Volvo 940 vs Renault Modus crash test

BrianD3

Check this out. Very interesting to see what happens when a small new car hits a big (and much hyped for its safety) old car
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3ygYUYia9I

pburns

Yeah, I caught the end of this on Fifth Gear a few weeks back. Quite surprised that the little Modus stood up so much better than the Volvo. Just goes to show that modern CAD, crumple zones, air-bags etc. are better than tank-like engineering of the old Volvo.

One caveat though - could metal fatigue have had any possible effect on the outcome? I doubt it but the result is really surprising...

One in the eye for all those Renault-knockers out there (myself included)

BrianD3

tank-like engineering of the old Volvo

They were never as tank like as people were led to believe though. Volvos core selling point for decades was safety and they were styled to "look safe". But in independent tests some other makes were found to be as safe or safer. In recent years Renault has been the maker hyping its safety record but crucially this is based on independent EuroNCAP tests.

I'd say the Renault marketing dept are creaming themselves after this latest test though . 5th gear could have used a Grande Punto or something and it would probably have been a similar result. But this latest test coming on top of Espace vs Discovery and Megane vs Mondeo (Top gear) is good for Renault.

People don't like to let go of the idea that Volvos are impregnable though. Americans are particularly bad when it comes to talking about Volvos and their legendary safety. You get people saying that their old Volvo is far safer than some crappy modern car. Just absolute nonsense. Also it does get right up people's noses when some "flimsy piece of French sh1t" does well in a test such as this.It's hillarious to read some of the conspiracy theories and daft comments eg a 240 would have done better than the 940, Renault must have sabotaged the Volvo used in the test etc.

Volvoboy

The 940 platform was based on the 760 which was launched in Feb of 1982, so in reality they were crashing a 20 year old engineerd car against a car that is only 1/4 of its age, ya dont have to be too smart to work out which will fair better.



-VB-

Max_Damage

I'd like to see that Renault up against a Mercedes W116 or W126.

Anan1

I'd be curious to see how a W116 fared too. That car always looked impregnable.

E92

I beg to differ. I'd like to see a modern Volvo like say the just launched V70 and the Renault have the exact same test.

Or lets say they had the 940 vs a small Renault from 15 years ago like say the 5 or even the more modern Clio. I wonder what the conclusion would be then:eek: ?

I have to admit I was surprised initially at the result, but the more and more I thought about it, the less and less surprised I was really.

Like the 940 is a 23 year old design(it is basically a refreshed 740 which made its debut in 1984), the Renault is a 5 year old design(well I know that the car actually appeared at the end of 04, but it is the same chassis as the Nissan Micra which appeared in 02).

It is therefore most unsurprising IMO that after 18 years, new small cars are safer than big old ones(even Volvos).

There weren't such things as seatbelt pretensioners, side airbags, front airbags(well technically thats not true since the W126 Merc S-class boasted this featuire in 1981, but practically no car back then had airbags, indeed it was only in the early 90s that Volvo decided it was time to fit them(and they were the first)) etc. There weren't such things as decoupling brake pedals, collapsable steering columns, crumple zones where even on an offside impact you could use the whole of the car to absorb the energy.

The point basically I'm making is that the test is hardly making a like for like comparison. We're talking about a car which has all the mod cons vs a car which safety features speaking is about as advanced as the stone age was.

What this test does show is that oddly enough when we're so obsessed with slowing down, now is actually the best time to drive fast because if a dinky car like a Modus is that much safer(and lets be honest, that Renault is a lot safer than the ginormous Volvo) than a huge Volvo which at the time was considered to be as strong as a house, just imagine being in a big Volvo today.

There is still no substitute for extra weight and size, if and it is a very important if all things otherwise are equal(eg 5 star NCAP rating, 6 airbags etc).

A modern small car is infinately safer than even a big old car. But I would bet my left leg that a new Volvo S80 would still be a lot safer than that Renault. No amount of twisting the laws of Physics can get away from that fact(Force=WeightXAcceleration, so the more weight your car has the less damage will be done to your car, all things otherwise being equal of course).

Max_Damage

Anan1 wrote:

I'd be curious to see how a W116 fared too. That car always looked impregnable.

I remember watching on Fifth Gear a few years back of a Mercedes W126 plowing into some parked cars at 70mph. It came out with not much damage, while what it hit (a Fiat Uno and a Rover Metro, among others) were rather flattened!

Have to see if I can find it on YouTube...

EDIT: Found it: http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=CSEl2ueCATs
The Metro hits the cars first, and then the Mercedes does.

junkyard

The Merc actually looks repairable......I know which one I'd rather be in and no, the answer isn't Renault.:D

unkel

I've mixed feelings about what to believe here. Sure there's all the Euro NCAP testing. Perhaps I'm misguided, perhaps I'm wrong but I'd still feel safer in my 11 year old big BMW compared to a brand new made to fit the NCAP requirements Renault Modus

bazz26

I think it is a little unfair to test a 20 year old car against a new car. Your not comparing like with like. All it proves is that engineering has come on leaps and bounds in 20 years which we already know.

Regarding Volvos in general, yes I would agree that Volvo's one major selling point over the years has always been how safe they were. But these days nearly everyone else has caught up if not overtaken them on that front, so imo they don't particularly have a unique selling point anymore. Maybe that is what this test proves if anything?

BrianD3

unkel wrote:

I've mixed feelings about what to believe here. Sure there's all the Euro NCAP testing. Perhaps I'm misguided, perhaps I'm wrong but I'd still feel safer in my 11 year old big BMW compared to a brand new made to fit the NCAP requirements Renault Modus

AFAIK the E38 got the equivalent of a 4 star rating when subjected to a EuroNCAP style offset test. So it is pretty good as well as being v. big and heavy. It is very likely safer than a Modus alright. But I'd imagine that a Vel Satis or Laguna III would be safer than the E38. A Laguna II might be about on a par with the E38.

Also the Modus will have been tested agaisnt the Espace and Vel Satis and in general small modern cars survive well when hit by big modern cars. Check out the VW Polo vs Phateon test on youtube.

Re: the Volvo being an old design. It was sold as late as 1998 and introduced around 1990. While it was based on the old 740 there were many changes. I remember when the 940 was introduced - at the time Volvo were bragging (as usual) about how the car was an improvement over the already very safe 740. The 940 also won several safety awards but these awards were not based on independent crash testing.

If the Volvo had "beaten" the Modus in this test people would have been delighted as it'd confirm their engrained view that Volvo = safe Renault = sh1t. But when the Renault did better than the Volvo excuses are made

Also you can't pick who you crash into, Volvo 940 owners would probably prefer to collide with a Renault 5 than a Modus but its doesn't work that way does it. Big cars collide with small cars and old cars collide with new cars. And if you ask Joe Public which is safer a Modus or an old 940 I reckon 90% will say the 940. So tests like this are educational.



.

Anan1

BrianD3 wrote:

And if you ask Joe Public which is safer a Modus or an old 940 I reckon 90% will say the 940. So tests like this are educational.



.

Very true.

unkel

BrianD3 wrote:

AFAIK the E38 got the equivalent of a 4 star rating when subjected to a EuroNCAP style offset test

Any link, Brian?

Tipsy Mac

Would have been more interesting to see any 5 Star NCAP car getting hit by any SUV with bullbars, instant mincing to all those aboard .

peasant

Another question ...

What would have happened, had they crashed two Renault Modus at those speeds?

In the test with the old Volvo the Modus fares very well not only because it's sturdy, but also because the Volvo is soft. In a way, the Volvo became the Renaults extended crumple zone.

What would happen to the occupants if you smashed two Renault Modus into one another? I would expect that you would see a higher degree of injury to the passengers.

After all ..the impact energy Modus on Modus would be roughly the same as in the Volvo/Modus pairing ...only that the forces would be distributed equally this time.

Anan1

I don't know that bull bars would make much difference in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision. They're not that heavy and the body of the SUV will still crumple (or not) in the same way behind them. Either way, getting hit by an SUV is never good news.

maidhc

Anan1 wrote:

I don't know that bull bars would make much difference in a vehicle-to-vehicle collision. They're not that heavy and the body of the SUV will still crumple (or not) in the same way behind them. Either way, getting hit by an SUV is never good news.

No, but crashing an SUV into a tree or a well certainly is.

I'm not sure why people get so caught up about SUVs... there are far more trucks on the road, and I sure as hell wouldn't live to crash into a laden HGV... it would be about 20/30 times the mass of car!

Turbulent Bill

peasant wrote:

Another question ...

What would have happened, had they crashed two Renault Modus at those speeds?

In the test with the old Volvo the Modus fares very well not only because it's sturdy, but also because the Volvo is soft. In a way, the Volvo became the Renaults extended crumple zone.

What would happen to the occupants if you smashed two Renault Modus into one another? I would expect that you would see a higher degree of injury to the passengers.

After all ..the impact energy Modus on Modus would be roughly the same as in the Volvo/Modus pairing ...only that the forces would be distributed equally this time.

I'd imagine you'd get pretty much the same result with two Moduses (Modi?). The impact energy, for the same speed, would be less as the Modus is lighter than the Volvo (probably 1 tonne vs. 1.5 tonne). The front of the Modus could possibly deform even more before the cabin is seriously compromised.

sesswhat

maidhc wrote:

No, but crashing an SUV into a tree or a well certainly is.

Biggest fear then might be drowning:)

maidhc

sesswhat wrote:

Biggest fear then might be drowning:)

sorry .. wall wall...but I wouldnt want to crash into a well either!

Anan1

maidhc wrote:

I'm not sure why people get so caught up about SUVs... there are far more trucks on the road, and I sure as hell wouldn't live to crash into a laden HGV... it would be about 20/30 times the mass of car!

Personally, I have two problems with them. The first is that, unlike SUVs there is a clear necessity for HGVs. The second is that SUV drivers are generally less considerate than either car or HGV drivers. Just to be clear, i'm talking about the Range Rover Sport brigade here, not farmers/ESB technicians/people who tow boats etc.

BrianD3

unkel wrote:

Any link, Brian?

Two thirds of the way down this page is some info and pics. It's in Spanish though
http://debates.coches.net/showthread.php?t=5414&page=3

BrianD3

Tipsy Mac wrote:

Would have been more interesting to see any 5 Star NCAP car getting hit by any SUV with bullbars, instant mincing to all those aboard .

I'd say most bullbars will make little difference. Bullbars are weak as twigs compared to the strong crash structures underneath. Compare the size and strength of an average bullbar to the size of the "chassis" rails of say a Volvo XC90.

If you are in a small, old car and hit by an XC90 it is these that will do the damage to your car as the heavy, high, rigid ,XC90 rides up over your bonnet.

Having said that the VW Golf Mk5 survived quite well when crash tested with an XC90. It did even better against the Kia Sorento. Both these crash videos are available on the web.

sesswhat

pburns wrote:

One caveat though - could metal fatigue have had any possible effect on the outcome? I doubt it but the result is really surprising...

I would say corrosion would have a considerable effect on the crash resistance of any fifteen year old car, especially if those fifteen years were spent on UK Roads. There are no official ratings for older cars but I seem to remember a crash carried out on an old escort a good few years back for TV. It collapsed like an old biscuit tin.

unkel

BrianD3 wrote:

Two thirds of the way down this page is some info and pics. It's in Spanish though
http://debates.coches.net/showthread.php?t=5414&page=3

Thanks Brian. In your link, a user is surprised that the '94 E38 7-series did relatively well for an old car where the newer '96 E39 5-series and even the current '03 E60 5-series both had 4 stars

It doesn't seem to point to any results though, or am I missing something?

Don't tell me this is were you originally found that the E38 has the equivalent of 4 stars?

maidhc

Anan1 wrote:

Personally, I have two problems with them. The first is that, unlike SUVs there is a clear necessity for HGVs. The second is that SUV drivers are generally less considerate than either car or HGV drivers. Just to be clear, i'm talking about the Range Rover Sport brigade here, not farmers/ESB technicians/people who tow boats etc.

Fair point

BrianD3

unkel wrote:

Don't tell me this is were you originally found that the E38 has the equivalent of 4 stars?

I think it is where I found it My Spanish isn't the best I picked up the bit about the 4 stars and thought they might be talking about the E38

E92

Turbulent Bill wrote:

I'd imagine you'd get pretty much the same result with two Moduses (Modi?)

Yes it is Modi. Modus is German for mode, and the plural for Modus in German is Modi . I presume that they borrowed the word Modus from Latin, it sounds like Latin to me.

BrianD3

sesswhat wrote:

I would say corrosion would have a considerable effect on the crash resistance of any fifteen year old car, especially if those fifteen years were spent on UK Roads. There are no official ratings for older cars but I seem to remember a crash carried out on an old escort a good few years back for TV. It collapsed like an old biscuit tin.

If this was 1990 I'd agree with you. But in 2007 it's hard to say as rust resistance has improved dramatically over the years. It is perfectly possible to find a 15 year old or older car in the UK with little or no rust. OTOH plenty of UK cars are starting to get rusty sills at this age. Volvos would probably be better than most for corrosion resistance though

Hopefully 5th gear thoroughly examined the Volvo and picked a sound rust free example that had not been crashed and badly repaired.