What happens when a 1998 and a 2015 Toyota Corolla dramatically crash into each other

tipperary

Interesting clip below on what happens when two cars crash into eachother at 64kph. Impact on the older car is kinda scary considering the relatively slow speed of impact.

http://www.independent.ie/videos/world-news/watch-what-happens-when-a-1998-and-a-2015-toyota-corolla-dramatically-crash-into-each-other-35723699.html#play

Flibble

That's quite a dramatic difference- i had no idea it would be so stark.

As an ordinary motorist with no particular interest in or knowledge of cars, watching that video has definitely opened my eyes to the nuances of a build from a safety & will probably be in the back of my mind for any future car purchases.

Thanks for posting OP.

Pelvis

tipperary wrote: »

Interesting clip below on what happens when two cars crash into eachother at 64kph. Impact on the older car is kinda scary considering the relatively slow speed of impact.

http://www.independent.ie/videos/world-news/watch-what-happens-when-a-1998-and-a-2015-toyota-corolla-dramatically-crash-into-each-other-35723699.html#play

A head on crash where both cars are traveling over 60km/h cannot in any circumstances be considered a slow speed impact.

artanevilla

What's the difference in the weight of the cars?

Henry Ford III

...and people wonder why insurance is more expensive on older cars in supposedly perfect working order.

neris

That's mad. No wonder insurance companies don't want to insure older cars

0ph0rce0

I crashed an 06 car into a 98 golf MK3

Front of my car was crushed, parts of the engine came up through the bonnet nearly came through the windscreen.

The 98 golf ?? Cracked the break light, I **** you not Thing was a tank.

Chiparus

Came across accident either side of the motorway last week , two cars rolled over , serious damage to another two, all cars less than 5 years , 4 cars written off. ..............all 7 people involved walked away.

Anjobe

Henry Ford III wrote: »

...and people wonder why insurance is more expensive on older cars in supposedly perfect working order.

neris wrote: »

That's mad. No wonder insurance companies don't want to insure older cars

We're not going to start standing up for that cartel of shysters and gougers now are we?

If this particular accident happened on the road the insurance payout on the newer car would surely be far higher - higher value car to write off and possibly the driver to survive to incur some serious medical expenses. The older card would be near worthless and the only medical expenses the driver would incur would be for a lift in the ambulance to the nearest morgue.

0ph0rce0

OSI wrote: »

Not necessarily a good thing. Just means the energy the car received in the crash was transferred to the fleshy gooey blob sat in the drivers seat instead of the body of the car.

Was for me, only cost me 20 quid to get him a new one

Mine went to heaven.

Cloudio9

No reg plate snobbery in NZ. Wonder what the equivalent data is for Ireland:

"The average age of cars in New Zealand is more than 14 years. Transport Agency data shows cars built before 2000, which represents nearly 40% of all passenger cars and SUVs on New Zealand roads....."

Cloudio9

Chiparus wrote: »

two cars rolled over

Maybe they should start loading insurance for all these SUV's people seem to love.

rex-x

Pelvis wrote: »

A head on crash where both cars are traveling over 60km/h cannot in any circumstances be considered a slow speed impact.

Both cars doing 60 km/h head on is the same as one car hitting a stationary wall for example, it doesn't = a 120 km/h impact as many people think so it is fairly slow speed

fancy pigeon

Awaits the expert views regarding car design of the 90's, structural integrity, build quality and how you could jump into the E10 and drive off in it

punisher5112

fancy pigeon wrote: »

Awaits the expert views regarding car design of the 90's, structural integrity, build quality and how you could jump into the E10 and drive off in it

Blow it up or burn it it actually might.
Don't forget let it swim with the fishes also..

Worked on the top gear pick up.

CiniO

rex-x wrote: »

Both cars doing 60 km/h head on is the same as one car hitting a stationary wall for example, it doesn't = a 120 km/h impact as many people think so it is fairly slow speed

The problem is the weight difference.
Assuming new corolla is considerably heavier than old one, the this accident for new corolla ended up more like hitting the wall at 45km/h while old one was like hitting wall at 75km/h.

This on top of all safety features of modern car make such a tremendous difference.

And what I'm sating is that obviously all safety features are great, but weight makes a big diffenece as well.

Try crashing modern tiny car like ford ka or Toyota aygo with all moderns safety features head on at 50km/h into Toyota Camry from the 90s.
In that case I'd probably prefer to be in the old Camry than most modern aygo

AuldDaysul

Quick everybody buy new cars or this could be YOU...

Stallingrad

Whatever about the safety aspect of the test we can all take comfort from the fact that there are 2 more Corollas off the road.

Buffman

Ye, I've seen this story popping up in a few media outlets today, a little bit of insurance company PR maybe?

Just to be pedantic but that '98' corolla in that test is actually the E100 design from 1991 which the Aussies were still making up to 1999 for some reason, looks like some of them made it to NZ aswell. How they were allowed to manufacture cars in the late 90s with no airbags as standard is another question.

Our '98' models were the E110 model which had a 3 star NCAP Adult Occupant rating which actually wasn't too bad for the era. (Obviously still wouldn't beat a new model in a head to head)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-wNYd7ftik

But yes, in more general terms, safety is something that everyone should factor in when buying.

On the insurance companies, I wouldn't have an issue if they actually did openly link their policies/prices to car safety, but the blanket 'old car' ban some of them now enforce doesn't appear to take individual models safety into account at all.

Wibbs

Another thinly veiled SIMI press release, with added government drive, rising insurance costs applied to older cars and "green" concerns to convince people to please buy new cars on maxed out PCP schemes to inflate the economy. Or maybe I'm a cynic...

Another aspect that is often left out in these comparisons is corrosion. Specifically hidden corrosion on older cars. If you've ever taken out the dash/carpet on an older car(and not so old either) and look along the seams where the spot welds are you're near guaranteed to see the first signs of corrosion. Rust tends to start on metal edges,in welds and within closed structures like sills, A/B/C pillars and long before it shows up on the visible surfaces. This can seriously weaken a cars structure compared to when it was new.

I already have a seam welded chassis, so off I go to research roll cages and five point harnesses. And machine guns.

One maybe odd one... I remember reading that in many car fatalities if the driver had been wearing a crash helmet they would have lived(not far off the percentage for bikers IIRC) and yet AFAIK it's illegal to wear a helmet in a car on a public road?

Wibbs

Buffman wrote: »

How they were allowed to manufacture cars in the late 90s with no airbags as standard is another question.

The Japanese were allowed to have them as options into the mid noughties, in their domestic market anyway. They were mandatory in the EU by 96(IIRC).

fancy pigeon

Wibbs wrote: »

The Japanese were allowed to have them as options into the mid noughties, in their domestic market anyway. They were mandatory in the EU by 96(IIRC).

All the Seicentos I've had have had no airbags, from 1998 to 2000 registered. Same with a 2001 Daily van, no airbags

Could it be immobilizers that were required for circa 1995/1996 instead?

Or have I read the post wrong, sorry if I have!

CiniO

Wibbs wrote: »

One maybe odd one... I remember reading that in many car fatalities if the driver had been wearing a crash helmet they would have lived(not far off the percentage for bikers IIRC) and yet AFAIK it's illegal to wear a helmet in a car on a public road?

Why would it be illegal to wear a helmet while driving? I don't think it is illegal.

Wibbs

fancy pigeon wrote: »

Could it be immobilizers that were required for circa 1995/1996 instead?

Or maybe it was catalytic converters? Now that I think of it I too knew lads and lasses whose cars had no airbags in the late 90's. I've actually never owned a car with airbags(or ABS). Then again I went from Euro built cars to Jap imports in the late 90's and went for the airbag deleted examples.

Wibbs

CiniO wrote: »

Why would it be illegal to wear a helmet while driving? I don't think it is illegal.

Now I could be wrong C(likely), but I'm pretty sure it's illegal under Irish law. If memory serves it was mates of mine into rallying told me this, that some guys had been warned by Guards driving in between stages on open public roads.

CiniO

Wibbs wrote: »

The Japanese were allowed to have them as options into the mid noughties, in their domestic market anyway. They were mandatory in the EU by 96(IIRC).

I had 1997 cinquecento with no airbags.
My dad has until this day 2000 corsa with no airbags

jackofalltrades

artanevilla wrote: »

What's the difference in the weight of the cars?

Is was thinking the same thing myself.
A quick look on Wiki shows the newer Corolla to be roughly 200-250 kgs heavier.

fancy pigeon

Wibbs wrote: »

Or maybe it was catalytic converters? Now that I think of it I too knew lads and lasses whose cars had no airbags in the late 90's. I've actually never owned a car with airbags(or ABS). Then again I went from Euro built cars to Jap imports in the late 90's and went for the airbag deleted examples.

Catalytic converters were mandatory from 1993 on. On the plus side of owning such a car there's less sensors/modules to go wrong in the wrong hands!

jacksie66

This post has been deleted.

Wibbs

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Is was thinking the same thing myself.
A quick look on Wiki shows the newer Corolla to be roughly 200-250 kgs heavier.

That makes a big difference alright. Plus I noticed when the safety tester woman was describing the damage, she noted that the old car's crumple zones didn't work, which was very much a leading conclusion. Yes there was cabin intrusion and distortion, but the front end crumple zones could be clearly seen to work just like in the new car and they collapsed and took a lot of the energy out of the impact. Just as they were designed to do when the car was new. This was not some 1960's design and if it had airbags chances are the injuries sustained would not have been fatal. Obviously modern safety is better than twenty years ago, but I smell a bit of a foregone conclusion looking for "proof".

That's before we get to the release of this across various Irish media outlets. Funny that... Run out and get yourself into debt like good citizens.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

Now I could be wrong C(likely), but I'm pretty sure it's illegal under Irish law. If memory serves it was mates of mine into rallying told me this, that some guys had been warned by Guards driving in between stages on open public roads.

That sounds like Ireland alright. "Sir, you need to take that safety helmet off for safety reasons."

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

That sounds like Ireland alright. "Sir, you need to take that safety helmet off for safety reasons."

IIRC restricted senses is the reasoning. Apparently not for bikers. I think installing a roll cage is also in the legal grey area. Certainly I'd suspect insurance companies would have a fit over such a modification.

coylemj

artanevilla wrote: »

What's the difference in the weight of the cars?

The two cars rotated about the point of impact (neither car was pushed back) which suggests that there was ballast in the lighter car to equalize the weights.

The driver's airbag was a significant factor in the newer car, the guy in the older car would still have ended up with his legs in a mess but he might have survived with a front airbag.

ScumLord

Wibbs wrote: »

IIRC restricted senses is the reasoning. Apparently not for bikers. I think installing a roll cage is also in the legal grey area. Certainly I'd suspect insurance companies would have a fit over such a modification.

The new Ford GT is such a race car it actually has a roll cage built into it as standard.

It's a bit mad, a roll cage is obviously going to make a car so much safer, they're inconvenience would be the major reason people don't put them in, well, other than them being overkill for a normal car. Maybe the fire services would be against them in the event you do crash your car it's going to be harder for them to cut you out of it.

colm_mcm

CiniO wrote: »

I had 1997 cinquecento with no airbags.
My dad has until this day 2000 corsa with no airbags

Different spec on your dads car to what we got in Ireland IIRC

Agricola

Feck. Sometimes I regret selling that Rover Mini a couple of years ago. This is one of those times, I didn't!

SBPhoto

Anjobe wrote: »

We're not going to start standing up for that cartel of shysters and gougers now are we?

If this particular accident happened on the road the insurance payout on the newer car would surely be far higher - higher value car to write off and possibly the driver to survive to incur some serious medical expenses. The older card would be near worthless and the only medical expenses the driver would incur would be for a lift in the ambulance to the nearest morgue.

The injuries sustained in the older car if not fatal would be much more substancel resulting in much higher compensations

ShadowHearth

Well, first of all, I never though any of those small cars are safe from earlier years. Is it even fair to use old corolla to new? All modern cars became way bigger and heavier. Maybe old avensis vs new corolla would be more fair?
I always chose big cars when I was buying. When coming to ireland it was a bit of a shock to see majority of cars tiny death cans.
Back in the day my ex managed to hit head on vectra. She got out of a car without even a scratch and paramedics said: you are lucky you were in that car. You would be dead if you would be in one of those micras. It was my merc clk200 00".

Thats actually another thing that annoys me. Yes, cars are older, but majority pass 2000 has all airbags, abs and safety features. Maybe instead of completely write off all cars that older then x years, maybe check what car it is and what safety features it has ffs. My 04 old alfa gt has everything, but insurance companies already loading it up as deathtrap.

Frankie Lee

It would be more interesting to compare a 02-> Corolla to the current model, the example in the video is based on a model that was released at the end of 91 in Japan. Crash safety really made some leap forward in the 00's

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

The new Ford GT is such a race car it actually has a roll cage built into it as standard.

It's a bit mad, a roll cage is obviously going to make a car so much safer, they're inconvenience would be the major reason people don't put them in, well, other than them being overkill for a normal car. Maybe the fire services would be against them in the event you do crash your car it's going to be harder for them to cut you out of it.

I'd say the major inconvenience is cost for the manufacturers. It largely comes down to the money. If governments and lawsuits hadn't compelled them I'd be willing to bet few manufacturers would have airbags and all that stuff.

As for overkill for a normal car SL, I dunno. If a roll cage had been fitted to that older Corolla, even one without obtrusive diagonals, the outcome would have been very different. The increasing use of carbon fibre and other such materials when they come down to the economies of average cars will make a big difference. Though much stronger cars bring their own issues too. You have to beef up other stuff. Seats for example, seat belts another. Look at how something like a rally car is kitted out. One piece seats rated far higher(and more expensive) than normal seats and five point harnesses. That's full on though, they could still make cars more safe for higher speed impacts.

The other aspect could be that such a toughened car would increase fatalities in the cars it might end up hitting. A works rally car in that test would have caused far more damage to the new car.

colm_mcm

https://youtu.be/xidhx_f-ouU

Minus the ads.

road_high

Like the way they still call the Auris hatch still by the Corolla over there, it's proper name.

road_high

CiniO wrote: »

I had 1997 cinquecento with no airbags.
My dad has until this day 2000 corsa with no airbags

Pretty sure all Corsas had them as standard from mid 90s on- Ford made a drivers airbag standard across its range in Ireland in 1994 and it was a huge marketing success that everyone had to follow. By 2000 virtually nothing came without airbags bar a LR Defender et al

colm_mcm

Cinios dads one is an Eastern European spec as far as I remember.

There's still a lot of cars we get here like the Duster that are sold in other markets like India that don't have airbags.

CiniO

road_high wrote: »

Pretty sure all Corsas had them as standard from mid 90s on- Ford made a drivers airbag standard across its range in Ireland in 1994 and it was a huge marketing success that everyone had to follow. By 2000 virtually nothing came without airbags bar a LR Defender et al

colm_mcm wrote: »

Cinios dads one is an Eastern European spec as far as I remember.

There's still a lot of cars we get here like the Duster that are sold in other markets like India that don't have airbags.

Indeed my dad's corsa is Polish spec (and at that time Poland was not in the EU).

However I personally had 1997 Cinquecento - Irish spec sold originally in 1997 in Claremorris Fiat dealer, and it definitely didn't have airbag.

colm_mcm

Yep, friend had a 99 Seicento S without an airbag too.

JohnBoy26

road_high wrote: »

Pretty sure all Corsas had them as standard from mid 90s on- Ford made a drivers airbag standard across its range in Ireland in 1994 and it was a huge marketing success that everyone had to follow. By 2000 virtually nothing came without airbags bar a LR Defender et al

The base model 1996-2001 civic sold here had no airbags

colm_mcm

Yep, the next model up was the SRS, funnily (?) enough

Nekarsulm

New Zealand operated a policy of restricting car imports for decades, to protect its own small car assembly industry. (Assembling CKD kits, same as we did with the first VW's in this country) so you had a majority of old Brit. models on the roads. Then in about 1998 or so, they finally allowed s/h Jap imports in. Hundreds of thousands were imported, and still well regarded. This video is about selling New cars to people.

CalamariFritti

I just sold my trusty E39 tank a couple of months ago and replaced it with a newish 3 series. I have nothing to support this with but just from the feel of the two cars I imagine the E39 would go right though the 3.

As to the OP. It isn't slow speeds when both cars are travelling at 64 km/h. Thats like driving at 128 km/h into a stationary object. Actually it could be worse due to inertia, not sure.

CiniO

CalamariFritti wrote: »

As to the OP. It isn't slow speeds when both cars are travelling at 64 km/h. Thats like driving at 128 km/h into a stationary object. Actually its worse due to inertia.

No, its not like driving into stationary object at 128 km/h.

If both vehicles are same weight, it's like each driven into a wall at 64km/h.