yaris

it depends on too many other factors

Kimbot

Head on with each other I would imagine the carina would fare better because of the weight in the engine!! But the whiplash would be unreal in it!!

As said above it all depends on other factors like speed etc.

unkel

endplate wrote:

an old big car like a carina E, or a modern small car with airbags like a yaris

There's the first misconception. The Carina E base model is only 100kg (10%) heavier than a current Yaris base model. So the Carina is is not a big car at all compared to todays superminis

Under most circumstances, the Yaris would be the safer car

ZiabR

I think the Yaris would be safer.

Cerdito

If you're talking about big v. small safety in a crash, here's a picture of the N11 crash from earlier this week between an Audi A4 and a Fiat Punto. Two died in the Punto and the A4 driver was unhurt

Alun

Also a vote for the Yaris. Many people here seem to equate mass and solidity with safety, and seem to think that because a small car like a Yaris looks like a mangled wreck after a collision, and a huge German luxo-barge remains intact that the luxo-barge was therefore safer. However, just think on this .. .where did all that energy go when both of those crashed? In the case of the Yaris it was into all the crumple zones, whereas in the case of the luxo-barge it was transferred to the contents of the car, i.e. you and your passengers. I know which I'd prefer.

EDIT: I'm assuming here that the luxo-barge was from the pre-airbag/side-impact-protection/crumple zone era.

Seth Brundle

but the audi is a newer model in that photo so it doesn't address the question.
From the forum in my sig, I know people who have old E28s and E30s, had big smashes with them and suffered no problems (thankfully)

Alun

Cerdito wrote:

If you're talking about big v. small safety in a crash, here's a picture of the N11 crash from earlier this week between an Audi A4 and a Fiat Punto. Two died in the Punto and the A4 driver was unhurt

Did they have their seatbelts on? What vintage was the Punto?

Tivoli

Cerdito wrote:

If you're talking about big v. small safety in a crash, here's a picture of the N11 crash from earlier this week between an Audi A4 and a Fiat Punto. Two died in the Punto and the A4 driver was unhurt

wow, i won't be buying a convertable punto

Cerdito

Alun wrote:

Did they have their seatbelts on? What vintage was the Punto?

I have no idea, just an image that struck me from the news. The contrast between the completely mangled Punto and the Audi that could probably be driven away is striking. I'm sure there were other factors involved as you point out.

BrianD3

If you're talking about big v. small safety in a crash, here's a picture of the N11 crash from earlier this week between an Audi A4 and a Fiat Punto. Two died in the Punto and the A4 driver was unhurt

It looks like the collision betwen the A4 and Punto was relatively minor with neither car sustaining that much damage (the Punto looks badly damaged but if you examine closely it's clear that most of the damage was done by the fire brigade cutting out the occupants)

I think it's likely that the Punto occupants died in this crash because they weren't wearing their seatbelts.

Gregor Samsa

Cerdito wrote:

Two died in the Punto and the A4 driver was unhurt

While the A4 was no doubt the safer place to be in that collision, a lot of the damage you see to the Punto (roof and doors clean off) was probably a result of the emergency services cutting the occupants out. It's easier for them just to rip the car apart rather than delicately trying to get injured people out of confined spaces.

edit: BrianD3 beat me to it...

Alun

Cerdito wrote:

I have no idea, just an image that struck me from the news. The contrast between the completely mangled Punto and the Audi that could probably be driven away is striking. I'm sure there were other factors involved as you point out.

Also the Audi was still on the road and the Punto was in the ditch. I'm guessing they just glanced each other, and though the Audi managed to stay on the road, the Punto was less lucky and rolled over into the ditch. I'd also assume that the fact that it has no roof was due to it being cut off by the emergency services, rather than it happening in the crash. Appearances can be (very) deceptive.

EDIT: must learn to type quicker

Seth Brundle

Before judgement is passed on the driver at fault in the Punto/Audi accident - can we get back on topic!

BrianD3

Back on topic, brand new Yaris would be safer than Carina E in just about any collision.

A more interesting one might be
1992 Mercedes W140 S class
or
2007 new model Mondeo just about to go on sale

Or 2007 Peugeot 407 and a 1994 BMW 7 series.

The German heavyweights have airbags, pretensioners etc. and a lot of attention paid to safety for the time. But the design of the body is 10-15 years old and big strides have been made in that period. Also modern mid sized cars like 407s and Passats now tip the scales at around 1500 kg or more which means that they're not even that much lighter.

Borderfox

Top Gear did a test with a BMW 5 series (old old model) and a Volvo 850 saloon (old model) crashed them head on at 60mph and nobody survives. My money would be on the Yaris too.

"1992 Mercedes W140 S class" Sounds like a Panzer IV

alias no.9

If anyone remembers the crash test Top Gear did between a fiesta and freelander (I think it would have been 2004ish), bigger is not always better. Based on that, I'd go with the new Yaris over the Carina E.

ninty9er

In the original Carina E I'm not even sure the driver got an airbag, crumple zone technology won't have been what it is now. I'd take my chances with either really. You'd probably be less sore and quicker out of hospital if in the Yaris though

unkel

BrianD3 wrote:

A more interesting one might be
1992 Mercedes W140 S class
or
2007 new model Mondeo just about to go on sale

Or 2007 Peugeot 407 and a 1994 BMW 7 series.

The German heavyweights have airbags, pretensioners etc. and a lot of attention paid to safety for the time. But the design of the body is 10-15 years old and big strides have been made in that period. Also modern mid sized cars like 407s and Passats now tip the scales at around 1500 kg or more which means that they're not even that much lighter.

Good points. My '96 7-series has all the driver aids of a new car, but only 2 airbags and @1790KG is indeed only about 300kg heavier than a modern D-segment 2.0l diesel car equipped with 10 airbags

I'd love to see some research into this...

Anan1

unkel wrote:

Good points. My '96 7-series has all the driver aids of a new car, but only 2 airbags and @1790KG is indeed only about 300kg heavier than a modern D-segment 2.0l diesel car equipped with 10 airbags

I'd love to see some research into this...

A Yaris weighs around a tonne, so roughly half of a W140. If the two were to collide head-on at, say, 60km/h (both cars doing this speed), the Mercedes would slow down and the Yaris would start going backwards. The Yaris would have to absorb around twice as much force as the S-class. If each car were to separately hit an immovable wall head-on then the results would be a lot closer. In two-car collisions, though, mass counts.

BrianD3

alias no.9 wrote:

If anyone remembers the crash test Top Gear did between a fiesta and freelander (I think it would have been 2004ish), bigger is not always better. Based on that, I'd go with the new Yaris over the Carina E.

They didn't actually do it "between" the cars though. They took the actual vehicles that EuroNCAP had crashed separately and compared the damage. EuroNCAP state that front impact tests from different weight classes should not be compared. Side impact results can be compared however.

If the Fiesta and Freelander each hit an immovable object, the Fiesta should be better based on NCAP results. But if they hit another car (or each other) then the Freelander could well be a better place to be although it may not depending on how badly designed it is.

This is kind of the same point that Anan1 is making. The W140 vs Yaris would be a more extreme example. That's why I used the example of new Mondeo vs W140 as a new Mondeo is significantly closer to W140 weight and size than a Yaris is.

Marcus.Aurelius

Aren't modern cars designed to be safer at a specific speed? they usually test for damage at around 50 kph, although crashes at higher speeds are far more complex, many more forces become less insignificant. I would imagine the yaris' design would let it down in a faster collision

unkel

Anan1 wrote:

A Yaris weighs around a tonne, so roughly half of a W140. If the two were to collide head-on at, say, 60km/h (both cars doing this speed), the Mercedes would slow down and the Yaris would start going backwards

Exactly. Auto, Motor & Sport did a feature about this, I suppose in the early 90s. They had a W140 crash against a Corsa iirc. They both did 50km/h and the crash was half head-on, if you know what I mean

Both drivers would have survived but the Merc driver would have been uninjured. Also the Mercs doors still opened, the corsas didn't

Edit: I'll be damned - everything is on the interweb these days. Videoclip

BrianD3

I remember the W140 vs Corsa test. IIRC the Corsa "driver" was in pretty bad shape with serious leg injuries.

W140 was also tested against a VW Golf Mk3 and the Golf driver would have died. The difference between the Corsa and the Golf was mainly that the Golf tested didn't have an airbag.

Other similar tests inclued S Class vs Smart, E class vs Smart, Polo vs Phateon, Polo vs A8. In all of these the driver of the small car was quite well protected.

Data on just about every crash test that was carried out by ADAC and Auto Motor und Sport in the nineties can be found at the following URL.
http://www.autocrashtests.de/auswahl_fahrzeugtyp.htm

Biro

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64EOONib6HY&NR=1

Ice_Box

Another vote for the Yaris.

By they way I would never buy a car without ESP/Traction control. Its almost as important as ABS in my view.

peasant

Ice_Box wrote:

.
By they way I would never buy a car without ESP/Traction control. Its almost as important as ABS in my view.

Slightly OT ...

I'm not so sure that it is, really ...

Yes it can help in tricky situations, but it can also give you a false sense of security and allow you to drive your car right to the edge of what is physically possible whithout you even noticing that there might be danger afoot ...until even the gadgets can't safe you anymore.

Never mind the psychological effect that all these safety features seem to have on some drivers ...my car has X, Y and Z ...therefore it's safe to drive that bit faster ...

Ice_Box

peasant wrote:

Slightly OT ...

I'm not so sure that it is, really ...

Yes it can help in tricky situations, but it can also give you a false sense of security and allow you to drive your car right to the edge of what is physically possible whithout you even noticing that there might be danger afoot ...until even the gadgets can't safe you anymore.

Never mind the psychological effect that all these safety features seem to have on some drivers ...my car has X, Y and Z ...therefore it's safe to drive that bit faster ...

I disagree with that statement 100%.

You could say the same about seatbelts or even headlights. If nobody had headlights we would all drive more slowly at night and there would be less accidents. I believe safty devices dont cause accidents, people do. But accidents do happen. And if I need to make a sudden movement in my car because someone else made a mistake then I want ALL the technology I can get my hands on available to me and my family.

If I go for a walk with an umbrella it does not make it more likely that it will rain. But if it does rain I'll be nice and dry.

Tivoli

Ice_Box wrote:

I disagree with that statement 100%.

You could say the same about seatbelts or even headlights. If nobody had headlights we would all drive more slowly at night and there would be less accidents. I believe safty devices dont cause accidents, people do. But accidents do happen. And if I need to make a sudden movement in my car because someone else made a mistake then I want ALL the technology I can get my hands on available to me and my family.

If I go for a walk with an umbrella it does not make it more likely that it will rain. But if it does rain I'll be nice and dry.

i agree with this 100%, espicially the bit about the umbrella

Marcus.Aurelius

OT I know but we are forgetting that ABS, EBD, ESC, TC, and any other system does not eliminate the biggest problem of all, the idiot behind the wheel. Your actions in the precious seconds before the accident will perhaps be more crucial.

At any rate EBD and the rest are of no consequence once the crash has actually occured. In this light, the Carina is sturdier, but will experience more force as it does not dissipate the energy through crumple zones, unlike the Yaris. On the other hand, the Yaris is high up, and was built to survive better in 30 mph crashes. At higher speeds, the Carina E will not dissipate the energy more effectively, but you can be damn sure it will stay together better than a yaris.

Spit62500

There are studies that suggest that people who feel less vulnerable in their cars take more risks.... The same logic can be applied to airbags, traction control and perhaps vehicle size etc - if the theory is correct

Quoting from here on...

There are at least three studies which show that drivers' response to antilock brakes is to drive faster, follow closer and brake later, accounting for the failure of ABS to result in any measurable improvement in road safety. The following references describe studies in Canada, Denmark and Germany.

Grant and Smiley, "Driver response to antilock brakes: a demonstration on behavioural adaptation" from Proceedings, Canadian Multidisciplinary Road Safety Conference VIII, June 14-16, Saskatchewan 1993.

Sagberg, Fosser, and Saetermo, "An investigation of behavioural adaptation to airbags and antilock brakes among taxi drivers" Accident Analysis and Prevention #29 pp 293-302 1997.

Aschenbrenner and Biehl, "Improved safety through improved technical measures? empirical studies regarding risk compensation processes in relation to anti-lock braking systems". In Trimpop and Wilde, Challenges to Accident Prevention: The issue of risk compensation behaviour (Groningen, NL, Styx Publications, 1994).

[edit]

BrianD3

maoleary wrote:

At higher speeds, the Carina E will not dissipate the energy more effectively, but you can be damn sure it will stay together better than a yaris.

I disagree. The Carina may have a longer bonnet than the Yaris but it's passenger compartment is likely to be significantly weaker even with a longer crumple zone to protect it. In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed. What this means is that even a sightly higher impact speed may have had dramatic consequences. The passenger compartment is supposed to stay relatively intact but once it is breached it may quickly lose all its integrity and fold up dramatically. If the airbagged Carina is tested at 50 mph instead of 40 ( big increase) I'd expect the driver to be horribly crushed and certainly killed and and the rear seat passenger behind him to be in serious danger too.

The Yaris OTOH is designed to shrug off the EuroNCAP impact at 40 mph and gets 5 stars. The passenger compartment is intact. A 50 mph impact will see signifcant damage to the compartment with the driver severely injured but he may survive.

I have heard about a test that Honda did between a 1994 Legend and a new Jazz. Actually crashing the cars into each other. Despite the Jazz's far shorter bonnet, and lower weight it was the Legend dummy that got the serious leg injuries. Wish I could find some more concrete info on this test..

ninty9er

BrianD3 wrote:

I disagree. The Carina may have a longer bonnet than the Yaris but it's passenger compartment is likely to be significantly weaker even with a longer crumple zone to protect it. In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed. What this means is that even a sightly higher impact speed may have had dramatic consequences. The passenger compartment is supposed to stay relatively intact but once it is breached it may quickly lose all its integrity and fold up dramatically. If the airbagged Carina is tested at 50 mph instead of 40 ( big increase) I'd expect the driver to be horribly crushed and certainly killed and and the rear seat passenger behind him to be in serious danger too.

The Yaris OTOH is designed to shrug off the EuroNCAP impact at 40 mph and gets 5 stars. The passenger compartment is intact. A 50 mph impact will see signifcant damage to the compartment with the driver severely injured but he may survive.

I have heard about a test that Honda did between a 1994 Legend and a new Jazz. Actually crashing the cars into each other. Despite the Jazz's far shorter bonnet, and lower weight it was the Legend dummy that got the serious leg injuries. Wish I could find some more concrete info on this test..

Totally agree. I'd imagine the engine would fuse with you and your passengers in the Carina. Whereas there's an acre of empty space under the tiny bonnet of the Yaris designed to drop the engine on strong impact rather than force it back.

I remember the mechanic told my uncle when some idiot hit my aunt about 7 years ago that had she been driving an Escort or Mondeo(98-01) she would likely have been killed as opposed to the abdomenal and chest injuries she suffered in her 97 Fiesta due to this fact. He was gutted naturally due to the fact he drove a Mondeo and the fact he wanted to keep the Fiesta which was on its way to the showroom to pick up her new Focus at the time!! More importantly though his wife and child survived!

zilog_jones

BrianD3 wrote:

In a EuroNCAP test (40 mph actually, not 30) I'd expect an airbagged Carina to be a 2 star car at best with the passenger compartment already unstable from a crash at this speed...

Judging by similarly aged cars tested in 1997 (BMW 3 Series, Rover 600, etc.) I'd say it'd be a 2 star car too, if not worse. And that's going by the 1997 EuroNCAP standards - they're a lot stricter these days.

BrianD3

I reckon the 95-02 Fiesta might be better than the 90-98 Escort. The Escort did appallingly in crash tests at the start, it was improved over the years but there's only so much can be done with the same basic design.

The Mondeo Mk1 was ahead of its time for passive safety though. Along with the Mk3 Golf and new Astra of the time, safety was starting to become a selling point and new legislation was on the way. Passenger compartments were getting stronger in head ons and side impact protection was becoming important. There was alot of hype about side impact bars. In truth these did very little good on their own.

ninty9er

BrianD3 wrote:

There was alot of hype about side impact bars. In truth these did very little good on their own.

My mother recently had some remedial work done on her Yaris which requireed the dorr panel to be removed. She came home to me and dad shocked saying "it even has those thigs Volvos have":D

BrianD3

LOL ninty9er My story related to side impact bars is - when I was young and stupid(er) in the early nineties I tried to convince someone that the new Astra should be bought ahead of the new Golf Mk3. Why? Because the Astra had TWO side impact bars per door while the Golf only had one!

My advice was ignored and a new Renault that had no side impact beams at the time was bought instead!