Old cars were much less safe in case of an impact, no matter what the brand was because the steel strength used back then was weaker and the survival space wasn't designed to be strong enough by today standards. Volvo had probably always built the safest cars, but a 15 years old car structural strength was no near the actual cars strength. It's engineering, versus popular myths. And this video is specifically made to show that any recent small car is safer than any old larger sedan.
Holy moly, I remember this car.. it was my Demonstration Vehicle at Lookers Renault when I used to be a Sales Executive and my driving instructors bought the Car After I left. Then sold it to 5th Gear 😁😂 14 yrs ago (2022 now)
The Volvo 940 had no modifications or engines removed during this test. It simply underperformed even in the era of the 940, which had a very unusual safety cage and crumple zone. It even performs worse than 240 in some cases. If there had been an airbag, the driver of the 940 would have survived but suffered serious leg injuries. I can't imagine if the 940 collided with a new car of the same weight at that speed. October 27, 2023 11:43AM
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k I'm not kidding, the 940's structure is terrible, it's only designed to do well at 35mph fontal crash. If you are in an offset collision, you will be seriously injured and even die even with airbags. The Volvo 700/900 is the least safe car Volvo has ever produced. July 14, 2024 12:18PM
@@antiantifa1496 removal of an engine does nothing to affect the crash worthiness of a vehicle An engine acts as a missile in an engine bay and actually causes more damage, it is the subframe and chassis of a car that channels the energy of an impact NOT not the engine It is simply that the Volvo is from an older design era before better understanding of crash forces was understood Why do you think that road fatalities have reduced even though the number of vehicles on the road continues to increase?
Would be interesting to see the Renault go up against another very stiff frame, modern car and have the dummies wired with sensors to measure the forces created and compare with this collision. The crumple zone in the Volvo absorbed a huge amount of force and that helped reduce injuries in both cars (although the dummy riding shotgun got it pretty bad). Regardless it's cool to see that new cars have better safety than older ones.
I remember some years ago an accident took plance in my town: a Ferrari 360 Modena crashed front to front with a Peugeot 206. Both people in the 360 died, and the occupants of the Peugeot came out alive, although injured. It's all about stiffness and energy absortion. The Ferrari is designed to be stiff and around performance while a normal street car is designed to trnsfer crash energy in a way it get's as little as posible to their occupants. It's not an all-or-nothing compromise, but it affects chassis desgin. Of course you are free to believe what you want, but that is a fact.
lol, nothing gets people as angry as showing something from their country fails. Or that their favorite car fails. Even in a crash test between a modern car and a very old car where the outcome is very obvious and logical. Still, some people get angry and accuse Fifth Gear for bullshitting and cheating by removing engine and gearbox. Just look how good the very tiny car Smart does in a head on crash with a concrete wall. Modern cars are built to very different standards far tougher than 30 years ago. It's amazing so many can forget this fact.
bezor Ta And those idiots that can't undertand the fact that the volvo had no engine in it and write like they know anything about cars anoys people even more.
omg.. like a half tonne of swedish steel missing in form of an engine. I'm a designer student, and i am not an engineer but that much i know that it is a significant piece of the system designed to absorb the crash tensions. Facepalm.. Guys, this is obviously a fake crash "test". Its not in a acully controlled environment and its not carried out with somebody who has a lisence for this like Euro NCAP.
me? the opposite -volvo 🤮 I bought a brand new 2006 volvo v50 T5 top of the line - worst car i've ever had - terrible to drive and very unreliable - I sold it as soon as the warranty expired
The point of this test isn't to say that modern Renaults are better than modern Volvos. It's to say how far crash safety has come from the safest cars of the eighties and early nineties to the time this show was made. Crash a 2017 Volvo into a 2007 Renault and the Volvo will show itself to be the safer car. It will also have more safety systems to prevent a real life crash happening in the first place.
I smell BULLSHIT... theres not even an ENGINE or even a TRANSMISSION in the Volvo!!! (I bet they sold it so they wouldn't loose money) My dad rammed a tree going approx. 50-60mph on a highway in a 940 station wagon in the late 1990's to avoid hitting a motorbike that was trying to pass a car, but didn't get out of his lane soon enough. But the point is that the car was still highly salvagable. The interior was fine, but the engine & components were almost completely destroyed. Volvo designed this thing like a tank, and the beastly engine was a huge key in the design, so if you don't have a fucking engine, expect it to crumple up like a coke can. WTF 5th gear...
Nothing fake in this video. Ask to an engineer , the modern car after 2000 like the renault modus are designed to resist at 65 km/h . The engine of volvo is under the chassis after the crash. Just look the hot vapor water in the volvo, it proove that volvo has an engine for the crashtest.
The engine of volvo is under the chassis, it has been designed like this to protect the passengers. and volvo 940 = 90's , renault modus = 2000's = 10 years of difference
Fredrik Sandberg YES Volvo is a safe brand but in this video they speak about old generation volvo (90 's ) VS + or - recent renault modus, city size, (2000's) . they speak about progress for crash test .
It's actually 20 years difference. The Volvo 760 came out in 1984, it has the very same platform and construction as the 940 in this video. The modus came out 2004.
stephen10 Do you even read? It is 20 years and i explained that. With platform i meant chassis construction, the Modus has it's own unibody chassis. It shared platforms with earlier cars, but that does not mean they used the same body/chassis.
And still there are people who believe that these older Volvo’s are safe in todays traffic. No matter that it has been proven that smaller, modern cars are much safer (like this Renault). It’s so hard for some people to change their minds.
They're the same daft pxxxks who will send a teenager off in an old 340, 240 etc with the BS "you'll be safe in grandpa's tank" ringing in their ears! It's shocking
It’s ‘Lamba Sond’ and it refers to the catalytic converter system which was relatively new to cars in the 90s. My Volvo 480 has a Lambda Sond converter as well
@@sherpafan033 They had invented the system in 1976 for the US market, but in Europe, leaded petrol meant that this was unviable (the US discontinued leaded petrol in 1975 at the latest for new cars and stopped selling the stuff in 1995).
The 850 wouldn't have fared any better. Despite the Modus' appearance, it has a rock-solid spaceframe and was built with EuroNCAP's Star Rating in mind in 2004. The Volvo has no spaceframe and would theoretically suffer the same fate as the 940 in similar circumstances.
@chris jones You would still be ganked in the 850, Unibody/Spaceframes are physically tougher than body-on-chassis vehicles. As the body of BoC vehicles crumple entirely, rather than remain rigid in specific parts of the frame. For reference, here's an image of a 1995 MY, North American-market Volvo 850: i.ytimg.com/vi/fh8zcu0Paoo/maxresdefault.jpg And this is contrasted by this image: www.oeamtc.at/aux/testarchiv/crashtest/mini/modus_det.jpg A 250kg weight advantage means nothing against a stiffer frame, better materials and a physically superior construction method.
@chris jones I agree with you. Nobody's claiming an 850 would win here. The argument was whether it would do "any better" than the 750, and I think this is obvious. Just as a W210 E class would be safer than a W124 one. Considering how the 850 did in the NCAP tests, I think it should give it's driver a decent chance of survival. With these "old vs new" tests they (and I don't only mean Fifth Gear, to be fair) often deliberately use cars that weren't particularly safe even back in their day: like the Old Espace in an earlier Fifth Gear Crash test, Ford Sierras, a 1998 Corolla or a Rover 100 to name just a few. As others have said, the design of the 940 dates back to the design of the 740 from the early 80s. The 740 was also tested in the 90s by German car magazine Auto, Motor und Sport, and did not get a good grade there either. So you can't even claim it was considered very safe back then. It's not like manufacturers like Volvo and Saab and Mercedes always sold you state-of-the-art safe cars in the 90s: Model life cycles were just a lot longer back then, while safety standards were increasing very fast. But then again, that was sort of the point of this test.
@@captmcneil That's the problem, there are stupid people who do think these old cars are safe. They come out with silly terms like 'tanks' and 'one ton bumper bar' and some people even go as far as buying them for their children, while telling them how safe it is! Idiot's
***** New cars are safer indeed. But remember that an engine and transmission would have changed the aftermath a lot still. Plus that 940 was the early 90's one. The late 90's version is safer. And were in a time now where you can get a used Volvo V70 gen. 2. That would be safer than a modus Period
And when the 240 came out, the DOT bought a bunch to crash, and this established a new standard for safety which all other manufacturers had to follow. It WAS the safest car at the time...
That's the point!. The show tries to convey us that. Under a limit budget, if you have to select a new model with 5 star crash test or an old one that just looks more safe, you would rather buy a new one.
Pause at 2:37, you can clearly see the engine, it's kind of black looking, the exhaust is also visible coming out of the engine. You can even see the dipstick.
@overdrivelc16 No, I think that's a great test fift gear have just done. The Volvo may not have an ncap rating, but it's still traditionally viewed as a very safe car, so it's interesting to see how it fares against a safe car which is less well known for its safety.
The engine in the 940 is longitudinaly mounted in the center (FR layout), so in the offset impact it remains untouched These old bangers were designed for a full front impact, their body rigidity suck though 850 is better First volvo safe to modern standards is S80
Fun fact the Volvo 940/960 which is a Volvo 740/760 was first released in 1984 with little to no safety changes besides airbags and sips meaning they essentially crash a car from mm into a car from the 80s
3:14 true in this case because its an old car vs a newer car obviously the newer car will be stiffer and more ridged than the old one but heavier cars will almost always be better off in a front crash test, theres a video of a ford f250 crashing into a ford focus they are both from the same decade and have the same safety equipment but the f250 is far better off than the focus because of its size and weight
What I'd like to know is....Why would there be no air bag in the Volvo? at about 2:50 the host says clearly "obviously, there's no air bag" I have a 1990 Volvo 240 DL Wagon and *it* has an airbag. The first Volvo car equipped with an airbag left the assembly line in 1987 - and since then the company has extended the technology with several world-firsts. Volvo was first with both the seat-mounted side airbag and the Inflatable Curtain (IC) - and in 2012 the technology's 25th anniversary was celebrated with the introduction of the groundbreaking pedestrian airbag in the all-new Volvo V40. As far as the 940 being too old to have a safety rating, Government safety ratings have been in place since the 1950s. Volvo has long been at the forefront of vehicle safety, introducing laminated glass for the windshield in 1944, being the first to have a 3-point seatbelt harness (standard equipment on all Volvos since 1959). Additionally, Volvo developed the first rear-facing child seat in 1964[23] and introduced its own booster seat in 1978. The 960 introduced the first three-point seat belt for the middle of the rear seat and a child safety cushion integrated in the middle armrest. Also in 1991 it introduced the Side Impact Protection System (SIPS) on the 940/960 and 850 models, which channel the force of a side impact away from the doors and into the safety cage. Personally, this sounds to me as if the Volvo 940 wagon was modified for reduced safety for this "test".
wolfsdenarmoury I couldn't say this better, I knew there was something wrong since we always bought Volvos since 40 years, and there always were the safest alternative. Thanks for pointing this out.
wolfsdenarmoury "Personally, this sounds to me as if the Volvo 940 wagon was modified for reduced safety for this "test"." the butthurt is strong with this one. This is a UK model - airbags were mostly optional equipment, even on Volvos. The rest of your post is pure guff...if you knew anything about car design and construction techniques within the last 10-15 years you'd understand the disparity between these 2 cars.
lol nice troll man. Its been decades I buy vovlos where you don't. i owned that model here in America and I find this very stupid from the british to put airbaigs as an option. Volvo has invented th seat belt and everybody now has some on their car. Why not airbags at that time?????
ALPHAzerox898 "I find this very stupid from the british to put airbaigs as an option." Well, shit. Different countries have different safety laws. Crazy huh? I find it very stupid that Americans drive on the right, but that's a fact. Deal with it.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kI expected the Volvo would fare worse. In this test, the 940's designed in crumple zone was especially beneficial to dummy occupants of the Modus. It would have helped reduce G loading. I don't know what in-house safety tests (pre NCAP) the Volvo was designed to pass but clearly NCAP standards are higher.
@@idonotwantahandle2 The simple fact, lost on our silly FanBoys is the Volvo was designed in the 80's, the Renualt's a modern design with high tensile steel load paths and structures. It also benefits from modern restraint technology.
My crazy mom drives Volvo 940 Turbo (made in 1998) for 10 years already. Been in 2 car accidents at 80 km/h, just minor scratch on the front bumper both times. Do not know what happened to first opponent, but second one - Mitsubishi Lancer was in repair for 2 weeks. Also escaped accident just 2 weeks ago, the car is very manouverable and can escape the worst hit position quickly. Mom is thinking about changing it into Volvo XC90. But she is not sure yet. Volvo 940 is just the safest tank around!
I don't get it. The engine is undeformable. Having it in there reduces the distance over which energy is dissipated. So if anything, removing the engine HELPS the Volvo.
Of course this is true but a lot of people are still convinced the old Volvo would win against a newer Renault. Because it is heavier and a Volvo. This video just shows the importance of modern safety technology and raises the awareness that old cars are deathtraps. This video is not here to show that Volvos are bad, ofc a 2015 Volvo is a very safe car, it's just that so many think a 1988 Volvo is pretty safe as well. Which it's not.
Maran Muniandy how dumb can someone be before it illegal god damnit the modus missed the engine and was pushed out by the frame of the volvo i know my volvos it was an engine in that car and its meant to crumble
Engineering progresses as time passes. A refusal to acknowledge this is a refusal to acknowledge reality itself. Congratulations on living in a fantasy world.
the renault was designed exactly for this type of crash, because it is the euroNcap standard. the volvos are not designed for tests, but for overall safety.
@215alessio you are right. volvo does have engine, it would be way higher on its front springs if it didn't, like you say. I work on cars too, and I think anybody who knows his stuff about cars can see that there IS an engine in it..
Ok, a good Grand Modus (which is bigger than the crash Modus) with a 1.5DCi engine is a great car. £30 tax and 60+ mpg. But they are now hard to find in 2021. Check the subframe that holds the radiator - they really rot. Also not easy to work on. You have to remove plastic panels to check the brake fluid. But when you open the door you feel the sheer weight of the structure - in fact they have a habit of dropping on the hinges a bit they are so heavy. Happy crashing :)
Even a C30 or a new Volvo S60 would fair much better than the older 940, just because of the fact that Safety improved in a heartbeat and also because of the fact, that the 940 was built before NCAP or the crash tests of the IIHS even had started
Mercedes W140 was builds before Euro and cap.... but under Alma Bridge Trevor Reese Jones survive at 80 mph hit on a concrete pillar...128 kmh..... an €&cap hit at 40 (64 )
@@alanaliyev456GT It wasn't 80 mph, they estimated it was between 65-70 mph. The driver's side took the brunt of it, and was devastated, the footwell was completely consumed, the steering wheel was driven back and up virtually to the front of the drivers headrest. Each generation of car's safer than the last, there is no golden era of vehicle safety. People can talk about old Volvo's and Mercedes being the safest cars available, but they're wrong.
@AnthonyUK didnt you notice the were being pulled along on a cable? they do that on crash tests to ensure a fair even speed. the modus has an engine, you could see the coolant bottle but the volvo had no rad hoses or engine in there. a volvo engine is bright fire engine red and over 2 foot long...cant miss it..if it were there
This is fake. The red block engine in this car would go underneath the Volvo and the trans would be visible along with the drive shaft.... which is isn't..They took the engine out, which is where the car get a lot of its strength. Another video is floating around on here with a similar test result. This is marketing at its finest folks. They take the strong part of the Volvo out, it crumples like a tin can because it isn't as strong without that engine in there transferring pressure to the rest of the car. They did this to help with car sales.. Of newer cars.
it s not fake at all , the new european norme for crash test and new material raws and new design with computer allow to have very safe car (even little car like renault modus ) . and this video was in 6 years ago ! now the renault are better ...
I'm sorry but why is it so difficult to believe that technology does advance? It's been like 20 years since that Volvo was built, we can now do a lot more testing on materials, and computers allow us to not only do extreme calculations but also take measurements in ways not possible 20 years ago. Of course you're going to be able to build safer cars! Look at the advancements in surgery, are they fake too? Modern cars are built to protect the occupants only, a 30 km/h crash can total a car because it's made to transfer energy everywhere except to the occupants. The cars that don't crumple in the front are the worst for the passengers. I mean, was anyone really expecting the old Volvo to do better than a new 5 star ncap car? Statistics on the amount of people yearly dying in car crashes alone are enough to prove just how much better modern cars are. In my country, it's now about one third of what it was 30 years ago.
skatewithlove No but that 940 is like a fucking tank in its original form. They have moded it and made it go slower than the ranualt. Ofc the Volvo takes most of the damage if it is half speed....
Mikael Lindstrand Were you asleep in science class?If the Renault had been stationary and the Volvo had hit it at 80MPH the result would have been the same.
Mikael Lindstrand it was not built like a tank it has crumble zones as well and the modus missed the engine and was pushed out by the frame of the volvo i know my volvos and if you look at the video it pushed out the modus
I don't believe in this test too much. Recently there was a high speed head-on collision of similar Volvo estate and Skoda Roomster in Finland, and two people died in the Roomster. Only the driver of the Volvo survived. Roomster is a bit heavier car than Renault Modus (100-200 kg difference).
laguna 2 is first car in the world which recived 5 stars in the euroncap test .. So this test is not suprise.. In 2002 laguna was the safest car in Europe .. Even volvo at that time got 4 stars .. Nowaday most cars has 5 stars . But this doesn't change anything that Renault making the safest cars in Europe.. Like paul Walker died from fire in the car which wasn't safe at all
Renault started to inforce safety in the 70's, forced by the french governement. If anything, it's Volvo who learned safety with Renault, not the other way around.
My 1993 Volvo 940 has airbags,a new side impact safety system,steel beams in the doors,self tightening seat belts in a crash,dropping engine(liquid filled motor mounts) one of the safest cars on the road in 1993 and still safer than many of the new cars, especially anything small or "green"...My 940 is MUCH safer.
stephen10 ....Many new car are terrible in frontal crashes. MUCH worse than my Volvo, whose engine is designed to break free and slide down to protect driver. Say what you will, from the 1990s on the old Volvos will hold their own with anything up to luxury cars of today..My doors are also easily twice as thick as many newer cars...Maybe it's that STEEL BEAM in there. Some folks hate Volvos no problem, but lets not tell tales..
So what? Do you think newer cars don't have these features? I have a 2003 Renault Laguna and it also has 8 airbags, reinforces side panels and pillars, seatbelt pretensioners and load limiters, dropping engine, reinforced foot well and much more. Just because a car is big and has a bunch of SRS systems doesn't make it that safe. It's mostly the structure that makes the biggest diffrence and I would prefer to crash in a new smaller Toyota Prius than an older and bigger 940
@MrSponge1985 i got two 940s and neither of them have airbags. the engine is longitudinal so the modus went down the side of the engine, it didn't hit the engine front on.
The cool thing for me is that because so many people like you don't want "a French turd", I just picked up one for pocket money. It looks and drives like new. I should get years of comfortable, safe cheap transport out of it, if that's what I need, and I'll be very satisfied :-D. It's just transport. If you really want to drive something sign up for weekend at your local race circuit. Volvos indeed - don't make me laugh.
Add to that the 13 stone dummy sat in the drivers seat which might have possibly hit the steering wheel causing it to bend upwards. As for the engine, I'd say its more likely it was in place and was the cause of the bulkhead damage.
The engine was in place, the steering column ended up in that position due to the huge amount of intrusion. The Volvo's passenger cabin became structurally unstable, and collapsed.
@chickenme50 I may be wrong to say that both cars have the engine in it, but the fuel tank removed. if you see the impact the noses dive down for both cars and the lighter tails jump upwards. so they are both heavy in the motor compartment. secondly: the mass of the volvo is higher than the renault. the volvo is heavyer . That van be noted on how both cars rebounce the renault bounces further away that means it is the lightest car, so again the volvo has it's engine in it.
An engine in a car is a problem. Engineers have to design where it is going in an accident, ie deflected under the car. Other than adding to the mass of a vehicle or if someone is shooting at you, it doesn't provide any protection. if you wish to believe otherwise, go for it. If you have ever seen older vehicles involved in a accident, you would realise that piece of cast iron is a wonderful battering ram.
Better than this old Volvo I imagine, but it's not been tested. In front and side I'm in the Renualt. Rear probably Renualt, due to modern head restraints.
I have a friend who worked on this car for the show and he was responsible for removing the engine before the test crash. Just accept that the media will use any method to get the results they want you to see.
Watch starting at 2:35 There's no engine in the Volvo. Totally empty engine compartment. These Volvos were designed like the ones of today with a "submarining" engine that is an integral aspect of the vehicle's crash worthiness. Take out the engine and this is no doubt what a crash will look like.
stephen10 the Volvo 940s don't use chassis all the way through they were one of the second to start making cars with no full on chassis they use a tiny bit in the front back and mainly have crumple zones instead
Robert Cowan, youre are clearly as blind as steve wonders, yet steve sees better than you... theres a clear as day shot of THE ENGINE in the video......
This is a UK spec car & they did not fit airbags to the Volvo, European cars did not have standard airbags in 1991-1992 when the Volvo was registered. J plated cars were from August 91 to July 92. Airbags, usually driver only, were fitted standard equipment not long afterwards. Majority of European spec cars, airbags were optional in the early to mid 90s.
I remember seeing part of an old Top Gear episode from round about 1993 on TH-cam. The focus of the video was the crash-testing of a group of 7 or so superminis. After seeing the horrific results side by side, the host casually said "as you would expect, none of these cars have airbags". I was really shocked. I don't think airbags were mandatory as early as they were in the US.
Completely disingenuous rubbish! How much did Renault pay them? Put the engine and transmission in the Volvo next time, and see the result. Or better still, take the engine out of the French turd. That would be interesting. I had a Ford Fiesta written off by a Volvo estate..damage to the Volvo? Broken headlight. damage to the Fiesta? Broken rear stub axle and back end stoved in. I now have a V70, and frankly I know where I'd rather be between that or the Renault.
2:53 you can see that Renault has extremely rigid aluminium frame right behind bumber. It divides forces mutch larger area. Also Renault has partly double underbody, it's very strong structural element. I'm proud owner of 05 Modus. 5 star safety. Volvo engine can be seen, it's there of course.
The Volvo 940 is basically a Volvo 740, first made in 1984! And since its such a large car its made soft with impact zones, and as others have said, I did not see an engine in the Volvo, how much more weak spots has been made with some nice cash in the pocket? Try that little shit car against a new Volvo, try and sit in it too so we can rid fools at the same time.
I think that though the modus has a very strong safety cage , it's crumple zone is so small that you might get internal organ injuries from the fast deceleration of a crash.
While what you are saying is true, the Volvo does not have a good crumple zone either. Sure, it's longer, but it does not crumple. Or to put it another way, the Renault has its crumple zone in front of the driver. The Volvo has its crumple zone around the driver, behind the front.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k for sure. I was meaning that if the modus was just designed with a longer bonnet/hood, it could be even better at protection than it already was. The Smart car has a very strong safety cage when Fifth Gear crashed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, But it sure seemed that somebody inside would get internal injuries from the sudden deceleration, though perhaps that would have happened in any car in such a crash. But even a modern well rated car that's significantly smaller then another car it's crashing into can do poorly in protecting the driver, though the difference in protection seems to be getting smaller in today's cars. Example being IIHS Kia Forte versus Kia Sorento and Toyota Yaris versus Toyota Camry.
2'38, no engine in volvo car (wich is part of the "tank" crash system), no driver in, both are towed by truk engine. I think this test is geared towards volvo discredit.... And if would have to be honnest, they had to make also a pur frontal one and another one for both being bumped by the rear side...
Renault Laguna was the first car ever to receive 5 stars in the Euro-NCAP and Renault's are always among the safest cars in their size-class. With all the innovation done on car-safety the last decade there is no doubt that the Renault is safer than the Volvo.
well if you think about it the modus has crumple zones which gives the chassis extra strength but the volvo has nothing to support the chassis when in a colision so i would go with the modus
***** Depends. If the Peugeot crashed everyone would say it's a french piece of crap. Here it's the contrary just because of the volvo fanboys not admitting the evidence. BTW I have nothing against Volvo
+niksarass Volvos are probably the safest cars around. This is just a very old Volvo, that's why it crashed like this. What you said makes no sense... Take a 100 year old mercedes and crash it with a 2015 car; does that makes Mercedeses unsafe?
papucimurdari My comment was not about Volvo safety, but about volvo fanboys madness childlish attitude and heavy dislikes. And it makes perfectly sense no matter how much volvo is safe. What does not make sense is your off-topic comment.
+papucimurdari Yes it will, because the age of the car doesn't deem it safe, but the construction and research behind it. Safety wasn't in the same focus 30 years ago as it is today. But if they tested an old Renault against an old Volvo, then maybe the Volvo would win. The whole point of this test was just to kill the myth that old Volvos are safe as tanks. Old cars aren't safe, period.
***** Judging on 1 single accident means nothing. And everyone knows that old cars would get only 1 or 2 stars by modern crashtest standards when even a crap polo gets 5 stars
@1700iDiGuy if they were too drive in a static object, the impact would be at 40 mph, but when both objects are moving in colliding directions, the impact is both objects velocity combined. In other words: 80 mph. 40+40 is still 80.... my ability too construct sentences in english is not always the best, but I hope you get the point :)
I would just like to say that for the record two objects colliding at the same speed will not " add up". Two vehicles at 40mph colliding only hit with the force of 40mph. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. An Impact wont double itself.
Well that's a terrible explanation. What would be better is to say that a car doing 80 mph is carrying nearly 3x the amount of energy as one doing 40 mph.
By the law of conservation of the momentum, when two cars of similar weight driving at equal speeds crash on each other head on, it will cause the exact deformation as if each car was crashing on it's own against a fixed barrier at the same speed. For example, two Renaults crashing against each other, each running at 40mph, each of them will deform exactly like in the results of the standard IIHS crash test against a fixed barrier watch?v=taSIy74PVGQ.
Well, he says "obviously there's no airbag", but I don't think that's because they removed it. I watched the video over and I couldn't hear them mention that they removed the airbag or the engine anywhere in the video. When does he mention that either were removed?
I would be interested to see the same test using a 20 year old Landcruiser or Range Rover. I don't want the little car to lose out, I would just like to know what happens when the old car weight 2.5 tons and is significantly larger size wise.
Why are all of the people on here trying to jump to the defence of Volvo? The test shown IS NOT to show that Volvo's are bad cars, it would have the same outcome if a Volvo C30 was crashed into the 940. The test is to show that generally, you are safer in a newer car than you are in one built around 15 years ago. It is aimed at young drivers who could afford to buy a small car 2-3 years old or a larger car that is around 10+ years old.
That’s the whole point of the exercise, to test old but big cars against newer but smaller cars. It’s astonishing how hard the concept is for you to understand.
That Volvo design is more that 20 years old. It was designed in the 1970's and launched in the 760 in 1982. After that Volvo kept using the design on the 940, 960 and S/V90. Obviously the Renault killed the Volvo because It's a 30 year old design VS 2004 design. At It's time (1982) the Volvo was a very safe car but 30 years later It's impossible.
@Henry Discipline I'm a Volvo entusiast but I totally understand the point of the test because It's obvious that the Volvo Is a much older car. Every inteligent person would understand It, no matter your favourite car maker or your favourite car.
Just to set a few things straight: 1) Yes, the Volvo is old and the Renault is new. That's the whole point of the test: newer cars are safer. 2) The Volvo has a longitudinal engine, which got pushed to the side in the collision. 3) The collision was not head-on because head-on collisions are very rare in real life. Offset collisions like this one are much more common. 4) EuroNCAP includes both offset and full-width frontal collision tests, in addition to side impact, pedestrian etc.
@Dreamweaverjack In this test, the results show that you would probably be more likely to be very badly (or mortally) wounded in the older car (Volvo 940), than you would in a newer car (Renault Modus). There are no hidden agendas for or against EITHER manufacturer in this test.
@pafro77 If there was no engine in it then where is the steam coming from?Also cars without engines sit higher at the front because there is less weight over the front axle,it looked quite level to me.
@Cucarachamlya your comment makes no sense at all. Of course it feels fine, it's a Volvo. But the video is about the changes in car construction the car companies made throughout last 20 years. It doesn't mean 5th gear hate volvos. And they choosed Renault cos it makes one of the safest cars nowadays.
It took about 4m to decelerate, and it spun the whole way there. The Volvo stopped dead. The Renault occupants would probably escape with quite serious injuries, but the Volvo driver would be killed instantly and the other occupants would come close to death as well.
Lol whats with all the dislikes? Like, I get liking older cars, I'm not a huge fan but I think they're neat, but, like, you can't deny that a lot of changes have been made over the years to increase safety.
The Renault Laguna 2 (2001) was the first car ever to achieve a 5 star EuroNCAP rating. The equivilent 'P2' Volvo S60/V70 was only 4 star at the time. HOWEVER...just because a car passes a certain test does not make it more safe overall...Volvo test their cars in situations that other manufacturers simply choose to ignore. When Ford acquired Volvo, they tried to make Volvo to keep quiet about the roof stength of their XC90, because Ford vehicles of the time where nowhere near as good in rollover strength.
what bothers me is no one shows a full car head on. It always corner to corner. i crash cars in demolition derbys and the fronts never crumple like that.
Kevin Wallis Kevin, The reason for this is that front offset impacts are the most common and therefore are most commonly tested. An offset impact will also transmit the force of the impact to a smaller area of the car, rather than the entire front end. Meaning that if the car passes an offset impact very well then it is likely it will to well in a full frontal impact! Hope this has cleared things up.
Kevin Wallis most people attempt to avoid a straight head-on, + it's a more difficult test; same energy being dissapated by half the frontal area = twice the force.
As for this film, im not sure what to think. I have seen many Volvos crash, but im sure we should have seen the engine at 2:33. And what one described to be a airbox must be the ABS central, wich is exactly where it should be... The airbox is on the opposite end of the engine bay...
@its967kevin11 Because precise head-on collisions are quite rare in the real world; somewhat off center is the most likely outcome of a frontal collision, statistically...
The 1982 design Volvo in this video was built to have a very effective crumple-zone. It's the strength of the safety-cage that really matters, Volvo could of made it stronger than they did but they probably didn't want to increase the cars weight, because they cared for the environment and wanted low fuel economy. The car does not weigh much at all, less than a new Volvo V70. Some people think that old Volvos were heavy but they must be confused with the american cars in the 70's and 80's, those cars were not only badly built..
Looking at the disgruntled Volvo fanboys responses are funny as hell. This is only is to show how car safety has improved over a 20 year period. If as the fanboys whine, the engine was removed, the Volvo would have faired a lot worse than it did. The engine is there & you can see it. What a load o whining brats. The Volvo is a safe car for its time, if you crashed it with a newer Volvo the 940 would have failed again.
@AnthonyUK didnt you notice there was no engine in this car on the test, watch on the impact when the volvo bonnet lifts? no engine! was taken out! The engine is huge and bright red, you would see it a mile away, and wheres the coolant? i cant see non pouring out, these things hold 6 litres of coolant and you would see it on the floor surely!
Old cars were much less safe in case of an impact, no matter what the brand was because the steel strength used back then was weaker and the survival space wasn't designed to be strong enough by today standards. Volvo had probably always built the safest cars, but a 15 years old car structural strength was no near the actual cars strength. It's engineering, versus popular myths. And this video is specifically made to show that any recent small car is safer than any old larger sedan.
And this isn't due to fatigue, this car fresh of the factory floor would have performed just as badly.
A soft mild steel 80's design against a modern car, and people are surprised? Flat Earth levels of stupidity
Exactly! That older cars are safer is a myth. The standards weren't as tough.
Holy moly, I remember this car.. it was my Demonstration Vehicle at Lookers Renault when I used to be a Sales Executive and my driving instructors bought the Car After I left. Then sold it to 5th Gear 😁😂 14 yrs ago (2022 now)
Pre 90's soft tin.
The Volvo 940 had no modifications or engines removed during this test. It simply underperformed even in the era of the 940, which had a very unusual safety cage and crumple zone. It even performs worse than 240 in some cases. If there had been an airbag, the driver of the 940 would have survived but suffered serious leg injuries. I can't imagine if the 940 collided with a new car of the same weight at that speed.
October 27, 2023 11:43AM
Spot on, the low IQ guys are so irritating.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k Absolutely XFERD 25654 GHR
Unusual? It's just an old design, the 240 would be even worse
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k I'm not kidding, the 940's structure is terrible, it's only designed to do well at 35mph fontal crash. If you are in an offset collision, you will be seriously injured and even die even with airbags. The Volvo 700/900 is the least safe car Volvo has ever produced.
July 14, 2024 12:18PM
@@lilmonix Same with all pre 90's designs
Weird, my '91 940 Turbo had airbags.
And an engine mayby
For a while it was an optional extra if I'm not mistaken, introduced in '87-88MY. My '89 doesn't have airbags.
Albert Dryden BELIEVE it or not, the Volvo 940 wasn’t the safest car!
it was an option I believe
@@antiantifa1496 removal of an engine does nothing to affect the crash worthiness of a vehicle
An engine acts as a missile in an engine bay and actually causes more damage, it is the subframe and chassis of a car that channels the energy of an impact NOT not the engine
It is simply that the Volvo is from an older design era before better understanding of crash forces was understood
Why do you think that road fatalities have reduced even though the number of vehicles on the road continues to increase?
Would be interesting to see the Renault go up against another very stiff frame, modern car and have the dummies wired with sensors to measure the forces created and compare with this collision. The crumple zone in the Volvo absorbed a huge amount of force and that helped reduce injuries in both cars (although the dummy riding shotgun got it pretty bad).
Regardless it's cool to see that new cars have better safety than older ones.
If the Renault hit an equally sized car that wasn’t a Volvo, with way less crumple zone, that Renault would’ve had a lot more damage
The Volvo's passenger compartment became part of the crumple zone, that's the problem.
I remember some years ago an accident took plance in my town: a Ferrari 360 Modena crashed front to front with a Peugeot 206. Both people in the 360 died, and the occupants of the Peugeot came out alive, although injured. It's all about stiffness and energy absortion. The Ferrari is designed to be stiff and around performance while a normal street car is designed to trnsfer crash energy in a way it get's as little as posible to their occupants. It's not an all-or-nothing compromise, but it affects chassis desgin.
Of course you are free to believe what you want, but that is a fact.
Ferrari 360 is the cheapest ferrari. It's something like a shit.
@@NaticusFetch51 360 is one of the better Ferrari's
@@NaticusFetch51 Old Volvo death trap
2 cars in frontal crash to each other will absorb same amount of energy when crumpling, even if only one crumples. So, no, not a fact.
@@lukazupie7220 Yup agree. You understand physics.
lol, nothing gets people as angry as showing something from their country fails. Or that their favorite car fails. Even in a crash test between a modern car and a very old car where the outcome is very obvious and logical. Still, some people get angry and accuse Fifth Gear for bullshitting and cheating by removing engine and gearbox. Just look how good the very tiny car Smart does in a head on crash with a concrete wall. Modern cars are built to very different standards far tougher than 30 years ago. It's amazing so many can forget this fact.
bezor Ta And those idiots that can't undertand the fact that the volvo had no engine in it and write like they know anything about cars anoys people even more.
+Fast Er That Volvo vas rigged. Where is the engine?? Where is the steel front crash absorber structure??
+Jimmy De'Souza wrong, volvo designs their engines to deflect downward UNDER the cabin, it actually absorbs a ton of the energy of the hit.
omg.. like a half tonne of swedish steel missing in form of an engine. I'm a designer student, and i am not an engineer but that much i know that it is a significant piece of the system designed to absorb the crash tensions. Facepalm.. Guys, this is obviously a fake crash "test". Its not in a acully controlled environment and its not carried out with somebody who has a lisence for this like Euro NCAP.
+Murmundone Just look up any crash test done in this manner. Old vs new, the result is always the same dammit.
I still want a Volvo tho
@chris jones i am sorry i was confused beacuse it showed me the notification about the vw transporter i should have read the comment
With an engine would be even better👌
@@ilgwent8061 It had an engine, Volvo would sue them for misrepresentation otherwise. It's just a mild steel coffin
I would rather die in a Volvo then being seen in a "Modus"
HANSKEN CLIPS Same
Said a man without any car in his life
me? the opposite -volvo 🤮 I bought a brand new 2006 volvo v50 T5 top of the line - worst car i've ever had - terrible to drive and very unreliable - I sold it as soon as the warranty expired
@@edombre4637 the newer ones are very unreliable but the older ones are very reliable
FACT: Volvo’s XC90 has been named the safest car in the world.
"WOW this test is 100% real i will sell my volvo and buy a renault" said no one ever
+The Last Cast Off ehhh have you seen their newest 90 series? Think again
lol
The point of this test isn't to say that modern Renaults are better than modern Volvos. It's to say how far crash safety has come from the safest cars of the eighties and early nineties to the time this show was made. Crash a 2017 Volvo into a 2007 Renault and the Volvo will show itself to be the safer car. It will also have more safety systems to prevent a real life crash happening in the first place.
ya, LOL I want to allow one video to change my awareness, lets see best of 10 then we can use math and make an informed awareness
Volvo 940 Had no engine either.
I smell BULLSHIT... theres not even an ENGINE or even a TRANSMISSION in the Volvo!!! (I bet they sold it so they wouldn't loose money) My dad rammed a tree going approx. 50-60mph on a highway in a 940 station wagon in the late 1990's to avoid hitting a motorbike that was trying to pass a car, but didn't get out of his lane soon enough. But the point is that the car was still highly salvagable. The interior was fine, but the engine & components were almost completely destroyed. Volvo designed this thing like a tank, and the beastly engine was a huge key in the design, so if you don't have a fucking engine, expect it to crumple up like a coke can. WTF 5th gear...
You're BS! It's an old mild steel design, grow up!
Nothing fake in this video. Ask to an engineer , the modern car after 2000 like the renault modus are designed to resist at 65 km/h . The engine of volvo is under the chassis after the crash. Just look the hot vapor water in the volvo, it proove that volvo has an engine for the crashtest.
The engine of volvo is under the chassis, it has been designed like this to protect the passengers.
and volvo 940 = 90's , renault modus = 2000's = 10 years of difference
+stephen10 volvo is the best car ever! älska sverige
Fredrik Sandberg YES Volvo is a safe brand but in this video they speak about old generation volvo (90 's ) VS + or - recent renault modus, city size, (2000's) .
they speak about progress for crash test .
It's actually 20 years difference. The Volvo 760 came out in 1984, it has the very same platform and construction as the 940 in this video. The modus came out 2004.
***** The platform B of renault modus has been made before 2004 but i don' t knowthe year.
also it 's not 20 years.
ok i have found it 's 2002 .
stephen10 Do you even read? It is 20 years and i explained that. With platform i meant chassis construction, the Modus has it's own unibody chassis. It shared platforms with earlier cars, but that does not mean they used the same body/chassis.
And still there are people who believe that these older Volvo’s are safe in todays traffic. No matter that it has been proven that smaller, modern cars are much safer (like this Renault). It’s so hard for some people to change their minds.
They're the same daft pxxxks who will send a teenager off in an old 340, 240 etc with the BS "you'll be safe in grandpa's tank" ringing in their ears! It's shocking
I love the "lambda sound" badge on the volve grille.
It’s ‘Lamba Sond’ and it refers to the catalytic converter system which was relatively new to cars in the 90s. My Volvo 480 has a Lambda Sond converter as well
@@sherpafan033 They had invented the system in 1976 for the US market, but in Europe, leaded petrol meant that this was unviable (the US discontinued leaded petrol in 1975 at the latest for new cars and stopped selling the stuff in 1995).
Now in the driver's footwell!
Clear example when love takes over judgment.
Telling yourself?!
It should have been a Volvo 850 against the Modus. The 850 was a much safer car than the 940, and they were produced at the same time in the 90's.
an 850 would have eaten that Modus for lunch
June 18, 2019 11:11 pm
The 850 wouldn't have fared any better. Despite the Modus' appearance, it has a rock-solid spaceframe and was built with EuroNCAP's Star Rating in mind in 2004. The Volvo has no spaceframe and would theoretically suffer the same fate as the 940 in similar circumstances.
@chris jones You would still be ganked in the 850, Unibody/Spaceframes are physically tougher than body-on-chassis vehicles. As the body of BoC vehicles crumple entirely, rather than remain rigid in specific parts of the frame.
For reference, here's an image of a 1995 MY, North American-market Volvo 850: i.ytimg.com/vi/fh8zcu0Paoo/maxresdefault.jpg
And this is contrasted by this image: www.oeamtc.at/aux/testarchiv/crashtest/mini/modus_det.jpg
A 250kg weight advantage means nothing against a stiffer frame, better materials and a physically superior construction method.
@chris jones I agree with you. Nobody's claiming an 850 would win here. The argument was whether it would do "any better" than the 750, and I think this is obvious. Just as a W210 E class would be safer than a W124 one. Considering how the 850 did in the NCAP tests, I think it should give it's driver a decent chance of survival.
With these "old vs new" tests they (and I don't only mean Fifth Gear, to be fair) often deliberately use cars that weren't particularly safe even back in their day: like the Old Espace in an earlier Fifth Gear Crash test, Ford Sierras, a 1998 Corolla or a Rover 100 to name just a few.
As others have said, the design of the 940 dates back to the design of the 740 from the early 80s. The 740 was also tested in the 90s by German car magazine Auto, Motor und Sport, and did not get a good grade there either. So you can't even claim it was considered very safe back then. It's not like manufacturers like Volvo and Saab and Mercedes always sold you state-of-the-art safe cars in the 90s: Model life cycles were just a lot longer back then, while safety standards were increasing very fast.
But then again, that was sort of the point of this test.
@@captmcneil That's the problem, there are stupid people who do think these old cars are safe. They come out with silly terms like 'tanks' and 'one ton bumper bar' and some people even go as far as buying them for their children, while telling them how safe it is! Idiot's
I love the way right blinker of Modus takes off to sky.
Yeah, beacuse only one screw holding the blinker.
Put a motor and gearbox in the Volvo and test it again
stingerits simple facts ffs if you drive a 940 volvo you dont run into a renault modus i aint seen 1 yet in au lol
hello stupid prat how about you go fuck yourself
***** New cars are safer indeed. But remember that an engine and transmission would have changed the aftermath a lot still. Plus that 940 was the early 90's one. The late 90's version is safer. And were in a time now where you can get a used Volvo V70 gen. 2. That would be safer than a modus Period
Why do you say there's no engine in the Volvo. The car is even shown running, I would believe it is the same car.
Would you believe they could have ripped out the engine before doing the test?
It's so hard for the Fanboys seeing their 'Tank' destroyed by a modern car. The truth is any new car on sale today would tear through that old crock.
Also the 940 is basicly a facelifted version of the 740, which debuted in 1982. A complete other world safety wise
And the 740 is essentially a revised 240, introduced in the mid 70s
And when the 240 came out, the DOT bought a bunch to crash, and this established a new standard for safety which all other manufacturers had to follow. It WAS the safest car at the time...
@@Mastermindyoung14 At the time maybe, a Modus or any other modern car would rip a 240 to pieces.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k I literally put "WAS" in caps.
Are you agree arguing with me?
@@Mastermindyoung14 Agreeing, yeah, you're right. I'm sorry, the FanBoys and their nonsense has made me a bit jumpy. But yes, I agree
What is wrong with people. How can they not understand the point of this test.
Fanboys, Flat Earth people
That's the point!. The show tries to convey us that. Under a limit budget, if you have to select a new model with 5 star crash test or an old one that just looks more safe, you would rather buy a new one.
Pause at 2:37, you can clearly see the engine, it's kind of black looking, the exhaust is also visible coming out of the engine. You can even see the dipstick.
@overdrivelc16
No, I think that's a great test fift gear have just done. The Volvo may not have an ncap rating, but it's still traditionally viewed as a very safe car, so it's interesting to see how it fares against a safe car which is less well known for its safety.
Tradition must be challenged
It was a good test, people still believe old cars are safe.
Did they remove the engine from the volvo?
God you guys are children... of course they didn’t
The engine in the 940 is longitudinaly mounted in the center (FR layout), so in the offset impact it remains untouched
These old bangers were designed for a full front impact, their body rigidity suck though
850 is better
First volvo safe to modern standards is S80
Vilem Ry is right.
@@francouz23 th-cam.com/video/YPp5mhl3C2c/w-d-xo.html I would not say that they suck, since this one is 10 years older
@@ALKA3R still ... th-cam.com/video/YPp5mhl3C2c/w-d-xo.html
Fun fact the Volvo 940/960 which is a Volvo 740/760 was first released in 1984 with little to no safety changes besides airbags and sips meaning they essentially crash a car from mm into a car from the 80s
The 760 was introduced in 1982.
Point of the test
There's 2 long versions..the old one and a duplicate one,of which one has been deleted.
The whole engine is at 6:50 on the transferred link.
3:14 true in this case because its an old car vs a newer car obviously the newer car will be stiffer and more ridged than the old one but heavier cars will almost always be better off in a front crash test, theres a video of a ford f250 crashing into a ford focus they are both from the same decade and have the same safety equipment but the f250 is far better off than the focus because of its size and weight
от сюда вывод, чем новее автомобиль - тем он безопаснее. Технологический прогресс на лицо.
I quite like my daily Modus :) Car from 2006 for 1500€ without rust :) And loaded with airbags.
What I'd like to know is....Why would there be no air bag in the Volvo?
at about 2:50 the host says clearly "obviously, there's no air bag"
I have a 1990 Volvo 240 DL Wagon and *it* has an airbag.
The first Volvo car equipped with an airbag left the assembly line in 1987 - and since then the company has extended the technology with several world-firsts. Volvo was first with both the seat-mounted side airbag and the Inflatable Curtain (IC) - and in 2012 the technology's 25th anniversary was celebrated with the introduction of the groundbreaking pedestrian airbag in the all-new Volvo V40.
As far as the 940 being too old to have a safety rating, Government safety ratings have been in place since the 1950s.
Volvo has long been at the forefront of vehicle safety, introducing laminated glass for the windshield in 1944, being the first to have a 3-point seatbelt harness (standard equipment on all Volvos since 1959). Additionally, Volvo developed the first rear-facing child seat in 1964[23] and introduced its own booster seat in 1978.
The 960 introduced the first three-point seat belt for the middle of the rear seat and a child safety cushion integrated in the middle armrest. Also in 1991 it introduced the Side Impact Protection System (SIPS) on the 940/960 and 850 models, which channel the force of a side impact away from the doors and into the safety cage.
Personally, this sounds to me as if the Volvo 940 wagon was modified for reduced safety for this "test".
wolfsdenarmoury I couldn't say this better, I knew there was something wrong since we always bought Volvos since 40 years, and there always were the safest alternative. Thanks for pointing this out.
wolfsdenarmoury "Personally, this sounds to me as if the Volvo 940 wagon was modified for reduced safety for this "test"."
the butthurt is strong with this one.
This is a UK model - airbags were mostly optional equipment, even on Volvos.
The rest of your post is pure guff...if you knew anything about car design and construction techniques within the last 10-15 years you'd understand the disparity between these 2 cars.
lol nice troll man. Its been decades I buy vovlos where you don't. i owned that model here in America and I find this very stupid from the british to put airbaigs as an option. Volvo has invented th seat belt and everybody now has some on their car. Why not airbags at that time?????
ALPHAzerox898 "I find this very stupid from the british to put airbaigs as an option."
Well, shit. Different countries have different safety laws. Crazy huh? I find it very stupid that Americans drive on the right, but that's a fact. Deal with it.
+ALPHAzerox898 would the airbag make any difference on that example shown in the video? no
This I really did not expect,blew me away!
The Volvo collapsed
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kI expected the Volvo would fare worse. In this test, the 940's designed in crumple zone was especially beneficial to dummy occupants of the Modus. It would have helped reduce G loading.
I don't know what in-house safety tests (pre NCAP) the Volvo was designed to pass but clearly NCAP standards are higher.
@@idonotwantahandle2 The simple fact, lost on our silly FanBoys is the Volvo was designed in the 80's, the Renualt's a modern design with high tensile steel load paths and structures. It also benefits from modern restraint technology.
My crazy mom drives Volvo 940 Turbo (made in 1998) for 10 years already. Been in 2 car accidents at 80 km/h, just minor scratch on the front bumper both times. Do not know what happened to first opponent, but second one - Mitsubishi Lancer was in repair for 2 weeks. Also escaped accident just 2 weeks ago, the car is very manouverable and can escape the worst hit position quickly. Mom is thinking about changing it into Volvo XC90. But she is not sure yet. Volvo 940 is just the safest tank around!
80kmph head on is death no matter what car, its like driving 160 against a wall
It's really isn't that safe, stop deluding yourself.
Photo's, or it didn't happen. PS, we know it didn't happen 😔
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kI have crashed in my 940 a few times. It really is safe
I don't get it. The engine is undeformable. Having it in there reduces the distance over which energy is dissipated. So if anything, removing the engine HELPS the Volvo.
well how about 2015 Volvo and 1990 Renault? The results would be the same... old cars weren't designed to be safe.
An old Renault would look even worse against a modern Volvo, since Volvo always was one of the car companies which cared most about safety.
That's the point they're making. They aren't saying Volvos are dangerous; they're saying that you shouldn't just assume that a bigger car is safer.
+QuattroRMT Not the same.The renault will be crushed like a can and i'm not a volvo fanboy.
Sir Psycho I don't know where you got that information, but all current Renault models have 5 NCAP stars.
Of course this is true but a lot of people are still convinced the old Volvo would win against a newer Renault. Because it is heavier and a Volvo. This video just shows the importance of modern safety technology and raises the awareness that old cars are deathtraps. This video is not here to show that Volvos are bad, ofc a 2015 Volvo is a very safe car, it's just that so many think a 1988 Volvo is pretty safe as well. Which it's not.
This test is not credible. The Volvo 940 was tested without engine.
How ?? did they remove the engine before the crash test ??
Source?
Maran Muniandy how dumb can someone be before it illegal god damnit the modus missed the engine and was pushed out by the frame of the volvo i know my volvos it was an engine in that car and its meant to crumble
Engine was in there. I am missing the aluminium bumper bar though...
Masz racje.
Engineering progresses as time passes. A refusal to acknowledge this is a refusal to acknowledge reality itself. Congratulations on living in a fantasy world.
BTW the head on force was only 40mph not 80mph as stated in the video.
Each car was doing 40 mph.
the renault was designed exactly for this type of crash, because it is the euroNcap standard. the volvos are not designed for tests, but for overall safety.
@215alessio you are right. volvo does have engine, it would be way higher on its front springs if it didn't, like you say. I work on cars too, and I think anybody who knows his stuff about cars can see that there IS an engine in it..
Ok, a good Grand Modus (which is bigger than the crash Modus) with a 1.5DCi engine is a great car. £30 tax and 60+ mpg. But they are now hard to find in 2021. Check the subframe that holds the radiator - they really rot. Also not easy to work on. You have to remove plastic panels to check the brake fluid. But when you open the door you feel the sheer weight of the structure - in fact they have a habit of dropping on the hinges a bit they are so heavy. Happy crashing :)
Even a C30 or a new Volvo S60 would fair much better than the older 940, just because of the fact that Safety improved in a heartbeat and also because of the fact, that the 940 was built before NCAP or the crash tests of the IIHS even had started
But that's not the point of the test, is it?
Mercedes W140 was builds before Euro and cap.... but under Alma Bridge Trevor Reese Jones survive at 80 mph hit on a concrete pillar...128 kmh..... an €&cap hit at 40 (64 )
@@alanaliyev456GT It wasn't 80 mph, they estimated it was between 65-70 mph. The driver's side took the brunt of it, and was devastated, the footwell was completely consumed, the steering wheel was driven back and up virtually to the front of the drivers headrest.
Each generation of car's safer than the last, there is no golden era of vehicle safety. People can talk about old Volvo's and Mercedes being the safest cars available, but they're wrong.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k The body guard was really lucky ?! In Ftont hit DEATH PLACE IS DRIVER ( BECAUSE STEERING WHEEL )
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k you see the crash test with a jaguar xj40 of same milesime ?? At just same speed .all pinacle is crushed front and rear places
@AnthonyUK didnt you notice the were being pulled along on a cable? they do that on crash tests to ensure a fair even speed. the modus has an engine, you could see the coolant bottle but the volvo had no rad hoses or engine in there. a volvo engine is bright fire engine red and over 2 foot long...cant miss it..if it were there
BS
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k 13 years too late my friend
This is fake. The red block engine in this car would go underneath the Volvo and the trans would be visible along with the drive shaft.... which is isn't..They took the engine out, which is where the car get a lot of its strength. Another video is floating around on here with a similar test result. This is marketing at its finest folks. They take the strong part of the Volvo out, it crumples like a tin can because it isn't as strong without that engine in there transferring pressure to the rest of the car. They did this to help with car sales.. Of newer cars.
it s not fake at all , the new european norme for crash test and new material raws and new design with computer allow to have very safe car (even little car like renault modus ) . and this video was in 6 years ago ! now the renault are better ...
I'm sorry but why is it so difficult to believe that technology does advance? It's been like 20 years since that Volvo was built, we can now do a lot more testing on materials, and computers allow us to not only do extreme calculations but also take measurements in ways not possible 20 years ago. Of course you're going to be able to build safer cars! Look at the advancements in surgery, are they fake too? Modern cars are built to protect the occupants only, a 30 km/h crash can total a car because it's made to transfer energy everywhere except to the occupants. The cars that don't crumple in the front are the worst for the passengers. I mean, was anyone really expecting the old Volvo to do better than a new 5 star ncap car? Statistics on the amount of people yearly dying in car crashes alone are enough to prove just how much better modern cars are. In my country, it's now about one third of what it was 30 years ago.
skatewithlove No but that 940 is like a fucking tank in its original form. They have moded it and made it go slower than the ranualt. Ofc the Volvo takes most of the damage if it is half speed....
Mikael Lindstrand
Were you asleep in science class?If the Renault had been stationary and the Volvo had hit it at 80MPH the result would have been the same.
Mikael Lindstrand it was not built like a tank it has crumble zones as well and the modus missed the engine and was pushed out by the frame of the volvo i know my volvos and if you look at the video it pushed out the modus
I don't believe in this test too much.
Recently there was a high speed head-on collision of similar Volvo estate and Skoda Roomster in Finland, and two people died in the Roomster. Only the driver of the Volvo survived. Roomster is a bit heavier car than Renault Modus (100-200 kg difference).
Photos, or it didn't happen
This was only to prove how much the safety has increased in modern cars, compared to those over 10 years ago
Yup, sadly the FanBoys just can't cope. Flat Earther's
@fastsnow Are you in the US? Airbags weren't universally fitted to many cars in the UK until the mid-late 1990s.
laguna 2 is first car in the world which recived 5 stars in the euroncap test .. So this test is not suprise.. In 2002 laguna was the safest car in Europe .. Even volvo at that time got 4 stars .. Nowaday most cars has 5 stars . But this doesn't change anything that Renault making the safest cars in Europe.. Like paul Walker died from fire in the car which wasn't safe at all
renault has learnt safety when they have bought volvo in the 90 's , after all the renault had 4 or 5 stars for crash test.
Renault started to inforce safety in the 70's, forced by the french governement. If anything, it's Volvo who learned safety with Renault, not the other way around.
@@stephen10. Renault never bought Volvo.
And like Volvo they had always have advance for safety
m.th-cam.com/video/uRVuSsE_hZU/w-d-xo.html
Ik vond de Modus ook erg mooi, vooral de 1ste versie met cirkels in de verlichting. En naast praktisch dus ook erg veilig!
My 1993 Volvo 940 has airbags,a new side impact safety system,steel beams in the doors,self tightening seat belts in a crash,dropping engine(liquid filled motor mounts) one of the safest cars on the road in 1993 and still safer than many of the new cars, especially anything small or "green"...My 940 is MUCH safer.
Dave Leach it means nothing , the cars in the 2000's have them too and resist at 65 km/h .
stephen10 ....Many new car are terrible in frontal crashes. MUCH worse than my Volvo, whose engine is designed to break free and slide down to protect driver. Say what you will, from the 1990s on the old Volvos will hold their own with anything up to luxury cars of today..My doors are also easily twice as thick as many newer cars...Maybe it's that STEEL BEAM in there. Some folks hate Volvos no problem, but lets not tell tales..
Matthew Dawood Khaghani actually no it wouldn’t but both cars would be damaged but head on the engine of the volvo crumbles the up
So what? Do you think newer cars don't have these features? I have a 2003 Renault Laguna and it also has 8 airbags, reinforces side panels and pillars, seatbelt pretensioners and load limiters, dropping engine, reinforced foot well and much more. Just because a car is big and has a bunch of SRS systems doesn't make it that safe. It's mostly the structure that makes the biggest diffrence and I would prefer to crash in a new smaller Toyota Prius than an older and bigger 940
@MrSponge1985 i got two 940s and neither of them have airbags. the engine is longitudinal so the modus went down the side of the engine, it didn't hit the engine front on.
I would never buy a Modus no matter hoe save it is.I want a car that doesnt look like a turd designed in france.......
just look at the survivability rates of volvos in accidents..This test is FAKED.
The cool thing for me is that because so many people like you don't want "a French turd", I just picked up one for pocket money. It looks and drives like new. I should get years of comfortable, safe cheap transport out of it, if that's what I need, and I'll be very satisfied :-D. It's just transport. If you really want to drive something sign up for weekend at your local race circuit. Volvos indeed - don't make me laugh.
@@hughjazzole2037 How could survivability statistics prove this test fake? That's a completely idiotic statement.
@@swordfish1986There's a reason for that! The Old Car FanBoys tend to be....let's just say a bit intellectually challenged? 😊
Add to that the 13 stone dummy sat in the drivers seat which might have possibly hit the steering wheel causing it to bend upwards.
As for the engine, I'd say its more likely it was in place and was the cause of the bulkhead damage.
The engine was in place, the steering column ended up in that position due to the huge amount of intrusion. The Volvo's passenger cabin became structurally unstable, and collapsed.
I can´t see the engine at all, the Volvo B230 engine is quite big, so we would see it.
At what point should we see it?
@chickenme50 I may be wrong to say that both cars have the engine in it, but the fuel tank removed.
if you see the impact the noses dive down for both cars and the lighter tails jump upwards. so they are both heavy in the motor compartment.
secondly: the mass of the volvo is higher than the renault. the volvo is heavyer . That van be noted on how both cars rebounce
the renault bounces further away that means it is the lightest car, so again the volvo has it's engine in it.
1:09 But it was most likely already tested by Volvo themselves like they always do
An engine in a car is a problem. Engineers have to design where it is going in an accident, ie deflected under the car. Other than adding to the mass of a vehicle or if someone is shooting at you, it doesn't provide any protection. if you wish to believe otherwise, go for it. If you have ever seen older vehicles involved in a accident, you would realise that piece of cast iron is a wonderful battering ram.
i wonder how the Renault would fair in a rear end collision?
Better than this old Volvo I imagine, but it's not been tested. In front and side I'm in the Renualt. Rear probably Renualt, due to modern head restraints.
I have a friend who worked on this car for the show and he was responsible for removing the engine before the test crash. Just accept that the media will use any method to get the results they want you to see.
Watch starting at 2:35 There's no engine in the Volvo. Totally empty engine compartment. These Volvos were designed like the ones of today with a "submarining" engine that is an integral aspect of the vehicle's crash worthiness. Take out the engine and this is no doubt what a crash will look like.
the engine is under the chassis , it is designed to pass under it to protect the poeple inside and the frontal chassis .
stephen10 the Volvo 940s don't use chassis all the way through they were one of the second to start making cars with no full on chassis they use a tiny bit in the front back and mainly have crumple zones instead
Sigh... Do you know what happens to an engine that is only attached on 2 places, in a crash?
Robert Cowan, youre are clearly as blind as steve wonders, yet steve sees better than you... theres a clear as day shot of THE ENGINE in the video......
sono dei criminali ...la volvo è senza motore e sicuramente forato il telaio!....è un fake!!!
This is a UK spec car & they did not fit airbags to the Volvo, European cars did not have standard airbags in 1991-1992 when the Volvo was registered. J plated cars were from August 91 to July 92. Airbags, usually driver only, were fitted standard equipment not long afterwards. Majority of European spec cars, airbags were optional in the early to mid 90s.
I've seen some cars here in the UK with no airbags and as new as 2000
but I agree with you, if that was a US spec Volvo, it would have had airbags
I remember seeing part of an old Top Gear episode from round about 1993 on TH-cam. The focus of the video was the crash-testing of a group of 7 or so superminis. After seeing the horrific results side by side, the host casually said "as you would expect, none of these cars have airbags". I was really shocked. I don't think airbags were mandatory as early as they were in the US.
Completely disingenuous rubbish! How much did Renault pay them? Put the engine and transmission in the Volvo next time, and see the result. Or better still, take the engine out of the French turd. That would be interesting.
I had a Ford Fiesta written off by a Volvo estate..damage to the Volvo? Broken headlight. damage to the Fiesta? Broken rear stub axle and back end stoved in. I now have a V70, and frankly I know where I'd rather be between that or the Renault.
2:53 you can see that Renault has extremely rigid aluminium frame right behind bumber. It divides forces mutch larger area. Also Renault has partly double underbody, it's very strong structural element. I'm proud owner of 05 Modus. 5 star safety. Volvo engine can be seen, it's there of course.
The Volvo 940 is basically a Volvo 740, first made in 1984! And since its such a large car its made soft with impact zones, and as others have said, I did not see an engine in the Volvo, how much more weak spots has been made with some nice cash in the pocket?
Try that little shit car against a new Volvo, try and sit in it too so we can rid fools at the same time.
700-series first made in 1982, designed in the late 70's.
I think that though the modus has a very strong safety cage , it's crumple zone is so small that you might get internal organ injuries from the fast deceleration of a crash.
Vs a broken neck and instant death in the Volvo. The crash forces are better managed by the restraints.
While what you are saying is true, the Volvo does not have a good crumple zone either. Sure, it's longer, but it does not crumple. Or to put it another way, the Renault has its crumple zone in front of the driver. The Volvo has its crumple zone around the driver, behind the front.
@@intehelt8606 true!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k for sure. I was meaning that if the modus was just designed with a longer bonnet/hood, it could be even better at protection than it already was.
The Smart car has a very strong safety cage when Fifth Gear crashed it into a concrete barrier at high speed, But it sure seemed that somebody inside would get internal injuries from the sudden deceleration, though perhaps that would have happened in any car in such a crash.
But even a modern well rated car that's significantly smaller then another car it's crashing into can do poorly in protecting the driver, though the difference in protection seems to be getting smaller in today's cars. Example being IIHS Kia Forte versus Kia Sorento and Toyota Yaris versus Toyota Camry.
@@zzoinks Whatever, I'm not sure what your banging on about TBH. The Modus is far safer than this old Volvo.
2'38, no engine in volvo car (wich is part of the "tank" crash system), no driver in, both are towed by truk engine. I think this test is geared towards volvo discredit.... And if would have to be honnest, they had to make also a pur frontal one and another one for both being bumped by the rear side...
You can’t see here the engine is missing.. well at-least I can’t. Apparently on longer video engine is seen, so i guess you can’t either😀
Renault Laguna was the first car ever to receive 5 stars in the Euro-NCAP and Renault's are always among the safest cars in their size-class. With all the innovation done on car-safety the last decade there is no doubt that the Renault is safer than the Volvo.
well if you think about it the modus has crumple zones which gives the chassis extra strength but the volvo has nothing to support the chassis when in a colision so i would go with the modus
LOL at all the volvo fanboys nervously hitting the dislike button... Get over it kids xD
***** Depends. If the Peugeot crashed everyone would say it's a french piece of crap. Here it's the contrary just because of the volvo fanboys not admitting the evidence. BTW I have nothing against Volvo
+niksarass Volvos are probably the safest cars around. This is just a very old Volvo, that's why it crashed like this. What you said makes no sense... Take a 100 year old mercedes and crash it with a 2015 car; does that makes Mercedeses unsafe?
papucimurdari My comment was not about Volvo safety, but about volvo fanboys madness childlish attitude and heavy dislikes. And it makes perfectly sense no matter how much volvo is safe. What does not make sense is your off-topic comment.
+papucimurdari Yes it will, because the age of the car doesn't deem it safe, but the construction and research behind it. Safety wasn't in the same focus 30 years ago as it is today. But if they tested an old Renault against an old Volvo, then maybe the Volvo would win. The whole point of this test was just to kill the myth that old Volvos are safe as tanks. Old cars aren't safe, period.
***** Judging on 1 single accident means nothing. And everyone knows that old cars would get only 1 or 2 stars by modern crashtest standards when even a crap polo gets 5 stars
@1700iDiGuy if they were too drive in a static object, the impact would be at 40 mph, but when both objects are moving in colliding directions, the impact is both objects velocity combined. In other words: 80 mph. 40+40 is still 80....
my ability too construct sentences in english is not always the best, but I hope you get the point :)
I would just like to say that for the record two objects colliding at the same speed will not " add up". Two vehicles at 40mph colliding only hit with the force of 40mph. Every action has an equal an opposite reaction. An Impact wont double itself.
Well that's a terrible explanation. What would be better is to say that a car doing 80 mph is carrying nearly 3x the amount of energy as one doing 40 mph.
By the law of conservation of the momentum, when two cars of similar weight driving at equal speeds crash on each other head on, it will cause the exact deformation as if each car was crashing on it's own against a fixed barrier at the same speed.
For example, two Renaults crashing against each other, each running at 40mph, each of them will deform exactly like in the results of the standard IIHS crash test against a fixed barrier watch?v=taSIy74PVGQ.
That doesn’t factor in weight if the cars are different weights they have different momentum even at identical speed
All volvo 900 series had at least a drivers side airbag.
early 940s didnt
Mine doesent
Well, he says "obviously there's no airbag", but I don't think that's because they removed it. I watched the video over and I couldn't hear them mention that they removed the airbag or the engine anywhere in the video. When does he mention that either were removed?
I would be interested to see the same test using a 20 year old Landcruiser or Range Rover. I don't want the little car to lose out, I would just like to know what happens when the old car weight 2.5 tons and is significantly larger size wise.
Those old 4x4s are terrible, because the chassis is stiff but the occupant compartment is weak.
The driver of both vehicles would be killed.
Why are all of the people on here trying to jump to the defence of Volvo?
The test shown IS NOT to show that Volvo's are bad cars, it would have the same outcome if a Volvo C30 was crashed into the 940.
The test is to show that generally, you are safer in a newer car than you are in one built around 15 years ago. It is aimed at young drivers who could afford to buy a small car 2-3 years old or a larger car that is around 10+ years old.
New Renault vs 20 years old volvo.. I have to laugh
Wouldn’t say exactly that’s its new because it’s 2004 model
That’s the whole point of the exercise, to test old but big cars against newer but smaller cars. It’s astonishing how hard the concept is for you to understand.
That Volvo design is more that 20 years old. It was designed in the 1970's and launched in the 760 in 1982. After that Volvo kept using the design on the 940, 960 and S/V90. Obviously the Renault killed the Volvo because It's a 30 year old design VS 2004 design. At It's time (1982) the Volvo was a very safe car but 30 years later It's impossible.
@Henry Discipline I'm a Volvo entusiast but I totally understand the point of the test because It's obvious that the Volvo Is a much older car. Every inteligent person would understand It, no matter your favourite car maker or your favourite car.
Nachowskip 8632 yess I put my old 740 into a pole and I’m am alive and well to this day and I have to thank Volvo quality for that
@Bo2diddly The 5-cylinder Volvo-engine is a white-block, the 940 has a 4 cylinder red-block (note the 4 in 940 and the 5 in 850).
The Volvo's engine it's almost inside the cabin. It's more visible in this video watch?v=KX02NEKoj2k
Just to set a few things straight:
1) Yes, the Volvo is old and the Renault is new. That's the whole point of the test: newer cars are safer.
2) The Volvo has a longitudinal engine, which got pushed to the side in the collision.
3) The collision was not head-on because head-on collisions are very rare in real life. Offset collisions like this one are much more common.
4) EuroNCAP includes both offset and full-width frontal collision tests, in addition to side impact, pedestrian etc.
@Dreamweaverjack
In this test, the results show that you would probably be more likely to be very badly (or mortally) wounded in the older car (Volvo 940), than you would in a newer car (Renault Modus). There are no hidden agendas for or against EITHER manufacturer in this test.
Yup, they need to grow up. Old mild steel Volvo Vs high tensile desgin.
@pafro77 If there was no engine in it then where is the steam coming from?Also cars without engines sit higher at the front because there is less weight over the front axle,it looked quite level to me.
LOL I'm glad I just hired a Renault Modus for my next trip!
So how was it? 😉
@Cucarachamlya your comment makes no sense at all. Of course it feels fine, it's a Volvo. But the video is about the changes in car construction the car companies made throughout last 20 years. It doesn't mean 5th gear hate volvos. And they choosed Renault cos it makes one of the safest cars nowadays.
Check the deceleration in the lighter car. Maybe the Volvo driver go has leg injuries, but I think the Renault driver's spleen is raspberry jam.
It took about 4m to decelerate, and it spun the whole way there. The Volvo stopped dead. The Renault occupants would probably escape with quite serious injuries, but the Volvo driver would be killed instantly and the other occupants would come close to death as well.
@shinusha The whole point of the test was big old cars against new tiny cars.
just so every one know the Renault is from 2008 and the volvo is from 1991
It’s not it’s 2004 54 plate modus they had that model out in 2008 but the one here is 2004
It is from 2004 because the Blinkers are orange, from 2006 they are white.
Lol whats with all the dislikes? Like, I get liking older cars, I'm not a huge fan but I think they're neat, but, like, you can't deny that a lot of changes have been made over the years to increase safety.
The Renault Laguna 2 (2001) was the first car ever to achieve a 5 star EuroNCAP rating. The equivilent 'P2' Volvo S60/V70 was only 4 star at the time. HOWEVER...just because a car passes a certain test does not make it more safe overall...Volvo test their cars in situations that other manufacturers simply choose to ignore.
When Ford acquired Volvo, they tried to make Volvo to keep quiet about the roof stength of their XC90, because Ford vehicles of the time where nowhere near as good in rollover strength.
There's no crash in which you'd be better off in this old Volvo. Absolutely none
@@ChrisPatrick-q6kActually there is and that is if it fell off a cliff it would still keep going.
Newer cars are definitely safer compared to older cars. I love the Volvo 940, but I wouldn't want to crash in one.
May I ask you which car you would like to crash in? Just curious.
@@jmsjms296 the safest one.
what bothers me is no one shows a full car head on. It always corner to corner. i crash cars in demolition derbys and the fronts never crumple like that.
Kevin Wallis Kevin,
The reason for this is that front offset impacts are the most common and therefore are most commonly tested. An offset impact will also transmit the force of the impact to a smaller area of the car, rather than the entire front end. Meaning that if the car passes an offset impact very well then it is likely it will to well in a full frontal impact! Hope this has cleared things up.
Kevin Wallis most people attempt to avoid a straight head-on, + it's a more difficult test; same energy being dissapated by half the frontal area = twice the force.
As for this film, im not sure what to think. I have seen many Volvos crash, but im sure we should have seen the engine at 2:33. And what one described to be a airbox must be the ABS central, wich is exactly where it should be... The airbox is on the opposite end of the engine bay...
Is still a lot of idiots who thinks the old cars are safer than new.Now do crash test with new V90 vs 1990 Clio lol
@its967kevin11 Because precise head-on collisions are quite rare in the real world; somewhat off center is the most likely outcome of a frontal collision, statistically...
No B230 in the 940, I'm guessing this test was paid for by Renault.
You must be either blind or paid for by Volvo, then.
The 1982 design Volvo in this video was built to have a very effective crumple-zone. It's the strength of the safety-cage that really matters, Volvo could of made it stronger than they did but they probably didn't want to increase the cars weight, because they cared for the environment and wanted low fuel economy. The car does not weigh much at all, less than a new Volvo V70.
Some people think that old Volvos were heavy but they must be confused with the american cars in the 70's and 80's, those cars were not only badly built..
Nonsense, it's about 1375kg. Its the material used and load path design. Please don't write such misleading nonsense.
Looking at the disgruntled Volvo fanboys responses are funny as hell. This is only is to show how car safety has improved over a 20 year period. If as the fanboys whine, the engine was removed, the Volvo would have faired a lot worse than it did. The engine is there & you can see it. What a load o whining brats. The Volvo is a safe car for its time, if you crashed it with a newer Volvo the 940 would have failed again.
I love seing crashes like this, nobody hurt and mass carnage.
2:15 bye roof window.
TomatoCowAteYourTomato Did you mean a sunroof
@AnthonyUK didnt you notice there was no engine in this car on the test, watch on the impact when the volvo bonnet lifts? no engine! was taken out! The engine is huge and bright red, you would see it a mile away, and wheres the coolant? i cant see non pouring out, these things hold 6 litres of coolant and you would see it on the floor surely!