as for that last one, it too was a test of the FACILITY not the car: "The test was conducted in 1992 and was part of a series of tests to commission our crash test facility. The test was of the drive system, not the car. The car was a standard ’second hand’ car except that the tail shaft was removed. 300kg of sand ballast was placed in the footwells and boot and a ballast dummy (75kg) was placed on the rear seat. The test speed was 100km/h into a solid concrete reaction block. Colin Jackson Crash Barrier Manager RTA Crashlab"
Even if these cars wasn't as bad this is why we have curvy cars because it helps with strength personally I being a car guy dieing in my fave car is a great way to go
"Sod that, Frank ... Just use the hose reel to wash the poor bastard out ... although block that drain, first, as they will need to capture as much of what's left to bury ..." [Edit: thank God the last 2, or 3, seem more likely tests to check out the limits of the new testing bays. I can't imagine, though, what it would be like to a First Responder to a scene of an actual crash, with that much carnage ... I've heard stories of even hardened Paramedics, and Fire Crews, having to go, voluntarily, into therapy for a while, after having to deal with some truly horrific incidents, such as that remarkable woman whom, by some kind of miracle, survived being mauled by a 200lb chimpanzee, but at the cost of loosing her entire face, and both hands, apart from a thumb on --- what was --- her left hand, iirc ...]
@@nigelft I’ve seen some horrifying stuff over the years surfing the web, but that attack is one I’ll skip in list videos. Even though it’s just a phone recording. The other being drug cartel videos of live victims having their limbs cut off. To end slightly on topic of the video, if you like fatal car crashes, search horror knight on here. Compilation 1 is my fave
To be fair that's the way that I would rather go, have my skull ripped from the body and crushed against the ceiling in an instant instead of it being intact and having to feel the mangled body and slowly drift off to darkness in horrible pain....
@@automation7295 No. I did'nt mean that. Look at the cars. Most of them didn't have dummys inside. And look how smashed the driver's compartment is. Look at the Vw Santana and how the steering wheel goes up to the roof. It looks like it would suckerpunch the dummy is one was actually in there.
i get it, common thing in 3D GTAs. i think in real life the body flexes just enough for the trunk latch to no longer connect, probably not a sign of good crash-safety
as did the t3. and the ford at number 10 did exactly w^hat it was designed to do. the c class was just old. as in all cars of that era had a bemt a pilar after the crash and the c class was about as safe as it gets in that time.
@@shubhendrapratapsingh9756 If this was the standard velocity, it's quite high, since the target is static I expect the survival chances in the front row to be very low in any model.
@@j1d7s nah man that's the global ncap...speed measures...that's not high...an average car runs at this average speed on road...you can check the speed measures of global ncap ...if you think I'm wrong...no offense 🤟
This type of test is conducted at a speed of 50 km/h according to the EuroNCAP website. Which is a good speed I think because most European cities have a maximum speed of 50 km/h within city limits. Imagine the mess at 65 km/h!
Fun Fact: that original Commodore wasn’t even Australia’s own it was basically an Opel. When they brought the first to Australia the car broke at the firewall and split in half, may explain these results.
@@marnuscoreyempanadaslooseb6760 yes although didn't Holden also put a much bigger engine in that bodyshell in line with the Aussie preference for V8s? Whereas our incarnation (Vauxhall Carlton) had a fairly small 2-litre four-cylinder when it was launched in 1978. All I can say is thank God for crash tests, that even the worst Chinese rubbish performs much, much better than any of these vehicles.
That commodore was our family car for 10+ years. Put 3 engines in it we did that many km in it. Most of which was with a family of 4 loaded up with a speedway race car on a trailer behind. I'm taking 100 000s of km around Australia! Completely mind blowing to watch that.
C class is actually pretty interesting. They only put braces and strengthening elements on the driver side, where the crash test will happen but didnt think of the countries where the driver and passenger are swapped, so they had superb results in some countries and miserable results in countries where you drive on the left lane
A very rough estimate -- based on a 5-foot long hood being consumed in 41mS suggests that the Santana was traveling at more than 120 ft/sec or ~80mph at the moment of impact. Not many cars are going to fare well in that sort of impact.
@@kraftwerklover69 Well, why should it have, that design was way too old for that... Airbags in normal cars only started to appear at that time, the Audi 80 B4 of our family didn't have one either, delivery was December 1991.
In some of these crashes the air bags do you a disservice. They simply keep you alive long enough to experience all of the pain you can imagine while you slowly die waiting for the ambulance.
Strangely the Fiat Panda currently has ZERO stars NCAP rating but the main body shell remains fairly intact in crash tests with front doors still being in fairly good shape and able to open. The same car used to have a 4 out of 5 star rating on it's introduction in 2012. They just seem to have moved the goal posts and changed rules on how they score it?🤔😯
@@ProjectExMachina My 2014 Fiat Panda 4x4 Antarctica has seat belt reminders for ALL passengers also sensors so it detects if anyone is seated in any seats.😎👍
@@pdtech4524 My Fiat Stilo 2005 have it only for drivers seat but I've turned it off. EuroNCAP is picky about basic versions. Few years ago, Fiat Tipo and Dacia Sandero had 3 stars because they didn't had ESP in basic versions as standard - if they had they would get a four star rating.
@@ProjectExMachina It's a great little car, lots of fun to drive and very capable!! It has the little 875cc twinair engine, only 2 cylinders but it has 85bhp which is more than the 4 cylinder 1.2 version puts out. I think you're right the basic models probably don't have some safety features as standard so they mark the whole range down!🤔😯
A lot of people don’t like the larger blind spot the thick A pillars create on newer cars, but I watch these videos and am happy to have them, along with all the other safety improvements.
The good thing about the saxso was that it had 60 horsepower so you were never going fast enough for you to die in a crash. If you had the 1.4 furio or 1.6 vts and vtr models however you were done for. This is what the footage demonstrates.
+Papp Boldizsar I had second generation Clio with 1.2 engine with 60hp and drove with speeds between 120 and 160kph quite often and i’m not talking about highway but local roads.Power doesn’t matter much when you have a heavy right foot.
To be honest, #10 isn't that bad, the front absorbs the initial impact but the interior keeps the integrity for the passengers and doesn't bend. The others are coffins with wheels. Old cars were made like tanks that didn't absorb the hit. Yes, the car ended in good condition but passengers got the worst part of the impact.
Both the VW pickup and Holden Commodore videos have been around for ever. At least with these two vehicles they were crashed at far higher than normal speeds. If I recall the Commodore testing a new facility in Australia in the day at high speeds. The VW T3 has other videos on YT showing some remarkable crash results in the day. The one used here was an old rusty highway service vehicle, again at high speeds. Nothing is relavent unless you know the actual test speeds, you hit that barrier in anything at high speeds and the vehicle will come off demolished.
well a freind had a big bunch of old cars on his farm mostly japanese cars but there was a commodore with the same body and an XF falcon ,my friend said watch this and he hit the roof pillars of the commodore with an engineering hammer and it caved in like hitting a tin can, then he hit the roof pillars of the XF falcon and it rang like a bell loud af hurting out ears and the pillars took it well, then he got the tractor ran into the rear of the commodore the tractor crushed the whole rear end and rode up onto the roof with the tractors front wheels the roof caved in, then he drove into the XF Falcon even faster and all that happened was the tractor bogged down and almost stalled then he had 4 more goes the rear tail lamps broke and the bumper flexed hard , both cars had no wheels on them the falcon could not be moved , those XF falcons are super strong in the rear omfg
The Rover 100 test I remember as it was featured in one of the car magazines. The dummy's head actually gets pushed off course by the air bag and strikes the A-pillar.
And those last three are why we have to have cars pass the tests before manufacturers can sell them. Like speed limits, since the introduction of crash test standards, deaths on the roads are greatly reduced
Yep, I drive the VW van in second place...To be fair during that test they overloaded it with more weight than it would ever be able to carry, so not a representative test.
People owning housemobiles/camping cars/wohnmobiles/bobiler/husvagnsbilar or what they are called in different languages, well, they better get their cars transported by air to the location, because such cars are even less safe than the worst ones in this video. They say modern cars from India are no better either. Probably just as bad in China and perhaps Russia as well. My french car is relatively old, but luckily a military tank compared to the ones in this video (I have a Citroën C5 Break, the facelift model of 2004). Renault and Volvo are said to be very, very safe cars, and have been for a long time. Renault is cheap, so that is not a bad choice for those of us that have to count our money.
The Holden Commodore is an Opel Commodore B Model, 1972 to 1977. This Test was done with 100km/h, so, the result was a Self fulfilling prophecy to a car, developed and produced in that decade. German offical recomnended speed on highways was 130km/h that time and the 2.8 litre fuel injection Commodore was good for 160Hp and 200km/h. So it made sense to have a look onto what will happen in case of an accident with these speeds.
That Volkswagen, doing some back-of-the-envelope math, was traveling over 100 km/h. Into an "immovable object" of a wall. In the era before crumple zones or seat belts. Yeah, that was guaranteed to be unrevivable. It was funny, when that clip first started, my initial reaction was "why no test dummies?" After? "Oh, unnecessary."
The 156 is shockingly soft. For a car that ran until 2008. I had one. When you were driving over a rough road with the window down. Hand on the roof. You could feel the roof and door top shuffling. The car was so flexible.
Very disappointing for what can be considered a modern premium car! My parents almost bought one in 2000. They went for a 3-door Audi A3 hatchback instead, which was clearly a better choice in hindsight.
At same speed, if you have to pass an asymmetrical Crash test you need a much more strenght chassis than a symmetrical one. If the car was designed to pass the easier in use 10 years or more before, this is what you get: for example, the 1997 Alfa Romeo 156 was based on the 1989 Fiat Tipo chassis, and the Rover 100 on the 1980 Austin Metro...
I can vouch for the Citroen Saxo, after crushing my pelvis, open compound fracture of a femur and life altering knee damage.. Oh and losing half an ear lol
The song is cool. What's the name? Btw, time flies. I honestly think some of the older cars still look modern. I cannot believe some of these are 35 years old by now. Some of them didn't even need dummys to determine the likelyhood between life or death.
What is test speed and overlap? Is it in accordance to NCAP test requirement? It’s hard to compare, because you can bring every car to collapse ,with according speed. NCAP requirements in 2000 years where much lower than today!
The front ends crumpling up like wet cardboard is actually a good thing. Cars are supposed to do that. It dissipates the kinetic energy of the impact, which is better than the car staying relatively intact but stopping suddenly, which leaves the driver's body to dissipate the energy by crumpling like wet cardboard. As long as the passenger compartment is intact, the more damage suffered by the front end, the better.
I think I would take my chances riding a motor bike. The Holden and VW's reverted back to billets! No one walking away from any of those. Though, would like know individual mph on impacts?
