Crash Safety: Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500

Owen · 23-07-2010 4:34pm

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 · 23-07-2010 4:39pm

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 · 23-07-2010 4:47pm

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 · 23-07-2010 4:51pm

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 · 23-07-2010 4:55pm

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 · 23-07-2010 5:03pm

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 · 23-07-2010 6:23pm

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 · 23-07-2010 6:43pm

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 · 23-07-2010 7:05pm

I'm going fiat hunting tonight!

Eric Cartman · 23-07-2010 7:12pm

Hammertime wrote: »

I'm going fiat hunting tonight!

ill fire up the Q7

Mr Benevolent · 23-07-2010 7:18pm

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 · 23-07-2010 7:28pm

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 · 23-07-2010 7:47pm

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 · 23-07-2010 7:58pm

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 · 23-07-2010 8:18pm

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 · 23-07-2010 8:23pm

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 · 23-07-2010 9:53pm

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

Matt Simis · 23-07-2010 10:06pm

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 · 23-07-2010 10:22pm

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 · 23-07-2010 11:55pm

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.

Anan1 · 24-07-2010 12:12am

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

Is the 2010 a completely different vehicle? Because the one tested in the NCAP is a complete disaster in terms of passive safety, and that's before we even think of the lower levels of active safety compared to a car.

Barr · 24-07-2010 12:26am

I think the moral here is if your going to crash, make sure its with something smaller -otherwise your f**ked

Anan1 · 24-07-2010 12:43am

Barr wrote: »

I think the moral here is if your going to crash, make sure its with something smaller -otherwise your f**ked

Not at all. The moral is that a large, poorly-designed SUV can be lethal to others while still not protecting its own occupants as well as it should. The only way that Q7 can acquit itself is if it hits a smaller car, making up for its own lack of passive safety with inertia at the expense of the occupants of the other car. It's like having a poorly-paid job but being good at stealing.;)

galwaytt · 24-07-2010 1:14am

Confab wrote: »

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

FYP

Size doesn't come into it.

Matt Simis · 24-07-2010 11:25am

Confab wrote: »

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

I dunno, Im thinking of the 5th Gear Smart Car test, they crashed it into a concrete barrier and there was no cabin deformation. At first sight you would think that was a good test, but the Safety expert said everyone would have been killed anyway as the rebound would have made mush of the occupants.

The lack of deformation means they werent crushed, not that they are safe. The energy of the impact is still there and its clear the flow of energy was from Phateon to the Polo and not equally split.

Now maybe that specific test the Polo occupants would still survive, but the lack of deformation isnt the be all and end all of crash tests.

EDIT: Though from relooking at the Fiat test, I take back that it faired better than the Polo!

Mr.David · 24-07-2010 11:34am

Matt Simis wrote: »

The lack of deformation means they werent crushed, not that they are safe. The energy of the impact is still there and its clear the flow of energy was from Phateon to the Polo and not equally split.

+1

Upon collision there is a quantifiable amount of energy that must be/will be dissipated. This will mainly be through two ways (excluding heat and sound as negligible):

1. Motion - both motion of the car and the object (e.g. wall) will dissipate energy. Not what you want, as this energy will act through the passengers in the car.

2. Deformation - The larger the crumple zone, the more of the energy that can be absorbed and hence dissapated. Less energy used in motion then.

So in a car like the smart where there is very little deformation, the energy must still be dissipated and will be done so through motion. So the forces on the driver will likely be much higher and the decceleration experienced greater.

In effect the crumple zone on a car is a pillow albeit not a very soft one! you wanna run into a wall wearing loads of pillows that deform upon impact or run into it without any pillows?!:P

BrianD3 · 25-07-2010 12:29am

Mr.David wrote: »

So in a car like the smart where there is very little deformation, the energy must still be dissipated and will be done so through motion. So the forces on the driver will likely be much higher and the decceleration experienced greater.

This is true but the smart still protects its occupants well - up to a point. It was designed with an extremely strong passenger compartment and very little crumple zone. The forces experienced by the occupants are managed using the restraint systems. Check out this test where a smart is crashed with an S class and rebounds violently, the occupants still have low risk of injury.

Results (also has Polo and Phaeton results)
http://www.autocrashtests.de/unterseiten/nc_pa_50_kleinwag.htm

Video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_472L2kLp0

It seems to be the case that manufacturers can afford to make their cars more rigid these days and rely on airbags, pre tensioners, load limiters etc. to reduce the forces on the occupants. So we have strong cars that are reliant on but also compliment the restraint systems. Airbags etc. work best if the passenger compartment keeps its integrity, not much point having an airbag if the steering column ends up behind the drivers head (as happened with some older cars)

Cars up to the early-mid 90s have both weak bodies and poor restraints.

But if the restraints of a modern car don't work correctly and/or the car is involved in a relatively undemanding collision, the occupants may experience higher forces than they would have in an older car. I think that is what this German article is about. An old Renault 19 and new Megane II are crashed separately into an immovable object and the results compared.
http://www.welt.de/motor/article1244415/Warum_ein_altes_Auto_sicherer_ist_als_ein_neues.html?page=1

Del2005 · 25-07-2010 4:41am

Dartz wrote: »

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.

5th Gear again.

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

There's way too many variables in collisions for NCAP to cover them all. But at least the NCAP has stopped manufactures making the passenger compartment the softest part of the car.

Eric Cartman · 25-07-2010 3:45pm

Anan1 wrote: »

Is the 2010 a completely different vehicle? Because the one tested in the NCAP is a complete disaster in terms of passive safety, and that's before we even think of the lower levels of active safety compared to a car.

the model they tested was introduced in 2003 and the new model has wheel stops, EBD, dual airbags, seatbelt pre-tensioners reinforced side structures and a few other bits, they basically changed it after that NCAP result , heres an australian test on the newer model http://www.howsafeisyourcar.com.au/_scripts/ancap_summary_result.php?IID=2702 thats the base spec so doesnt have EBD afaik , but its still a lot better than the 2 star (1 crossed out) Euro NCAP result for the old model,

Crash Safety: Audi Q7 vs Fiat 500

Comments