What you gotta remember is, that the 200,700 and 900 series although it did saw some improvement over the years, has some design ideas and layouts from the 140 series and even the 121, which dates back to the 70's. With that in mind, the Volvo cobes brilliantly.
Take a 1990 Volvo 240 and slam it into any 1990 car, and the Volvo will safe you life 98/100 times.
And btw - the Volvo has real bumpers so you don't destroy most of the car if you crash at 15 mph - unlike todays cars.
People, open your eyes the Volvo is without engine!!!!! Do you know what could have happened if the 945 was with it's engine under the bonnet, well Toyota Yaris will be on a million pieces!
@minchevjordan Its actually illegal to do that because then people would get incorrect facts. the engine slides over to the side and serves no purpose.
Well with almost 20 years difference why would anyone expect that the bigger volvo would win?? Its all all about dispersing energy around the cock pit. I drive a volvo 850 I'm all for volvo but in most cases newer is better....
the 1996 945 is a derived of the 1982 740 series. yes there were changes over those years, but really this test must be taken within the structure age context. if this test had been against a 1996 850 wagon, a 1998 v70, or a 2001 v70, you would have a much different outcome. it does however show just how safe modern small cars are! (i wouldn't want to try this test with my old 1977 toyota corolla!!)
New cars are made High Strength Steel formulations that didn't even exist 10 or 20 years ago. Don't forget in the final iterations of the 960//S90 (1995-1998) Volvo DID add High Strength Steel inserts and a beam to the front end to better handle Offset Frontal Collisions. I have yet to see one of these "Old VS New" crash test where take a 960 with High Strength Steel upgrades Volvo added in 1995.
And if these manufacturers were serious about showing us how safe their cars are, they'd be heading them up against today's Volvos. Why not show us how a prissy little Yaris would face off against a 2011 XC70? Or a Land Rover? Hell, I'd be interested to see the result with a 2011 VW Golf wagon, or even a Focus wagon.
This is comparing apples to oranges. But, even with all that said, I'm still impressed with how the Volvo did in this video.
Are people not getting the point of this? You think a car from the 1980s, early '90s, is going to beat a car made in 2011? My father's life was saved by a Volvo; he hit ice and flipped over a guardrail and landed on the roof going 80kmh. He walked away and the car didn't need to be written off. He was driving a '98 XC70. I've got a 940 wagon.
With collisions, these cars were the safest of their time. Comparing these to today's is just stupid. Take a look at this: /watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0
I must agree that the Yaris was better, but was shocked that the difference was so minimal-I know the Volvo is heavier, but the passenger compartment of the Yaris still deformed too much considering it's quite a modern car with a 5-star NCAP rating-then again, this might only have been shocking because I had already seen another Yaris-sized car crash into another 940, and that fared MUCH better: watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs. More proof that some cars are designed to do well only in the official tests...
@Normalberries you too, man!! oh btw i just saw a video about a 2011 Volvo S60 and about how it has this feature that when a pedestrian is around the car comes to a complete stop without the driver braking!!!! that's amazing!!!!
@Normalberries yeah but the door for the driver side is falling apart. how am i going to be safe from a collapsing door? i also saw the door on the driver side of the Yaris collapse in this video called "Toyota Camry VS Toyota Yaris" and it shows two cars in a head on collision.
what the hell? i thought Yaris would win since the Volvo is old and looks like piece of shit due to it's design. my car dealer who sold me my Blue 2009 Toyota Yaris Sedan i own right now told me i would be safe during an collision but from looking at this video i'm fucking screwed!!!! oh, fuck me!!!! :(
the volvo has likely had its engine removed to effect test outcome by the way im not saying that volvo is a safer car it has no crumple zones so de acceleration on occupants would be greater but this is hard to explain to an untrained eye ie potential customers so they need the volvo to be demolished to show the car is safer plus it improves marketing potential
Since Volvo was the first company to think about safety and not about Top speed or HP. They do deserv more credit then they get. Ofc in later years ( decades ) other companies have been forced to become more Safety thinking and NCAP and all that. And last but not least. 1996 against a 2009 how fair is that ?
people need to understand that the age difference between these cars are a huge factor. The engineering feats and technology to protect passengers in crashes are completely different now then they were 20 years ago. If they took a 2011 Volvo and a 2011 Yaris, I'm sure the Volvo would be the victor.
damn all these fucking people thinking how just beacuse a car is big
that means its a ''tank'' think about this for a sec, if a car is made of sold steel front and back with big old school bumpers and all the the olny place that isn't solid is where you sit where do you think the car is going to absorb the impact?
WHERE THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE AKA THE CABIN.....
newer cars use crumple zones that's why front ends are make out of plastics, and why bumpers are made from several pieces
If anyone is against Volvo, let me remind you that this Volvo is a much older car... lets try a newer Volvo against this Toyota and let's see what happens. Volvo really is the leader in safety.
@benzyeap Why? How much of a toyota 1996 would be left after a crach with a volvo 2009? You wold not even recognize the toyota. WATCH 0.38 sec youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pbGiscLM9-U
Anyone surpised? I'm not. The Volvo is so soft b/c it was desigend around 1980 (!) without airbags being part of the construction. A stiffer structure would caused lethal decelerations. Take a look at the data on the Folksam page. The Volvo driver will have very serious leg injuries and perhaps will have to be cut out, but the Toyota driver, well-protected by the stiffer cabin, has high risk of a blunt chest trauma. Reason: high deceleration. Result: Both are at the edge of survival.
Anyone surpised? I'm not. The Volvo is so soft b/c it was desigend around 1980 (!) without airbags being part of the construction. A stiffer structure would caused lethal decelerations. Take a look at the data on the Folksam page. The Volvo driver will have very serious leg injuries and perhaps will have to be cut out, but the Toyota driver, well-protected by the stiffer cabin, has high risk of a blunt chest trauma. Reason: high deceleration. Result: Both are at the edge of survival.
@benzyeap the volvo is ower 30 years old, it first emerged in 1982, minor changes until it ended in 1996, mostly side impact protection systen sips, i think they still offer fair safety i comperasion to newer cars.
Take an Opel or Ford from the same age and redo the test.
@benzyeap You shouldn't be dissapointed, there is a difference with 15 years of development, the 940 wast even that much developed for an offset crash, but it was the safest car at its time, but now the safest car is the volvo xc 60.
So a 09 Yaris is not much better than an old 9 series Volvo, put it up against a 1996 850 Volvo and lets see then. After all the 9 series Volvo is a 1980's car
Why testing is an old Volvo 940 with a much newer car that toyota? Actually, volvo 940 a very old design that has its roots from the Volvo 740, in development since late 70's and early 80's. Volvo 940 is a fine-tuning of the Volvo 740. I've had both 740 and 940 and they are almost the same car. Why would the Toyota compare to a 25 year old design?
this is stupid! the toyota is atleast 10 years newer than the volvo of course it better, take a fucking v70 or v50 would smash that little peice of shit! how about you take a fucking corolla against a 940 then you dumb fucks!
@tiggetigge I believe the whole point of this test is to highlight the improvements that have taken place. They have compared one of the larger, safest cars of the 90s and compared to one of the smaller cars on the market today and the smaller car came out on top. This is a surprise to many people. It would not, however, be surprising to see a modern, large Volvo do better than the current Yaris. I'm not sure why you are so angry.
@beyondplutolaf yes i know the test reason, but its not fair to say "the volvo is horrible against this car" when it`s atleat 15-20 years older, im swedish and love volvo and it just pisses me off when people say it´s wasnt doing so well, but is over 15 years of technology and engineering
The toyota did good i must say, BUT the Volvo is still a very safe car, back then i t was ridicuolus safe, now the old cars cant match the new in safety and such, i got a Volvo 740 couse i think it still is safe enought for me :) and i like backwheel drive!
You got it all wrong, its about showing how much has engineering evolved in the past few decades, the Yaris is about the twice of the size of that Volvo and it's still safer by todays standards.
This 40mph offset crash highlights how the modern safety cell (like the Yaris') is designed to withstand offset intrusion and so "looks" safer. However an offset crash is only one specific type of crash, one which points out the flaw in all old car's safety design (not just the Volvo). Notwithstanding, the Volvo's very large crumple zone causes less force on the occupants than those with a smaller crumple zone. In a real world crash (which are slower), injuries will be less severe in the Volvo.
HOWEVER while the outdated Volvo's less rigid safety cell will cause greater intrusion injuries at this speed, the occupants in the Volvo will sustain smaller forces than those in the Yaris. Refer to 0:17: The Yaris's small crumple zone & less weight cause it to stop in a very short distance. The Volvo has almost 4x the crumple zone & is heavier so that it can stop over a larger distance. Larger distance to stop - smaller deacceleration, less force on occupants.
This video show how an frontal offset crash demonstrates the strength of a modern safety cell. The Yaris' modern safety cell is strong and rigid - the structure remains intact, there is little intrusion into the passenger cell. The less modern structure of the Volvo fares poorer: it is not as able to distribute the force of the offset impact to both sides of the front, leading to less than optimal intrusion on the impact side. Intrusion injuries for the driver would clearly be worse on the Volvo
Това определено са пълни глупости...,някаква тъпа на "Тойота",с цел да си вдигнат продажбите...
Аз имам Volvo 940,и съм готов да застана срещу всеки "леген",без значение годината,скоростта,и оборудването...,да видим на практика какво ще се случи,и кай кого ще....
Моите уважения към всички останали,но майтапа с марката VOLVO не ми харесва!!!
Also remember that the volvos chassi is 95% the same as the volvo 740 that came out in 83... So then this car suddenly performs much better... Sorry for bad english..
Crashing into the Volvo would likely save the lives of the Yaris passengers.
The Yaris bounces off the Volvo. I'd rather be in the car that doesn't bounce off changing directions wildly.
The driver of the Volvo also appears to have a much less violent impact than the Yaris driver. Watch it carefully and the Yaris driver gets the worst of it.
@candleburning Not so at all. You can see that the Yaris driver hits the airbag straight-on, then falls back into his chair without striking any other surfaces and with no major intrusions into the passenger compartment. The Volvo driver almost misses the airbag, the steering column flies into his shoulder, his head seems to strike the door frame behind the airbag, and the dash intrudes into the passenger compartment. The Volvo driver would almost certainly be more injured.
btw, i dont see anything REALLY catastrophic in the volvo.. i mean the legs cold be hurt quite hard, but still it seems like it's not that bad. better than many newer cars.
@yamahaevo The occupant compartment of the Yaris was damaged about as bad as the Volvo... even though the Volvo is twice as heavy and has about an equally good crash structure.
@whattheheck1000 New cars are allmost allways safer than older cars, and in this case it is just like that! and nowdays 850 is allso pretty old.. Volvos are more fun and better looking though ;)
@whattheheck1000 it's called structure improvements i bet you think a 59 bel-air would destory a 2009 malibu too right, well go watch that video and tell me.
@SteelCity1981 That's a 50 year age difference, and the cars are the same size. I've seen the video of that, it's totally true. But a YARIS, not even the best designed small car, is structurally better than a VOLVO only 13 years older? I smell BS. By 1996 (or 1990, for that matter, when this car design came out) safety was important, and although the Yaris does have a stiffer structure, I'm sure it's not that much stiffer than the benchmark of car safety of the 90s.
@whattheheck1000 Well the just goes to show you heavier doesn't always mean better the Bel- air is heavier then the Malibu and yes there is a 50 year age diff, but the frame and heavy metal on the bel air couldn't hold up against the lighter and much better designed safty cage on the malibu. Yeah and the model of that volvo dates back beyond 13 years that design has been around since the 80's with modest updates. until Vovlo totally redesigned their lineup back in the late 90's.
@SteelCity1981 A Bel Air weighs little more than a Malibu, but it don't matter: even if that Bel-Air had hit a Yaris head on, the Bel Air driver would have died. The Bel Air designers paid little attention to safety. The Volvo designers, even in the 80's, paid plenty of attention to safety; that 1996 Volvo was probably safer than the average 1996 car. The Yaris is average for 2009, and I don't think 13 years of progress is near enough to overcome that weight difference.
@whattheheck1000 you're missing the point structure is the key the structure on the Malibu was a lot better engineered then just full blown frame and steel like they used to believe the motto built like a tank, when cars of that era really weren't, but people believed that based on structure alone. Sa,e with the Volvo it's an old car based on a structure from the 80's the Yaris even though is smaller is better structurally built based on enhancements in safety technology.
These are valid comparisons, but only to a point. It is not a fair comparison of LARGE VS SMALL cars. All it really shows is that newer cars have better offset crash protection in them, and that's because they HAVE to have it. By law! That Volvo 940 is derived from a car released in 1984. That's 25 years difference in technology. This has nothing to do with small vs large. No surprise that the newer car did better in the crash test it was designed for. Sort of a No Brainer.
Before you say anything bad about the volvo you should see this top gear episode! Volvo 740, Audi 80, Rover something. youtube........ watch?v=RdpHZF8E1Nk&feature=related
people have to realize that there is about a 15 age difference between the Volvo and the Toyota. Thats 15 years of engineering, new technologies, and saftey. Clearly the newer vehicle will perform better. Lets take a 2011 Volvo and a 2011 Toyota and try again.
@qettyz bigger is better...if the volvo had less of a crumble zone it would have not absorbed that yaris like it did.. but that isnt really a big car....a big car is more like a 70's Lincoln Town Car not a volvo
@qettyz No! Yyour body gets more injuries if the car is stiffer/harder, it soposed to be a wrack after a crash just to protect the people from inside injuries you dont se on the car how bad the people inside are. Crash with a 1994 yaris or 1994 940?
@yamahaevo New cars takes the force off impact to the front of the car when it collapses. I am sure that i would like to be in Yaris where i dont get my legs cut off. This Volvo does not have "todays" car chassis where impact force is collected by chassis, not by passengers body. If the car chassis between motor and front passengers fail, it will cause massive damages to the driver and passenger. NO offense, but if you read about this you will find how newer cars are safer =)
@qettyz i don't think that anyone who's buying an old big car thinks like that) it's just that a 940 would cost 1k euro in a good nick, whereas a yaris'd be a lot more. People who buy old big cars do so because they need a big car but don't have the money.
p.s. i have a 944 because a bass guitar in a case + amp + some people + other stuff doesn't fit in a hyundai getz. choice is always yours.
considering that volvo design dates from the very early '80s, I don't think its that bad! nobody had ever heard of Ncap back then. put a 1983 760 against a 1983 corolla. if you can find one.
when volvo built the 945 toyota was still building charriets...if the test was head on so the volvo could have used it's engine as a 'wall' ...ehh poor yaris!
If back in 1982 when the Volvo 740/760 range was launched Volvo had crashed one into a late 60s early 70s family type car of the period, then the Volvo would have come out as the winner, so in another 13+yrs time you crash a Yaris into the latest brand new model the Yaris will be destroyed people will say the Yaris is rubbish in a crash. I will NOT be selling my old Volvo td for a Yaris, crap tow car, also it will not last as long as my Volvo or be as reliable 266.000miles same eng/box.
@samthepspuser The Volvo 940 is constructionwise exact the same car as the Volvo 740/760, which made it's debut in 1982 (!). So we're talking a car that's designed in the late 70s here. It's hardly believable that such a car still can take on a 2010-car like the Toyota. This crashtest only confirms that Volvo's safety reputation is build on reality. From a medical point of view however, both drivers are likely to sustain serious injuries in crash like this.
What you gotta remember is, that the 200,700 and 900 series although it did saw some improvement over the years, has some design ideas and layouts from the 140 series and even the 121, which dates back to the 70's. With that in mind, the Volvo cobes brilliantly.
Take a 1990 Volvo 240 and slam it into any 1990 car, and the Volvo will safe you life 98/100 times.
And btw - the Volvo has real bumpers so you don't destroy most of the car if you crash at 15 mph - unlike todays cars.
Volvo forever!
skovlund93fromhome 2 days ago
MY UNCKLE CUT 15 TREES IN VOLVO 960 AND CALL TAXI BECOUSE HE WAS HURRY TO THE MEETING. THIS VIDEO IS FAKE
kubski09 2 weeks ago
People, open your eyes the Volvo is without engine!!!!! Do you know what could have happened if the 945 was with it's engine under the bonnet, well Toyota Yaris will be on a million pieces!
minchevjordan 1 month ago 2
@minchevjordan It seems like every old car that is crash tested doesn't have an engine these days.
IdentifiableUser 4 weeks ago
@minchevjordan Its actually illegal to do that because then people would get incorrect facts. the engine slides over to the side and serves no purpose.
forsmers1 2 weeks ago
1990 Volvo 760 Wagon (same thing as this, just an older model) saved my life, I refuse to drive anything but Volvo's.
MrCurlingrocks16 2 months ago 7
@MrCurlingrocks16 don't drive the new china ones
10yroldcarlover 1 week ago
@10yroldcarlover They are not made in China
850ovlov 3 days ago
there is no motor in the volvo !!
McVagina1 2 months ago
1996, that was probably and end of life of that model on top of this. It would be the same if you took a Volvo from 1986.
Schmich87 2 months ago
Well with almost 20 years difference why would anyone expect that the bigger volvo would win?? Its all all about dispersing energy around the cock pit. I drive a volvo 850 I'm all for volvo but in most cases newer is better....
LoveMyAcuraLegend 2 months ago
stupid sound.
chrixnsa 2 months ago
I have better idea- Yaris 2009 vs Mercedes W210 of BMW E39 1996 year.
gupek1807 3 months ago
What the hell?!
Goddamn Toyota's brake pedals! ;)
TheMetalCottage 3 months ago
I would rather be in Toyota on this situation!
thepricylon 3 months ago
lucky ima merc driver! no need for airbag when you got a heavy steel frame of benz protecting you! ;)
coolakiIlen007 3 months ago
I don't know why everyone is bashing the Volvo, it only did slightly worse than the Toyota.
czarpeppers 3 months ago
if change to be..Volvo 945 vs Toyota Corolla in the same year...or
2011 Volvo V70 vs 2011 Toyota Yaris....the end will be different for Toyota.
thaichubby101 3 months ago
GOA body very good
nakket322 3 months ago
of course dying in volvo better then a small light ciggaret box
mrmostafaameri 3 months ago
diying happy in a volvo better then live in sham owning a stupid toyota haha
pornos60 3 months ago
And also check this! :D watch?v=ZUttbe92wnw&list=FL6IeG98emX6uJVhR7HPvYkw&index=1&feature=plpp_video
yamahaevo 4 months ago 2
the 1996 945 is a derived of the 1982 740 series. yes there were changes over those years, but really this test must be taken within the structure age context. if this test had been against a 1996 850 wagon, a 1998 v70, or a 2001 v70, you would have a much different outcome. it does however show just how safe modern small cars are! (i wouldn't want to try this test with my old 1977 toyota corolla!!)
alpinetoronto 4 months ago 5
New cars are made High Strength Steel formulations that didn't even exist 10 or 20 years ago. Don't forget in the final iterations of the 960//S90 (1995-1998) Volvo DID add High Strength Steel inserts and a beam to the front end to better handle Offset Frontal Collisions. I have yet to see one of these "Old VS New" crash test where take a 960 with High Strength Steel upgrades Volvo added in 1995.
ATLZero 4 months ago 4
The Yaris did almost as bad as the Volvo.
DatGuyRawkz 4 months ago
And if these manufacturers were serious about showing us how safe their cars are, they'd be heading them up against today's Volvos. Why not show us how a prissy little Yaris would face off against a 2011 XC70? Or a Land Rover? Hell, I'd be interested to see the result with a 2011 VW Golf wagon, or even a Focus wagon.
This is comparing apples to oranges. But, even with all that said, I'm still impressed with how the Volvo did in this video.
CptSchmidt 4 months ago
Are people not getting the point of this? You think a car from the 1980s, early '90s, is going to beat a car made in 2011? My father's life was saved by a Volvo; he hit ice and flipped over a guardrail and landed on the roof going 80kmh. He walked away and the car didn't need to be written off. He was driving a '98 XC70. I've got a 940 wagon.
With collisions, these cars were the safest of their time. Comparing these to today's is just stupid. Take a look at this: /watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0
CptSchmidt 4 months ago
I must agree that the Yaris was better, but was shocked that the difference was so minimal-I know the Volvo is heavier, but the passenger compartment of the Yaris still deformed too much considering it's quite a modern car with a 5-star NCAP rating-then again, this might only have been shocking because I had already seen another Yaris-sized car crash into another 940, and that fared MUCH better: watch?v=emtLLvXrrFs. More proof that some cars are designed to do well only in the official tests...
0cnpgs0 4 months ago
@Normalberries you too, man!! oh btw i just saw a video about a 2011 Volvo S60 and about how it has this feature that when a pedestrian is around the car comes to a complete stop without the driver braking!!!! that's amazing!!!!
TheMostAwesomeMan242 4 months ago
@Normalberries well, okay. thanks for the replies!!! :)
TheMostAwesomeMan242 4 months ago
@Normalberries yeah but the door for the driver side is falling apart. how am i going to be safe from a collapsing door? i also saw the door on the driver side of the Yaris collapse in this video called "Toyota Camry VS Toyota Yaris" and it shows two cars in a head on collision.
TheMostAwesomeMan242 4 months ago
what the hell? i thought Yaris would win since the Volvo is old and looks like piece of shit due to it's design. my car dealer who sold me my Blue 2009 Toyota Yaris Sedan i own right now told me i would be safe during an collision but from looking at this video i'm fucking screwed!!!! oh, fuck me!!!! :(
TheMostAwesomeMan242 4 months ago
the volvo has likely had its engine removed to effect test outcome by the way im not saying that volvo is a safer car it has no crumple zones so de acceleration on occupants would be greater but this is hard to explain to an untrained eye ie potential customers so they need the volvo to be demolished to show the car is safer plus it improves marketing potential
hod05 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Since Volvo was the first company to think about safety and not about Top speed or HP. They do deserv more credit then they get. Ofc in later years ( decades ) other companies have been forced to become more Safety thinking and NCAP and all that. And last but not least. 1996 against a 2009 how fair is that ?
TheVolvos70 4 months ago
Comment removed
TheVolvos70 4 months ago
people need to understand that the age difference between these cars are a huge factor. The engineering feats and technology to protect passengers in crashes are completely different now then they were 20 years ago. If they took a 2011 Volvo and a 2011 Yaris, I'm sure the Volvo would be the victor.
rally240 4 months ago 3
damn all these fucking people thinking how just beacuse a car is big
that means its a ''tank'' think about this for a sec, if a car is made of sold steel front and back with big old school bumpers and all the the olny place that isn't solid is where you sit where do you think the car is going to absorb the impact?
WHERE THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE AKA THE CABIN.....
newer cars use crumple zones that's why front ends are make out of plastics, and why bumpers are made from several pieces
breaktobroken 4 months ago
crash that Volvo with a Modus at 80mph your estate turns into a hatchback, crash the Yaris it becomes a Passion!! lol
Jake7206 4 months ago
OK everyone who voted this down should se this video ! !
watch?v=NQPca-aTlL0
yamahaevo 5 months ago 4
If anyone is against Volvo, let me remind you that this Volvo is a much older car... lets try a newer Volvo against this Toyota and let's see what happens. Volvo really is the leader in safety.
stvynix 5 months ago
excellent example of new car safety.
lukedm5 5 months ago
So much for Volvo tank hahah, a good thing though, inbreads in sweden will hopefully endup this way : )
TheOdinist 5 months ago
The Yaris doesn't seem that impressive, frankly. The 945 is essentially a 1980's design.
The test's numbers in the description would have been helpful.
MaestroTJS 5 months ago
volvo make me disappointed ....
benzyeap 5 months ago
@benzyeap Why? How much of a toyota 1996 would be left after a crach with a volvo 2009? You wold not even recognize the toyota. WATCH 0.38 sec youtube(dot)com/watch?v=pbGiscLM9-U
yamahaevo 5 months ago 16
@benzyeap Lol, 945 is old car..
AappleID 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@benzyeap Lol, 945 is old car..
AappleID 5 months ago
Anyone surpised? I'm not. The Volvo is so soft b/c it was desigend around 1980 (!) without airbags being part of the construction. A stiffer structure would caused lethal decelerations. Take a look at the data on the Folksam page. The Volvo driver will have very serious leg injuries and perhaps will have to be cut out, but the Toyota driver, well-protected by the stiffer cabin, has high risk of a blunt chest trauma. Reason: high deceleration. Result: Both are at the edge of survival.
westend4451 5 months ago
Anyone surpised? I'm not. The Volvo is so soft b/c it was desigend around 1980 (!) without airbags being part of the construction. A stiffer structure would caused lethal decelerations. Take a look at the data on the Folksam page. The Volvo driver will have very serious leg injuries and perhaps will have to be cut out, but the Toyota driver, well-protected by the stiffer cabin, has high risk of a blunt chest trauma. Reason: high deceleration. Result: Both are at the edge of survival.
westend4451 5 months ago
@benzyeap the volvo is ower 30 years old, it first emerged in 1982, minor changes until it ended in 1996, mostly side impact protection systen sips, i think they still offer fair safety i comperasion to newer cars.
Take an Opel or Ford from the same age and redo the test.
smirnofowner 4 months ago
@benzyeap why you are so stupid :P
AappleID 3 months ago
@benzyeap You shouldn't be dissapointed, there is a difference with 15 years of development, the 940 wast even that much developed for an offset crash, but it was the safest car at its time, but now the safest car is the volvo xc 60.
Jimpank90 2 months ago
bullshit.....
porscheman912 5 months ago
So a 09 Yaris is not much better than an old 9 series Volvo, put it up against a 1996 850 Volvo and lets see then. After all the 9 series Volvo is a 1980's car
t5mikka 5 months ago 3
Comment removed
t5mikka 5 months ago
Still the Toyota didn't perform well.
McVaio 6 months ago
btw.. nice sound effects -.-
Rando776 6 months ago
the 945 would run over a toyota from 1996
jensblablabla 6 months ago 2
Why testing is an old Volvo 940 with a much newer car that toyota? Actually, volvo 940 a very old design that has its roots from the Volvo 740, in development since late 70's and early 80's. Volvo 940 is a fine-tuning of the Volvo 740. I've had both 740 and 940 and they are almost the same car. Why would the Toyota compare to a 25 year old design?
LoveSwedishGirls 6 months ago
toyota are shit
frankielous1996 6 months ago
i would rather die in a Volvo then drive a fucking toyota
swedenkingjago 6 months ago 84
@swedenkingjago hahahahahaaaa...you have or ford or fiat to say that...
TheSoilemezidis 3 months ago
@swedenkingjago HAH
Proud2BeAPirate 3 months ago
@swedenkingjago i don't think it matters what car you drive, if you died in an accident, you'd become a number in a car collision statistic.
TheMostAwesomeMan242 2 months ago
they don't have enought budget to buy a new volvo.
TheReblman 6 months ago 3
@TR1NOMA88 I can understand that, but compared to a 30 year old volvo, it should be safer.
Lexuslover123 7 months ago
@TR1NOMA88 The yaris, even though its a POS (maybe that'll change in 2012) is safer, because technology has evolved over 30 years.
Lexuslover123 7 months ago
this is stupid! the toyota is atleast 10 years newer than the volvo of course it better, take a fucking v70 or v50 would smash that little peice of shit! how about you take a fucking corolla against a 940 then you dumb fucks!
tiggetigge 7 months ago
@tiggetigge I believe the whole point of this test is to highlight the improvements that have taken place. They have compared one of the larger, safest cars of the 90s and compared to one of the smaller cars on the market today and the smaller car came out on top. This is a surprise to many people. It would not, however, be surprising to see a modern, large Volvo do better than the current Yaris. I'm not sure why you are so angry.
beyondplutolaf 6 months ago
@beyondplutolaf yes i know the test reason, but its not fair to say "the volvo is horrible against this car" when it`s atleat 15-20 years older, im swedish and love volvo and it just pisses me off when people say it´s wasnt doing so well, but is over 15 years of technology and engineering
tiggetigge 6 months ago
Small and light Toyota better than big heavy Volvo
IwantaLexusLFA 7 months ago
Well the Toyota got fwd so its engine is placed different and got the axel in the front
diselkraft 7 months ago
And: Look at the Volvos deadly steering wheel in 0:53. Really Bad!
slub1 8 months ago
Remember: The Volvo is double heavy and has a double long collapsible zone as this modern smallcar by toyota.
Take a look at the Volvos a-column at 0:19 and the door displacement. The passenger cell is very deformed/shrinked.
But not bad for such an old car.
slub1 8 months ago
I wonder how much G-force the yaris driver get expoused to compared to the volvo driver? Some info on the crash test dummies anywhere?
randomkille 8 months ago
The toyota did good i must say, BUT the Volvo is still a very safe car, back then i t was ridicuolus safe, now the old cars cant match the new in safety and such, i got a Volvo 740 couse i think it still is safe enought for me :) and i like backwheel drive!
Ansiktskarl 8 months ago
You got it all wrong, its about showing how much has engineering evolved in the past few decades, the Yaris is about the twice of the size of that Volvo and it's still safer by todays standards.
stevodfn 8 months ago
This 40mph offset crash highlights how the modern safety cell (like the Yaris') is designed to withstand offset intrusion and so "looks" safer. However an offset crash is only one specific type of crash, one which points out the flaw in all old car's safety design (not just the Volvo). Notwithstanding, the Volvo's very large crumple zone causes less force on the occupants than those with a smaller crumple zone. In a real world crash (which are slower), injuries will be less severe in the Volvo.
axelloder 8 months ago
HOWEVER while the outdated Volvo's less rigid safety cell will cause greater intrusion injuries at this speed, the occupants in the Volvo will sustain smaller forces than those in the Yaris. Refer to 0:17: The Yaris's small crumple zone & less weight cause it to stop in a very short distance. The Volvo has almost 4x the crumple zone & is heavier so that it can stop over a larger distance. Larger distance to stop - smaller deacceleration, less force on occupants.
axelloder 8 months ago 2
This video show how an frontal offset crash demonstrates the strength of a modern safety cell. The Yaris' modern safety cell is strong and rigid - the structure remains intact, there is little intrusion into the passenger cell. The less modern structure of the Volvo fares poorer: it is not as able to distribute the force of the offset impact to both sides of the front, leading to less than optimal intrusion on the impact side. Intrusion injuries for the driver would clearly be worse on the Volvo
axelloder 8 months ago
Wake up people, light years passed. 940 was very safe back then in early '90.
I am waiting for the same test of Volvo 2022 and Yaris model 2009 :D
I know the winner... today :D
uprightbassmatt 9 months ago 3
Това определено са пълни глупости...,някаква тъпа на "Тойота",с цел да си вдигнат продажбите...
Аз имам Volvo 940,и съм готов да застана срещу всеки "леген",без значение годината,скоростта,и оборудването...,да видим на практика какво ще се случи,и кай кого ще....
Моите уважения към всички останали,но майтапа с марката VOLVO не ми харесва!!!
Поздрави!
kire6862 9 months ago
Well, im dring volvo 940 and 240,
Modern cars are better designed, and no way old cars can be safer than new cars
wslen 10 months ago
Also remember that the volvos chassi is 95% the same as the volvo 740 that came out in 83... So then this car suddenly performs much better... Sorry for bad english..
ProXen4 10 months ago
not fair the volvo is not as updated
MrMoose1090 10 months ago
That's too easy. The mass difference. The lighter car slowing down faster, therefor decreasing the force of the impact.
It is like hitting baseball and hitting a soccer ball. Soccer ball would be less painful, because it is lighter.
immobile2 10 months ago
The 940 are more safe then the Toyota! Because the 940 has no engine!
icebreaker552 10 months ago
Oh, and in a real life crash the Yaris is turned around in it's lane and ready for
full speed head-on crashes with the cars behind it in its lane.
candleburning 10 months ago
Crashing into the Volvo would likely save the lives of the Yaris passengers.
The Yaris bounces off the Volvo. I'd rather be in the car that doesn't bounce off changing directions wildly.
The driver of the Volvo also appears to have a much less violent impact than the Yaris driver. Watch it carefully and the Yaris driver gets the worst of it.
candleburning 10 months ago
@candleburning Not so at all. You can see that the Yaris driver hits the airbag straight-on, then falls back into his chair without striking any other surfaces and with no major intrusions into the passenger compartment. The Volvo driver almost misses the airbag, the steering column flies into his shoulder, his head seems to strike the door frame behind the airbag, and the dash intrudes into the passenger compartment. The Volvo driver would almost certainly be more injured.
jding19711 10 months ago
btw, i dont see anything REALLY catastrophic in the volvo.. i mean the legs cold be hurt quite hard, but still it seems like it's not that bad. better than many newer cars.
and for better safety see w124.
zloychechen5150 10 months ago
This crash test is bullshit..... and anyway, a 1996 Volvo 850 would demolish that little TOYota.....
April 17, 2011 8:26 pm
whattheheck1000 10 months ago 4
@whattheheck1000 Why bullshit?
yamahaevo 10 months ago 18
@yamahaevo The occupant compartment of the Yaris was damaged about as bad as the Volvo... even though the Volvo is twice as heavy and has about an equally good crash structure.
April 18, 2011 2:37 pm
whattheheck1000 10 months ago
@yamahaevo Cause Yaris is bullshit, trust me, rather head on in the volvo then the toyo.
NorkiddExo 6 months ago
@whattheheck1000 look at the dash of the yaris and how the volvo keeps moving forward even after the impact
crashtest2302 8 months ago
@crashtest2302 Yeah... the Volvo still wins!
July 7, 2011 12:47 pm
whattheheck1000 8 months ago
@whattheheck1000 Evidently not
james1574961137 7 months ago
@whattheheck1000 New cars are allmost allways safer than older cars, and in this case it is just like that! and nowdays 850 is allso pretty old.. Volvos are more fun and better looking though ;)
TurbozRS 6 months ago
@whattheheck1000 it's called structure improvements i bet you think a 59 bel-air would destory a 2009 malibu too right, well go watch that video and tell me.
SteelCity1981 6 months ago
@SteelCity1981 That's a 50 year age difference, and the cars are the same size. I've seen the video of that, it's totally true. But a YARIS, not even the best designed small car, is structurally better than a VOLVO only 13 years older? I smell BS. By 1996 (or 1990, for that matter, when this car design came out) safety was important, and although the Yaris does have a stiffer structure, I'm sure it's not that much stiffer than the benchmark of car safety of the 90s.
August 19, 2011 2:22 pm
whattheheck1000 6 months ago
@whattheheck1000 Well the just goes to show you heavier doesn't always mean better the Bel- air is heavier then the Malibu and yes there is a 50 year age diff, but the frame and heavy metal on the bel air couldn't hold up against the lighter and much better designed safty cage on the malibu. Yeah and the model of that volvo dates back beyond 13 years that design has been around since the 80's with modest updates. until Vovlo totally redesigned their lineup back in the late 90's.
SteelCity1981 6 months ago
@SteelCity1981 A Bel Air weighs little more than a Malibu, but it don't matter: even if that Bel-Air had hit a Yaris head on, the Bel Air driver would have died. The Bel Air designers paid little attention to safety. The Volvo designers, even in the 80's, paid plenty of attention to safety; that 1996 Volvo was probably safer than the average 1996 car. The Yaris is average for 2009, and I don't think 13 years of progress is near enough to overcome that weight difference.
August 20, 2011 1:13 am
whattheheck1000 6 months ago
@whattheheck1000 you're missing the point structure is the key the structure on the Malibu was a lot better engineered then just full blown frame and steel like they used to believe the motto built like a tank, when cars of that era really weren't, but people believed that based on structure alone. Sa,e with the Volvo it's an old car based on a structure from the 80's the Yaris even though is smaller is better structurally built based on enhancements in safety technology.
SteelCity1981 6 months ago
@whattheheck1000 You have no idea about car safety.
DILINGER0 4 months ago in playlist Crash Tests
@DILINGER0 That hurts... I know that the 1996 850 got a GOOD IIHS rating, same as this, and it is like half a ton heavier...
October 16, 2011 1:22 pm
whattheheck1000 4 months ago
@DILINGER0 Not to mention the 2007-2011 Yaris was kind of a hunk of junk for its era.
January 3, 2012 9:56 pm
whattheheck1000 2 months ago
These are valid comparisons, but only to a point. It is not a fair comparison of LARGE VS SMALL cars. All it really shows is that newer cars have better offset crash protection in them, and that's because they HAVE to have it. By law! That Volvo 940 is derived from a car released in 1984. That's 25 years difference in technology. This has nothing to do with small vs large. No surprise that the newer car did better in the crash test it was designed for. Sort of a No Brainer.
Miradart 11 months ago
its unfair,because the engine is just in the middle of the volvo,so there is nothing to stop the toyota!!!
unairadm 11 months ago
Before you say anything bad about the volvo you should see this top gear episode! Volvo 740, Audi 80, Rover something. youtube........ watch?v=RdpHZF8E1Nk&feature=related
yamahaevo 1 year ago 21
people have to realize that there is about a 15 age difference between the Volvo and the Toyota. Thats 15 years of engineering, new technologies, and saftey. Clearly the newer vehicle will perform better. Lets take a 2011 Volvo and a 2011 Toyota and try again.
rally240 1 year ago
This is good example for those who are thinking to buy older bigger car for the money of newer smaller car and thinks that bigger = safer.
qettyz 1 year ago
@qettyz bigger is better...if the volvo had less of a crumble zone it would have not absorbed that yaris like it did.. but that isnt really a big car....a big car is more like a 70's Lincoln Town Car not a volvo
jtreign9097 11 months ago
@qettyz No! Yyour body gets more injuries if the car is stiffer/harder, it soposed to be a wrack after a crash just to protect the people from inside injuries you dont se on the car how bad the people inside are. Crash with a 1994 yaris or 1994 940?
yamahaevo 11 months ago 20
@yamahaevo New cars takes the force off impact to the front of the car when it collapses. I am sure that i would like to be in Yaris where i dont get my legs cut off. This Volvo does not have "todays" car chassis where impact force is collected by chassis, not by passengers body. If the car chassis between motor and front passengers fail, it will cause massive damages to the driver and passenger. NO offense, but if you read about this you will find how newer cars are safer =)
qettyz 11 months ago
@yamahaevo yaris didnt exist in 1994 LOL
JAPANTUNER100 6 months ago
@qettyz i don't think that anyone who's buying an old big car thinks like that) it's just that a 940 would cost 1k euro in a good nick, whereas a yaris'd be a lot more. People who buy old big cars do so because they need a big car but don't have the money.
p.s. i have a 944 because a bass guitar in a case + amp + some people + other stuff doesn't fit in a hyundai getz. choice is always yours.
zloychechen5150 10 months ago
watch this.. Volvo owns a Golf!
youtube... watch?v=GpL7DmNSzrU&feature=related
NoOBiEMiDNiGhT 1 year ago
@NoOBiEMiDNiGhT thats a SUV!!! Not a station wagon.. lol
BrunostNOR 11 months ago
What speed?
JENSDONT 1 year ago
@JENSDONT 64km/h/ 40mph youtube.. v=HRFf6rGb3K0
yamahaevo 1 year ago
considering that volvo design dates from the very early '80s, I don't think its that bad! nobody had ever heard of Ncap back then. put a 1983 760 against a 1983 corolla. if you can find one.
mrspivvy 1 year ago
That volvo is considered 25 years, its from 740 body, they should try s80 : ) results sure different.. Education for life !
wslen 1 year ago
@1997FordProbeGT ok now I get it thanx.
trollsneedmeds2 1 year ago
@1997FordProbeGT how so?
trollsneedmeds2 1 year ago
when volvo built the 945 toyota was still building charriets...if the test was head on so the volvo could have used it's engine as a 'wall' ...ehh poor yaris!
90Ming90 1 year ago
wow that yaris stood up real good on impact.amazing
josur 1 year ago
one of the cars is deisgned compleytly around euro ncaps ofsett test. the other is not..
volvo145 1 year ago
If back in 1982 when the Volvo 740/760 range was launched Volvo had crashed one into a late 60s early 70s family type car of the period, then the Volvo would have come out as the winner, so in another 13+yrs time you crash a Yaris into the latest brand new model the Yaris will be destroyed people will say the Yaris is rubbish in a crash. I will NOT be selling my old Volvo td for a Yaris, crap tow car, also it will not last as long as my Volvo or be as reliable 266.000miles same eng/box.
triand43 1 year ago 3
I think the engines were removed so its bullshit.
oGnocas 1 year ago
@oGnocas No it's not, check out this: youtube.. v=HRFf6rGb3K0
yamahaevo 1 year ago
this 740 volvo don't do it bad... remember is a car of 80s when the safety it was a BIG luxury
legacyrally555 1 year ago
the volvo did good its 1996 and the toyota 2009
alot has happend in 13 years
torso99 1 year ago
im a bit disapointet because of the volvo :/
samthepspuser 1 year ago
@samthepspuser why? It's 13 years between, and make a 1996 Toyota to this Volvo and you cant reconize to Toy any more
yamahaevo 1 year ago 28
@yamahaevo
yes thats true ... but i thought the volvo wouldn´t destroy the cockpit that hard... you just feel so save, driving this big car!
samthepspuser 1 year ago
@samthepspuser You should see this! (se all parts!) And check the volvo against the other! watch?v=HRFf6rGb3K0
yamahaevo 1 year ago
@yamahaevo because 13 years after the volvo war released the toyota still has shitty body :D
warrisking 6 months ago
@samthepspuser The Volvo 940 is constructionwise exact the same car as the Volvo 740/760, which made it's debut in 1982 (!). So we're talking a car that's designed in the late 70s here. It's hardly believable that such a car still can take on a 2010-car like the Toyota. This crashtest only confirms that Volvo's safety reputation is build on reality. From a medical point of view however, both drivers are likely to sustain serious injuries in crash like this.
bc9500 1 year ago
@bc9500
okay ... thats some kind of crazy :O ... why do you know all this stuff about the volvo ? its interesting!
samthepspuser 1 year ago
what about a 1996 toyota vs 2009 Volvo
VolvoManV8 1 year ago 80
@VolvoManV8 good idea
Xtwqedfaghyuinm 5 months ago