Crash Safety: Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500

JHMEG

"For a much better representation, in German, is this crash organised
by the ADAC between a Fiat 500 and an Audi Q7. Both have 5 stars in
the NCAP test. The result was that the passengers of the Fiat 500
would more than likely have been killed (speed was set at 50kmh -
impact speed for the Fiat 500 would have been 80kmh as a result). The
Audi Q7 impacted at a point on the 500 where the design of the crumble
zones was unable to absorb the impact and hence the intrusion of the
Audi into the passenger cell of the 500. More alarmingly the impact of
the Audi caused the airbag of the 500 to explode preventing its life
saving benefits from being effective"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4Tmk-uufGw

Barr

The Q7 was always going to come out better ,Its higher and heavier which are an advantage in a head on.

Atlantic Dawn

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

CONM

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

Is the point of the test not to demonstrate how dangerous large 4x4's are to other road users particularly those in small cars.

Eric Cartman

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Barr

I reckon if the Q7 was only a 3 star in the NCAP it would fair better than a Fiat 500 with a 5 star rating.

CONM

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Have to say I agree with you, I drive a Range Rover and one of the main reasons is this

Barr

CONM wrote: »

Have to say I agree with you, I drive a Range Rover and one of the main reasons is this

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

CONM

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_range_rover_2002/126.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/audi_q7_2006/262.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_500_2007/298.aspx
The thing I find amazing is that NCAP give the 500 a higher occupant rating than either the Q7 or the RR, which clearly isn't true.

CONM

Barr wrote: »

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

Would make for good watching!

copacetic

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

how would it be more 'realistic'. Do Q7s only allow themselves to crash into Landcruisers not fiat 500s or other small cars?

With the amount of small cars on the road the chances are a Q7 will crash into one of them before it tracks down another similar sized vechile so it's a a pretty realistic test.

Shane732

copacetic wrote: »

how would it be more 'realistic'. Do Q7s only allow themselves to crash into Landcruisers not fiat 500s or other small cars?

With the amount of small cars on the road the chances are a Q7 will crash into one of them before it tracks down another similar sized vechile so it's a a pretty realistic test.

Wrong!! Think of all the SUV's on the school run in Dublin 4. It's chaos, I'm surprised there aren't numerous youtubes clips of Q7 vs RR on youtube!

Remember "She drives, the kids die".....

unkel

Goes to show the NCAP safety ratings are utterly uncomparable, or are they?

BrianD3

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

Not sure if this is a troll or not, I'll assume it isn't. Pretty much any large modern saloon would give excellent protection in a crash with a Fiat 500. And the Fiat occupants would be better protected in a collision with a saloon than in one with a unnecessary monstrosity such as a Q7.

Good compatibility between cars has benefits for road safety in general.

I see the new Range Rover is over 2.8 tonnes. Ridiculous. Max payload has to be <700 kg so that it can be driven on a car licence.

kasper

great and shocking vid and not trying to be pedantic ,maybe i am wrong but isnt it the drivers side fatality in the fiat ?

mickdw

5th gear did a test between a volvo 740 & a modern mid sized renault. The Renault came out much better so the modern crash science does work very effectively. There are still laws of momentum etc that will always give the advantage to the heavier car given equivalent level of built in crash safety & of course the larger the crumple zone, the safer a car will be.

Mr Benevolent

What would happen in a Q7 vs artic crash? And why did they use a 500 instead of another VAG car?

Tea 1000

Barr wrote: »

I'd like to see that - RR v Q7

So would I, it'd mean there would be two less useless bags of shít off the roads. These yokes are pointless, and kill innocent people who love cars!

mickdw

Confab wrote: »

And why did they use a 500 instead of another VAG car?

ya a vw fox would have stud up well to that collision.
I dont think the fiat looks that bad. Still if its fatal, i guess its bad.

Anan1

unkel wrote: »

Goes to show the NCAP safety ratings are utterly uncomparable, or are they?

Not really, because the SUV is so much heavier it pushes the FIAT backwards and therefore decelerates less itself. Having looked at the NCAP results, i'd sooner be in the FIAT 500 than either the Q7 or the Range Rover in a same-speed crash into an immovable object. On which subject, the SUV NCAP results make a complete mockery of those who buy them for their supposed safety. Twice the weight of a FIAT 500 and they can't even match it for passive safety - that's shameful stuff.

Barr

Does the NCAP just speed crash into immovable objects ?

JHMEG

I think the point was both are NCAP 5 star cars. Clearly they're unequal.

I'm not sure which should be banned, large SUVs or silly toy cars. Maybe both.

Mr Benevolent

Anan1 wrote: »

Twice the weight of a FIAT 500 and they can't even match it for passive safety - that's shameful stuff.

Twice the weight = Double the energy to dissipate for the same speed. That's twice as difficult.

BrianD3

Barr wrote: »

Does the NCAP just speed crash into immovable objects ?

Frontal impact is into an immovable object with a deformable face. Whereas the side impact test uses a moving sled with a deformable face. As a result side impact results from different weight classes are comparable while the frontal impact tests are not.

EuroNCAP has always stressed this from when the test started in 1997. I think it is in the faq on the website.

Anan1

BrianD3 wrote: »

Frontal impact is into an immovable object with a deformable face. Whereas the side impact test uses a moving sled with a deformable face. As a result side impact results from different weight classes are comparable while the frontal impact tests are not.

EuroNCAP has always stressed this from when the test started in 1997. I think it is in the faq on the website.

My understanding is that frontal impacts are comparable if the cars hit immovable objects, but not otherwise - ie a heavier car will be more able than a lighter one to push a given obstacle backwards?

BrianD3

Anan1 wrote: »

My understanding is that frontal impacts are comparable if the cars hit immovable objects, but not otherwise - ie a heavier car will be more able than a lighter one to push a given obstacle backwards?

Correct A possible complication is that objects which are "immovable" for a light vehicle may be "movable" for a heavy vehcile.

As the side impact uses a a moving sled, it is probably the opposite scenario to what you described i.e. valid comparsions possible across weight categories for car to car impacts but not if, say, a car goes sideways into an immovable wall. The latter scenario is unlikely anyway

The pole test involves a moving car going sideways into a stationary immovable object so that is different again.

Redderneck

He buys, she dies?

Joe 90

CONM wrote: »

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/land_rover_range_rover_2002/126.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/audi_q7_2006/262.aspx
http://www.euroncap.com/tests/fiat_500_2007/298.aspx
The thing I find amazing is that NCAP give the 500 a higher occupant rating than either the Q7 or the RR, which clearly isn't true.

It could well be true. The point is that when the 500 and the Q7 collide each suffers a totaly different collision from that which would have happened if it had hit the prverbial immovable object.

My own objection to NCAP is that while it gives some indication of secondary safety it ignores primary safety. It is concerened about how well you survive the crash in a given vehical, not how well you can avoid the crash in the first place in a given vehical.

Dartz

It really illustrates the fallibility of the NCAP system... there are far more variables at play in a crash than Car-V-Block. Never mind that manufacturers can design their cars to do well in NCAP, while still offering poor protection in a real world accident.

Real world accidents are dynamic, especially car-on-car. Different cars have their crash protection at different heights. A car of the same model, lightly loaded and riding even just a little higher than the one it hits, will tend to ride up on top of the car it it's, bypassing the crash protection which is designed around a lower, static concrete block.

bijapos

What the ADAC man explains from 2:20 on is that they would like to see cars like the Q7 developed in such a way that the longitudal beams in the car (the red frame) are constructed differently to make them higher, spread over more levels, and wider so that the impact is spread over a greater area.

Along with this they want the beams to be more deformable to absorb some of the impact for the Fiat.

At the end he says they want the manufacturers to make the cars more "partner friendly" * and that they would have a possibility to test this on new cars.



* Meaning here that when something like the Q7 hits the 500 it should not wreck it. ADAC have done a number of tests like this over the years.

Eric Cartman

BrianD3 wrote: »

Not sure if this is a troll or not, I'll assume it isn't. Pretty much any large modern saloon would give excellent protection in a crash with a Fiat 500. And the Fiat occupants would be better protected in a collision with a saloon than in one with a unnecessary monstrosity such as a Q7.

its not, I drive a 4x4 because i need a vehicle which can carry a lot of tools, get commercial tax, but i dont want something as uncomfortable as a van , also 4wd is needed as i end up down muddy lanes and on building sites. another advantage is that 8/10 if i was in a crash the other vehicle would be smaller and lighter than mine, which means because my car would decelerate less and because the bumper support is higher in mine that my jeep would simply roll over a smaller car injuring me far less, to give the fiat 500 a 5 star rating is ludacris , its one of the smallest production cars you can buy , id need to hit a RR or an artic to come off worse, a fiat 500 would come off worse with almost anything except another super micro hairdresser mobile ,

Owen

And on the flip side, Ford F150 Pickup truck vs MINI (And the old 4 star model, not the new 5 star model).

http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINICooperVsFordF150



Granted, they don't smack into one another, but not all 4x4's/SUV's ar created equal. The popular Navara is only a 1 star car.

Anan1

Eric Cartman wrote: »

another advantage is that 8/10 if i was in a crash the other vehicle would be smaller and lighter than mine, which means because my car would decelerate less and because the bumper support is higher in mine that my jeep would simply roll over a smaller car injuring me far less, to give the fiat 500 a 5 star rating is ludacris , its one of the smallest production cars you can buy , id need to hit a RR or an artic to come off worse, a fiat 500 would come off worse with almost anything except another super micro hairdresser mobile ,

I honestly have the feeling you might be kidding yourself here. What do you drive?

Eric Cartman

Anan1 wrote: »

I honestly have the feeling you might be kidding yourself here. What do you drive?

basing that on my old kia sorento, still waiting on my new d-max

Owen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

still waiting on my new d-max

Have you seen the crash ratings on a Dmax? I'd gladly go head to head with you in my MINI.



Look at what happened to the chassis, it's separated from the body, the cabin is bent in the middle, and it got a 2 star rating. Might look strong and tough, but it's far from it.

SugarHigh

Atlantic Dawn wrote: »

It's kind of a rubbish test, two opposite extremes of vehicles going against each other. A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

I'm sure you know more than the people who do this for a living.

A Landcruiser V Q7 would be more realistic test

What do you mean by realistic? Is it unrealistic to think a Q7 might one day crash into a small car?

test where you would see all occupants of each vehicle being bagged and tagged.

The aim of these tests isn't to cause as much damage as possible, it's not a Jeremy Clarkson dvd.

Eric Cartman

PaintDoctor wrote: »

Have you seen the crash ratings on a Dmax? I'd gladly go head to head with you in my MINI.



Look at what happened to the chassis, it's separated from the body, the cabin is bent in the middle, and it got a 2 star rating. Might look strong and tough, but it's far from it.

thats the old d-max model, the ncap website also lists it as not having seatbelt pretensioners or a passenger airbag, both of which the 2010 model has , they havent tested the new one yet

pajo1981

Eric Cartman wrote: »

this video just reinforces my love of 4x4's and my hatred of the fiat 500 , atleast now i know if i hit one ill definitley be right

??

Should it not be the other way around?

4x4 owners are more likely to kill occupants of smaller cars...

galwaytt

Eric Cartman wrote: »

its not, I drive a 4x4 because i need a vehicle which can carry a lot of tools, get commercial tax, but i dont want something as uncomfortable as a van , also 4wd is needed as i end up down muddy lanes and on building sites.

all well and good...

Eric Cartman wrote: »

another advantage is that 8/10 if i was in a crash the other vehicle would be smaller and lighter than mine, which means because my car would decelerate less and because the bumper support is higher in mine that my jeep would simply roll over a smaller car injuring me far less, to give the fiat 500 a 5 star rating is ludacris , its one of the smallest production cars you can buy , id need to hit a RR or an artic to come off worse, a fiat 500 would come off worse with almost anything except another super micro hairdresser mobile ,

Complete and utter nonsense. No basis in fact. The fact that your vehicle is higher, btw, makes you more prone to overturning. And if you do run into a low car, you'll be the one on your side/roof, and I can assure you your commercial/SUV will then be the lesser vehicle. We build and convert vehicles here everyday, and have stuff crash-tested at MIRA, and unitary monocoque cars, almost irrespective of size, are very well engineered for passenger's. Commercial's, by their very nature, are built for service and goods, first, and everthing else comes 2nd/3rd/4th.

Of course, the fact that you'll be impaled by a 300kg Jobox in the bed, through the back of your seat, means it'll all be moot anyhoo what the front impact protection is.

I have a 10 D reg merc commercial with 280kms from new on it, to prove it.

Bandara

I'm going fiat hunting tonight!

Eric Cartman

Hammertime wrote: »

I'm going fiat hunting tonight!

ill fire up the Q7

Mr Benevolent

The driver would have suffered fatal injuries in the 500 because the airbag failed. That can happen in any car. I'm a bit suspicious of ADAC's motives in this test tbh.

Eric Cartman

pajo1981 wrote: »

??

Should it not be the other way around?

4x4 owners are more likely to kill occupants of smaller cars...

yes but as a 4x4 owners im more likely to be fine

slimjimmc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

yes but as a 4x4 owners im more likely to be fine

You'd better make sure you don't crash into an MPV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKu1UDoa6s

Eric Cartman

slimjimmc wrote: »

You'd better make sure you don't crash into an MPV http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIKu1UDoa6s

luckily i avoid school run times and I wouldnt drive series 2 discovery , but i may need to buy a train http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss3J-gmadE4&feature=related

slimjimmc

Eric Cartman wrote: »

luckily i avoid school run times and I wouldnt drive series 2 discovery , but i may need to buy a train http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss3J-gmadE4&feature=related

The main observations from the test was that the strong chassis rail deflected the MVP into the passenger cabin. I doubt many of those big strong sturdy 4x4s would react much different in a similar collision.

Eric Cartman

slimjimmc wrote: »

The main observations from the test was that the strong chassis rail deflected the MVP into the passenger cabin. I doubt many of those big strong sturdy 4x4s would react much different in a similar collision.

considering it was an old design discovery and not anywhere near as safe as most modern eastern 4x4's (kia sorento, toyota landcuiser etc..) i would say that that video illustrates very little for cars bought in the last 8 years

Mycroft H

I remember been told about the Land rover defender crash safety - they use other cars as crumple zones

Matt Simis

I think the Fiat came out better than the VW Polo in the Polo vs Phaeton (2.5ton, like the Q7) test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIsao6YG4Zo

Look at the lack of impact on the Phaeton, it basically just slows down. The Polo is rebounded severely, the kinetic energy would be lethal to the occupants.

But it kinda undermines the SUV critique, the problem is endemic to heavy vs light weight crash tests. They are not safe places to be.

BrianD3

Matt Simis wrote: »

I think the Fiat came out better than the VW Polo in the Polo vs Phaeton (2.5ton, like the Q7) test:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIsao6YG4Zo

Look at the lack of impact on the Phaeton, it basically just slows down. The Polo is rebounded severely, the kinetic energy would be lethal to the occupants.

But it kinda undermines the SUV critique, the problem is endemic to heavy vs light weight crash tests. They are not safe places to be.

Despite the rebound, the Polo did very well in that test. Much better than the Fiat. Passenger compartment held up well and every body part was rated either green or yellow. This was only a 50 km/h vs 50 km/h impact though, the faster the speed the bigger the advantage the Phaeton would have over its "opponent".

I was going to use that video to show how big heavy saloon cars are more compatible with smaller cars than SUVs are with smaller cars. The ADAC carried out another similar test between a Kia Sorento and a Golf Mk5. The Sorento did worse than the Phaeton and the Golf did worse than the Polo. So the Sorento put the Golf occupants in danger while not protecting its own occupants particularly well.

Mr Benevolent

The lesson is this: Buy the biggest, safest car possible.

the kinetic energy would be lethal to the occupants.

That's not true. There was no cabin deformation and the airbags deployed correctly. Both Polo occupants would have survived that crash.