Volvo 740 Safety

  • Thread starter Thread starter pattinet
  • Start date Start date
P

pattinet

Question... I am think of buying a 1991 740 Volvo for my daughter to
drive around town and to school. I was wondering if the safety
features of this 1991 car are comparable to today cars. Compare to
Taurus, Camry, Impala, etc.......
 
Question... I am think of buying a 1991 740 Volvo for my daughter to
drive around town and to school. I was wondering if the safety
features of this 1991 car are comparable to today cars. Compare to
Taurus, Camry, Impala, etc.......
Click to expand...

In real world accidents the 740 is one of the safest cars ever made, then or
now. No car will save you in every accident, but you'll have as good a
chance as any in one of these. The important part is to practice well and be
prepared. Put good tires on it and keep the brakes and other mechanical bits
in good shape, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid it in the
first place.
 
Thanks for the Advise. The Volvo saleswomen talks about a steel cage
that the car is built on. She says that makes it a safe car along with
other features ... like head rest, collapsing steering wheel, accordion
front end on impact. After 14 years haven't the other car
manufactures incorporate these safety features?
 
To some degree, I would say yes the others like GM, Toyota and the rest have
loads of cool new safety stuff, however MB, Saab, and Volvo are the
manufacturers who spent loads of years developing safety.

I know, from many TV and magazine ads that Volvo has a crew in Sweden who go
to look at crashes and learn how to make the cars safer--though with fomoco
in the picture...

There is designing a car so it will do ok in the US gov't 35 and 40 MPH
tests, then there is designing a car so it does well in the real world.

I think a 05 anything is safer then a 68 144, for example. OTOH a 05
camry/malabu/sonata vs a 1994 Volvo 940 with ABS and dual air bags?? Well
there I am not so sure that there would be much difference in tests of the
sort the gov't does, and in real world crashes I think the volvo might do
better in terms of injury to PASSANGERS.

DId ya know that now new cars are designed so they are easier and less
expensive to repair after crashes? Who do you trust, Volvo with a total
safety history, or Ford/GM/Toyota who want cars to have low cost to insure,
since high insurance costs are anathma for mass market cars?
 
Of course they do but your question was whether the 740 was comparable with
modern day offerings. The answer is that it is still pretty still there on
safety even though you are talking about a car that was designed in the
80's. In its day the 740 led the field and there was not much that could
then compare (Older Saabs were pretty good).

As long as the car has not lost any structural integrity - accident damage
not properly repaired, rust etc - then as long as you have the seat belts,
tyres, brakes steering etc all in good nick then I know I would rather have
my kids learning/gaining experience in a 740 than small modern car, come to
think of it they did.

Andy
 
The problem in the US is the power that the IIHS holds. They are in
and of themselves an excellent definition of confilct of interest.

Beyond that, the US standards and testing procedures are suspect at
best. They are relative, but their actuial usefulness is questionable
when applying the "Star Ratings" to real world incidents. Just look a
tthe DOT standards for headlights and compare them to the DIN
(European Spec) standards. It would be nice to have legal headlights
that actually put the light on the ground instead of scattering it
helter skelter.

I have assisted cutting bodies out of cars in accidents that should
have been survivable, and spent many evenings holding a victim of an
accident as they try to peel the car open far enough to get them out.
I remember a Chevy Celebrity that was a 4 door, but teh head on
crumpled the driver's side so far that it appeared to me to be a two
door. The roof buckled, hit the driver in the back of the head and
killed him. That man should be alive, and would be if he had been in a
Volvo, or in any decently made car.

I am not an expert in any sense of the word, but I have peeled open a
few cars, and looking at them I actually feel safer on my motorcycle
than in many of today's compact cars. At least, if I survive an
accident, I do not have to wait for extrication to get medical
assistance.

With all that said, I have two Volvos in my garage.

No car will protect in all accidents, but if I had a daughter I would
sleep a lot better knowing that she was driving a Volvo. I know I rest
a lot easier knowing my wife drives one to work.



Steve said:
To some degree, I would say yes the others like GM, Toyota and the rest have
loads of cool new safety stuff, however MB, Saab, and Volvo are the
manufacturers who spent loads of years developing safety.

I know, from many TV and magazine ads that Volvo has a crew in Sweden who go
to look at crashes and learn how to make the cars safer--though with fomoco
in the picture...

There is designing a car so it will do ok in the US gov't 35 and 40 MPH
tests, then there is designing a car so it does well in the real world.

I think a 05 anything is safer then a 68 144, for example. OTOH a 05
camry/malabu/sonata vs a 1994 Volvo 940 with ABS and dual air bags?? Well
there I am not so sure that there would be much difference in tests of the
sort the gov't does, and in real world crashes I think the volvo might do
better in terms of injury to PASSANGERS.

DId ya know that now new cars are designed so they are easier and less
expensive to repair after crashes? Who do you trust, Volvo with a total
safety history, or Ford/GM/Toyota who want cars to have low cost to insure,
since high insurance costs are anathma for mass market cars?
Click to expand...

__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"
 
Here in the UK, there is a weekly, light hearted but very informative
motoring programme called Top Gear. Several months ago they tested 3 older
cars in a variety of circumstances, the last of which was driving the cars
into a concrete block at 30 mph, and one of them was an old 760.

Whilst the other 2 cars demonstrated the value of crumple zones, the Volvo
drove straight through the concrete and, apart from a burst radiator and the
obvious cosmetic damage, was driveable on completion. What's more, it
turned out that the speedometer in the Volvo wasn't working during the test
so the driver 'guessed' his speed - it turned out he was acually doing well
over 40.

If you're going to be involved in an accident involving a 700 series Volvo,
make damned certain you're sitting inside it.

From my own experience (I'm on my fourth 700/900 series), my cars have been
hit twice by other drivers. The first time, a Nissan coupe ran into the
back of me in a car park whilst I was locking the drivers door. The car
moved forward about 3 inches just as I was about to put the key in the lock
and there was a loud bang. When I looked around, the Nissan was spouting
steam fom a burst radiator and was a good 18 inches shorter than it was
before it hit me. I looked very hard, but found absolutely no damage to the
Volvo. The second time a Ford hit the drivers door with a glancing blow.
It took the bumper (fender) off the ford and did no end of damage to the
bodywork, but the Volvo didn't get away completely free - the rubbing strip
half way up the door was scratched!

These cars are certainly not indestructible, but they're as close as you
will get for the money.

Steve
 
Great stories, Steve, and thanks for sharing.

I think that the same can be said for the 240 series. About a month
ago we had a freak rain storm that was preceeded as well as followed
by very hot weather. In a similar mountain community, on the next
ridge north, there is a fast, four lane roadway that connects the
community with the valley cities. The directions are separated by a
wide shoulder- about seventy-five feet wide dirt. Becasue of the
separation and the 55mh limit, folks tend to do 60-70mph.

In that rain storm, a 19 year old female, going down into the valley,
apparantly allowed her wheels on one side to leave the roadway, and
she probably over-corrected and rolled the car- an early to mid 80's
240 sedan. The news showed it on it's roof, with all the windows
intact and only one crack in the windshield. Other than that, it
appeared that the car could have been righted and driven away once the
oil settled back into the crankcase.

And a contributing factor to the accident- They showed her tires and
it was very clear that they did not have a legal tread depth- wuite
slick from the pictures, actually.

There's a joke up here:
Q: "Why do all the hippies drive Volvos?"
A: "Becasue when you are driving around stoned, you want to be in a
safe car."

OK... So I started the joke... ;-) And No, I _NEVER_ drive when
under the influence of ANYTHING.




Steve Shuttleworth said:
Here in the UK, there is a weekly, light hearted but very informative
motoring programme called Top Gear. Several months ago they tested 3 older
cars in a variety of circumstances, the last of which was driving the cars
into a concrete block at 30 mph, and one of them was an old 760.

Whilst the other 2 cars demonstrated the value of crumple zones, the Volvo
drove straight through the concrete and, apart from a burst radiator and the
obvious cosmetic damage, was driveable on completion. What's more, it
turned out that the speedometer in the Volvo wasn't working during the test
so the driver 'guessed' his speed - it turned out he was acually doing well
over 40.

If you're going to be involved in an accident involving a 700 series Volvo,
make damned certain you're sitting inside it.

From my own experience (I'm on my fourth 700/900 series), my cars have been
hit twice by other drivers. The first time, a Nissan coupe ran into the
back of me in a car park whilst I was locking the drivers door. The car
moved forward about 3 inches just as I was about to put the key in the lock
and there was a loud bang. When I looked around, the Nissan was spouting
steam fom a burst radiator and was a good 18 inches shorter than it was
before it hit me. I looked very hard, but found absolutely no damage to the
Volvo. The second time a Ford hit the drivers door with a glancing blow.
It took the bumper (fender) off the ford and did no end of damage to the
bodywork, but the Volvo didn't get away completely free - the rubbing strip
half way up the door was scratched!

These cars are certainly not indestructible, but they're as close as you
will get for the money.

Steve
Click to expand...

__ __
Randy & \ \/ /alerie's
\__/olvos
'90 245 Estate - '93 965 Estate
"Shelby" & "Kate"
 
Thanks for the Advise. The Volvo saleswomen talks about a steel cage
that the car is built on. She says that makes it a safe car along with
other features ... like head rest, collapsing steering wheel, accordion
front end on impact. After 14 years haven't the other car
manufactures incorporate these safety features?
Click to expand...

Many of them yes, but for an older car a Volvo is about the best you'll find
and they still compare quite favorably to modern cars. If you want more
convincing, go to a U-pull junkyard that has Volvos amoung other cars and
walk around looking at the cars, those real world crashes will tell you more
than any salesperson or crash test.
 
Randy G. said:
Great stories, Steve, and thanks for sharing.

I think that the same can be said for the 240 series. About a month
ago we had a freak rain storm that was preceeded as well as followed
by very hot weather. In a similar mountain community, on the next
ridge north, there is a fast, four lane roadway that connects the
community with the valley cities. The directions are separated by a
wide shoulder- about seventy-five feet wide dirt. Becasue of the
separation and the 55mh limit, folks tend to do 60-70mph.

In that rain storm, a 19 year old female, going down into the valley,
apparantly allowed her wheels on one side to leave the roadway, and
she probably over-corrected and rolled the car- an early to mid 80's
240 sedan. The news showed it on it's roof, with all the windows
intact and only one crack in the windshield. Other than that, it
appeared that the car could have been righted and driven away once the
oil settled back into the crankcase.

And a contributing factor to the accident- They showed her tires and
it was very clear that they did not have a legal tread depth- wuite
slick from the pictures, actually.
Click to expand...



While on the topic of stories, about a year ago my younger brother was
sitting at a light in his bright yellow '79 242 and sat through the entire
red light. Just as he let off the brakes, POW, it rear ended by a '97 Honda
Civic that had been doing an estimated 40 mph. I'm not sure how the girl in
the Civic didn't see a bright yellow car stopped on a quarter mile stretch
of straight road but the 242 is still driving though still needing a bit of
bodywork and a new back bumper. The Honda crumples a good 2', airbags went
off, windshield spiderwebbed, coolang dumped all over the road and there was
black smoke pouring out of the air vents in the cabin.

The annoying thing is if the Civic had hit it straight on I think it would
have gotten away with virtually no damage, but she swerved and hit it offset
which bent the bumper pretty good, bend the very end of the frame rail where
the bumper mounts and slightly buckled in one side.
 
While on the topic of stories, about a year ago my younger brother was
sitting at a light in his bright yellow '79 242 and sat through the entire
red light. Just as he let off the brakes, POW, it rear ended by a '97 Honda
Civic that had been doing an estimated 40 mph. I'm not sure how the girl in
the Civic didn't see a bright yellow car stopped on a quarter mile stretch
of straight road but the 242 is still driving though still needing a bit of
bodywork and a new back bumper. The Honda crumples a good 2', airbags went
off, windshield spiderwebbed, coolang dumped all over the road and there was
black smoke pouring out of the air vents in the cabin.
Click to expand...

That's exactly how crumple zones *SHOULD* work. The car should take the
damage so the passengers don't. Similarly, you'll find that many (most?
all?) cars designed for sale in Europe are going to have a lot of plastic
on the outside. They're striving to make auto versus pedestrian crashes
less injurious to the pedestrians.
 
Alex Zepeda said:
That's exactly how crumple zones *SHOULD* work. The car should take the
damage so the passengers don't. Similarly, you'll find that many (most?
all?) cars designed for sale in Europe are going to have a lot of plastic
on the outside. They're striving to make auto versus pedestrian crashes
less injurious to the pedestrians.
Click to expand...

Well that is indeed how many cars are designed, though a car like a 240 will
still crumble to protect the occupants if the collision is severe enough,
but it will hold it's shape in less severe accidents. A lot of new cars have
absolutely pathetic bumpers lacking much if any shock absorbtion system,
they're simply plastic fascias on the front that crumble at the slightest
bump.
 
While on the topic of stories, about a year ago my younger brother was
sitting at a light in his bright yellow '79 242 and sat through the entire
red light. Just as he let off the brakes, POW, it rear ended by a '97 Honda
Civic that had been doing an estimated 40 mph. I'm not sure how the girl in
the Civic didn't see a bright yellow car stopped on a quarter mile stretch
of straight road but the 242 is still driving though still needing a bit of
bodywork and a new back bumper. The Honda crumples a good 2', airbags went
off, windshield spiderwebbed, coolang dumped all over the road and there was
black smoke pouring out of the air vents in the cabin.
Click to expand...

In a read end crash between two vehicles of similar bumper height, the
rear vehicle tends to take more damage, since the last second panic
braking causes it to nose dive, so that its bumper goes under the bumper
of the front vehicle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top