Whats stronger in a crash, phase 1 or 2?

Posts

Post 738959 by T5frankie on 2014-10-02 18:03:04

[video=youtube;so2wJJPge88]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=so2wJJPge88[/video]

Post 738981 by M-R-P on 2014-10-02 18:34:45

That's a phase 3 Frankie.

Post 738985 by T5frankie on 2014-10-02 18:36:42

[QUOTE=M-R-P;738981]That's a phase 3 Frankie.[/QUOTE] is it lol? oh well thread down the drain lol

Post 738991 by stribo on 2014-10-02 18:44:08

[QUOTE=M-R-P;738981]That's a phase 3 Frankie.[/QUOTE] What, a phase 3 phase 1?

Post 738996 by M-R-P on 2014-10-02 18:52:10

I understand what you're getting at tho. The newer stuff crumples like a crisp packet in an impact. It's all done to absorb the forces before they get to the passengers.

Post 738997 by M-R-P on 2014-10-02 18:52:57

[QUOTE=stribo;738991]What, a phase 3 phase 1?[/QUOTE] No, a phase 1 phase 3 :)

Post 739085 by LeeT5 on 2014-10-02 20:58:22

I think the video speaks for itself! The P3 car maintained the cabin structure a lot better than the P1 did.

Post 739089 by Ettienne on 2014-10-02 21:01:59

I wonder how the p2 would have fared? P1 still didn't do terrible, considering.

Post 739091 by cherry1809 on 2014-10-02 21:03:13

To be fair, if I HAD to be in a crash, I'd be confident in either of them :)

Post 739099 by AcidicDavey on 2014-10-02 21:06:56

Nah, I was expecting the 'classic' to be completely obliterated, it didn't do too bad considering the P3 is 15 years more advanced! I'd would obviously rather be in the P3 in a crash but I don't intend to crash anytime soon :P

Post 739112 by merc85 on 2014-10-02 21:12:36

[video=youtube;znuo80pjAVk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znuo80pjAVk[/video]

Post 739122 by Harvey on 2014-10-02 21:22:03

Remember this on TV. [video=youtube;qBDyeWofcLY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY[/video]

Post 739126 by merc85 on 2014-10-02 21:26:35

I think the Volvo woulda done alot better head on rather than offset, Offset crash certainly showed the old design of the volvo

Post 739136 by M-R-P on 2014-10-02 22:00:12

But how many crashes are perfectly head-on?

Post 739143 by merc85 on 2014-10-02 22:20:08

[QUOTE=M-R-P;739136]But how many crashes are perfectly head-on?[/QUOTE] wasnt what i was getting at, just a observation

Post 739154 by M-R-P on 2014-10-02 23:27:12

[QUOTE=merc85;739143]wasnt what i was getting at, just a observation[/QUOTE] So was I mate :) Observationing that is :D

Post 740359 by Doingitsideways on 2014-10-06 23:34:03

[QUOTE=Harvey;739122]Remember this on TV. [video=youtube;qBDyeWofcLY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBDyeWofcLY[/video][/QUOTE] This has been brought up a few times over the years on VOC (sorry for swearing) There have been all sorts of arguments, some even saying that there's no engine in the 940. But at the end of the day, the structural design is well over 30 years old, probably 35 years since the 740's development which the 900s evolved from. You show me a 30 year old design that would do any better against a modern car. Volvo have always been, and probably always will be developed to be the safest cars possible. I know what I'll be ferrying by baby around in :)