John Horner

I guess this is a milestone of sorts in the evolution of crash
protection from being a specialty feature of Volvo and into being
something for everyone. I am also sure that a chorus of apologists
will arise claiming that the IIHS test is somehow flawed. To those
people I ask: When Volvo does well on IIHS tests, doesn't Volvo brag
about it?

Here is the news release from IIHS today:

http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releas...5/pr060505.htm


A few exerpts:

>>>>>>>>>
Volvo is acceptable: The S60's performance was not as good as the A4's
or Malibu's. With the standard curtain airbags, head protection was
good. But forces on the driver dummy's pelvis were high.

"Even though the S60 has standard torso airbags for front-seat occupants
along with the curtains, a fractured pelvis for the driver would be
likely in a real-world crash like this," Lund says. "Volvo still has
some work to do to improve the S60's performance."
>>>>>>>>>>

Granted the Malibu they speak of is equipped with optional side air bags
while the Volvo has them standard. However, the Audi A4 and Saab 9-3
also did better than the S60.

Volvo is no longer the clear leader in crash protection.

John

'96 854 110,000 miles
'72 1800ES 108,000 miles

Rob Guenther

The Volvo's design is also older then any one of those cars - The Mailbu
shares a platform with the Saab 9-3, and the Saab was picked as Swedens
safest car (could have been the 9-5... but I know the 9-3 is very safe
too)... so Saab knows a thing or two about safety, and teaches GM, as Volvo
teaches Ford.

The Audi was also redesigned for this year.

What is more disapointing is that the new S40 got acceptable, to have the
new Jetta really show everyone how to make a small car safe, it got a Best
Pick for side, and a Good rating (tho not best pick) for frontal offset.

I don't know if Volvo was the "clear leader" for a while now - Saabs seem to
do just as good or better, and back in the day you were probably as safe in
a Mercedes Benz.... Volvo just has a more vocal safety regime, now that
everyone is concered about safety, or so it would seem, you hear more and
more about other cars being just as good... With computer technology pretty
much everyone can be at the top, if they want to spend the money.
"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Crlqe.59$gL4.33@trnddc07...
>
> I guess this is a milestone of sorts in the evolution of crash protection
> from being a specialty feature of Volvo and into being something for
> everyone. I am also sure that a chorus of apologists will arise claiming
> that the IIHS test is somehow flawed. To those people I ask: When Volvo
> does well on IIHS tests, doesn't Volvo brag about it?
>
> Here is the news release from IIHS today:
>
> http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releas...5/pr060505.htm
>
>
> A few exerpts:
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Volvo is acceptable: The S60's performance was not as good as the A4's or
> Malibu's. With the standard curtain airbags, head protection was good. But
> forces on the driver dummy's pelvis were high.
>
> "Even though the S60 has standard torso airbags for front-seat occupants
> along with the curtains, a fractured pelvis for the driver would be likely
> in a real-world crash like this," Lund says. "Volvo still has some work to
> do to improve the S60's performance."
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Granted the Malibu they speak of is equipped with optional side air bags
> while the Volvo has them standard. However, the Audi A4 and Saab 9-3 also
> did better than the S60.
>
> Volvo is no longer the clear leader in crash protection.
>
> John
>
> '96 854 110,000 miles
> '72 1800ES 108,000 miles

John Horner

Rob Guenther wrote:
> The Volvo's design is also older then any one of those cars - The Mailbu
> shares a platform with the Saab 9-3, and the Saab was picked as Swedens
> safest car (could have been the 9-5... but I know the 9-3 is very safe
> too)... so Saab knows a thing or two about safety, and teaches GM, as Volvo
> teaches Ford.
>
> The Audi was also redesigned for this year.
>
> What is more disapointing is that the new S40 got acceptable, to have the
> new Jetta really show everyone how to make a small car safe, it got a Best
> Pick for side, and a Good rating (tho not best pick) for frontal offset.
>
> I don't know if Volvo was the "clear leader" for a while now - Saabs seem to
> do just as good or better, and back in the day you were probably as safe in
> a Mercedes Benz.... Volvo just has a more vocal safety regime, now that
> everyone is concered about safety, or so it would seem, you hear more and
> more about other cars being just as good... With computer technology pretty
> much everyone can be at the top, if they want to spend the money.

Sometime in the 90s Volvo clearly changed it's focus to go after the
trendy-fashion thing and leave behind their traditional priorities. The
current sales success of the XC90 is likely to continue encouraging
Volvo down the fashion path. The problem with fashion is that success
is always fleeting.

John

James Sweet

"John Horner" <jthorner@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Crlqe.59$gL4.33@trnddc07...
>
> I guess this is a milestone of sorts in the evolution of crash
> protection from being a specialty feature of Volvo and into being
> something for everyone. I am also sure that a chorus of apologists
> will arise claiming that the IIHS test is somehow flawed. To those
> people I ask: When Volvo does well on IIHS tests, doesn't Volvo brag
> about it?
>
> Here is the news release from IIHS today:
>
> http://www.hwysafety.org/news_releas...5/pr060505.htm
>
>
> A few exerpts:
>
> >>>>>>>>>
> Volvo is acceptable: The S60's performance was not as good as the A4's
> or Malibu's. With the standard curtain airbags, head protection was
> good. But forces on the driver dummy's pelvis were high.
>
> "Even though the S60 has standard torso airbags for front-seat occupants
> along with the curtains, a fractured pelvis for the driver would be
> likely in a real-world crash like this," Lund says. "Volvo still has
> some work to do to improve the S60's performance."
> >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Granted the Malibu they speak of is equipped with optional side air bags
> while the Volvo has them standard. However, the Audi A4 and Saab 9-3
> also did better than the S60.
>
> Volvo is no longer the clear leader in crash protection.
>
> John
>
> '96 854 110,000 miles
> '72 1800ES 108,000 miles

Other manufactures are catching up, Volvo was decades ahead years ago but
it's inevitable that some others will begin to catch up eventually, there
reaches a point when there's much less left to improve.

Hal Whelply

"James Sweet" <jamessweet@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7hsqe.3428$2K4.1417@trnddc08...

> ...Other manufactures are catching up, Volvo was decades ahead years ago
> but
> it's inevitable that some others will begin to catch up eventually, there
> reaches a point when there's much less left to improve.

Right. For example:
http://www.driveandstayalive.com/inf...ters_honda.htm