If you love cars you should subscribe now to YouCar the world famous automotive channel: goo.gl/5i54Vg Join us to enjoy exclusive benefits: / @youcartv
It's probably because the beetle has been steadily updated to accomodate safety laws over the years. I mean, the classic beetle has been built in 2003.
I was in a wreck when some one pulled out in front of me in my 1973 super beetle. I hit a crown Victoria on the back panel maybe 30 miles per hour. My beetle lost the battle but me and my cousin where not hurt. I put a new hood and fender and gave it a new baby blue paint job and I was back on the road. I miss my old beetle.
I have an orange 1973 awaiting a 2nd restoration...I drove it from Iowa to Georgia and back, as well as from Iowa to Yellowstone Ntl. Park, to Seattle Washington and back to Iowa-20+ years ago. They're little tanks and good drivers in the winter too-as long as you have a good set of tires on it.
I owned a total of 5 of these. Hit the back end of '78 Olds with my last one. The Olds won, but I drove the little guy home. Only injury was my pride. They were actually pretty good little cars. You had to drive defensivly though.
The offset frontal crashes always look the worst and are the most dangerous head on collision for the occupant on the side it hits (in the video the driver. But if you were to look at the passenger they should be fine maybe a little shaken up but fine. This is actually quite impressive how well the old beetle held up. I encourage you to go watch some modern offset frontal crash tests and look at the similaritys, if it had an airbag and a few reinforments to keep the front wheel out of the cabin (that is a major source of leg breakage in accidents, it would probably pass modern head on testing. However the side impact is another story....
: The Designed-In Dangers of the Volkswagen is a nonfiction book written by the Center for Auto Safety, with an introduction by Ralph Nader. The book looks at the deficiencies in the safety aspects of the vehicles sold by Volkswagen. It was published on September 11, 1972 by Grossman Publishers. The book is based on a study released in September 1971 by the Center entitled The Volkswagen: An Assessment of Distinctive Hazards. The book concluded that "the Volkswagen Beetle is the most hazardous car currently in use in significant numbers in the United States" and that "the VW microbus or van is so unsafe that it should be removed from the roads entirely."
by the way the frame of a beetle is triangular in the front so its not that bad. full frontal would differ greatly. and you know a baja bug with a little extra lift would fair very good in side and rear impacts
Both of these cars have solid steering shafts, and were known to impale their drivers on impact. It's what lead to the knuckles design that was sloppy through the 90s and now electronic without a shaft at all, because people STILL drive stupid.
I didn't think they were still making bugs in '83. The bug didn't get as fucked up as the rabbit did though. I can attest to the fact that I hit a concrete wall with an '87 jetta, and it was pretty fucked up, but I managed to keep on going until both front tires were shredded off, and the rims were too damaged to roll anymore. Then five oh showed up. They were not amused.
I drive a 67 Bug. It’s about as safe as riding a motorcycle. Except motorcycles don’t have glass windshields to fly through, or fuel tanks mounted up front!
I keep seeing comments claiming that these are decent results, but I am watching the 'driver's' head and it's like watching the Zapruder Film. Both times I see that dummy make a very hard face plant. I have been in an old VW Bug and I have seen the surfaces in front of the driver. There weren't padded surfaces like in modern vehicles. That would be a whole world of face/head trauma. Also, back then, the steering columns were solid and the steering wheel was often driven backwards into the driver's chest. The steering box for the Bug sits in front of the torsion arms for the front suspension. Not a good placement for good crash results. What the Bug had going for it was that it was Affordable, though Spartan. Now they are expensive and Spartan. They had personality and they were functional, but they were full of compromises in order to make them affordable. Many of those compromises made them dangerous.
for a car designed before the invasion of poland and which continued to be sold until 86 (96 if you count the "itamar" variant sold in brazil), the results were decent.
In the Bug they had to cut off the legs of the Dummy to get him out. In the Golf the head was smashed. Both were Bad but the Golf was much worse. In the 1990s with the Golf 3 Things got better.
+Daniel Martinez uhmm.... well... nobody gave a crap about crash tests back then... except Mercedes and Volvo. Search for Volvo 240 crash test and you'll see it's WAAAAAYYYYY better safety wise. XD
@@comanderjuul Except it isn't. The Volvo crash test isn't comparable to this one. Full frontal vs offset and the speed in the Volvo crash test was lower.
QUÉ CANCIÓN TAN BAILABLE Y HASTA ESCUCHANDOLA Y SIGUIENDOLE ÉL RITMO ME DAN GANAS DÉ VERLA BAILAR Á LA LOLA DÉ MI PERRO PAT Y Á SUS 2 AMIGOS LUCY Y PICÓ. GRACIAS.
Probably because of the rear-mounted engine. The Golf II is also an old car, which does not have an as effective safety cage and deformation zones as they have today, so the passenger compartment is not strong enough to protect against the engine, which is forced backwards and into the passenger compartment. The Beetle doesn't have that problem. Because the engine is mounted in the rear, it does in practice have a big deformation zone in the front so the deformation is more concentrated on the front of the car, which does not have any heavy materials in it that would intrude into the passenger compartment. However, this test might not tell the whole picture. Instead of the engine, the Beetle has the fuel tank mounted in the front, and you don't want a fuel leakage after being in an accident either.
The 80s golf had a weaker roof structure. The roof looks so thin. It baffles me that the beetle which was designed in the 30's and had no engine to absorb impact energy did better
Part of the reason why the beetle does better Is because it's very light it's like a spider falling 10ft it dosent weigh enough to harm itself. Also body work absorbs damage engines dont they reflect damage which can cause the car to ricochet back from a collision rather violently which by itself can cause whiplash and internal organ damage from sheer energy alone
Some people say that having a rock hard steel front end is good but it's not always. The car might not absorb collision energy. In turn it will be reflected upon the driver which can thrash hard enough to liquify organs without any actual contact with the car itself.
The Beetle's actually not bad when you think about it, it was designed in the 1930s and most of the front passenger bit stays reasonably intact bar chopping yer legs off, look at the Citroen Saxo or Peugeot 205/106, Fiat Chinquecento, Rover Metro/100 all much later developments more modern safety features and none of them did any better in fact some were even worse than the golf and beetle here, Believe me I've seen worse.
I am testing that theory. i never thought id say this, but i just saw the Brilliance Bs6 (Or something like that) and it look like a nuke went off inside the car. this only looks like a train hit it.
@wangsta231 It looks to me like the bug's dashboard made a mad rush into the driver's body. It there had been a real person in there, he'd have to be picked up with a sponge.
@yamahar87 of course there's ALWAYS a chance of survival. Just depends. And of course there were safety items in those days. Seat belts were made mandatory in 1974, also in the 80's "crumple zones" were becoming more prevalent.
I don't know about you, but this whole video (crash test+especially this specific song=the video as a whole) used, and will continue to creep me out a bit. I dunno, it has a creepy vibe to it
Not sure what people are talking about here but the Volkswagen rabbit especially the early versions up to about 1980 had one of the poorest safety crash records of any car. You were probably safer writing a motorcycle than driving a VW bug
@Jordanevans721 concidering that the fuel tank of the beetle is in the front. The beetle was much worse... :-) And i thought that old cars were safer.......
Pretty good if that was 40, thats usually worst case scenario since people slam on their brakes before impact. If you were going 60 you can slow down to 30 in a very short amount of time even if the brakes lock up.
@xXRoyaltyXx7 I do almost everyday and I love it! I am trying to find guidance on how to raise my '70 Beetle's top end above 65mph (110kph). My speedo goes up to 90mph(150kph) so I think the car should be able to travel at that speed from full to empty. The certified VW mechanic that workd on my Beetle says it can not travel above 65mph for prolonged periods of time without scarring/over-heating the cylinder walls. He says ONLY in cold weather should I drive it at 70mph. :(
I'm actually pretty sure this was 50 km/h, as the test was done back in the late 90's, before EuroNCAP increased the collision speed from 50 to 64 km/h
@SwPiotrek "Welcome to America's Mini Truck Center. We are a direct importer, parts supplier, and accessory supplier for Japanese 4x4 mini trucks." Japanese is an odd way to spell Chinese.
Someone was driving drunk in San Diego a few years ago hit head on with a guy in a vw he died instantly, don't get me wrong I love these old cars but it wouldn't be my primary vehicle
frederick wooding Oh yeah same here for daily driving at least. I'd take a Saab 900 or Volvo over one of these anyday but these are kinda fun weekend cars if anything and are about as safe as most cars this age.
Or maybe you won't tell anyone any stories because your dead my Friend broke his back in a accident in his bug in a roll over ,good ol stories & I know for a fact his back wouldn't have broke in a Saab, I still would drive a classic turbo 900 built to protect and is hell of a lot more fun to drive and unless you have driven both vehicles extensively which I have you wouldn't understand
Apparently, the VW beetle did much better than the golf, at least from what I saw, and it was designed in the 1930's!
Because of its round stuff it absorbs damage a little better
It's probably because the beetle has been steadily updated to accomodate safety laws over the years. I mean, the classic beetle has been built in 2003.
Não tente falar inglês e se disfarçar, você se entregou quando se referiu ao segundo carro como "golf"
@@UnclePip no, it was in mid 1930 to mid 90s
@@srcreeper02550 The last classic Beetle was built in Puebla, Mexico in 2003.
I was in a wreck when some one pulled out in front of me in my 1973 super beetle. I hit a crown Victoria on the back panel maybe 30 miles per hour. My beetle lost the battle but me and my cousin where not hurt. I put a new hood and fender and gave it a new baby blue paint job and I was back on the road. I miss my old beetle.
I have a baby (metalic) blue beetle drom 73
I have an orange 1973 awaiting a 2nd restoration...I drove it from Iowa to Georgia and back, as well as from Iowa to Yellowstone Ntl. Park, to Seattle Washington and back to Iowa-20+ years ago. They're little tanks and good drivers in the winter too-as long as you have a good set of tires on it.
you're lucky you didn't "blew your mind out" in that car.
I have a 1961 herbie réplica Pearl White
I would say that the results are decent for the beetle when you consider that it was designed around WWII.
TheCatMilton 1938, to be excact.
The germans were far ahead, no one came close.
Some sources say1936, some say 1938!
@@Aikaramba12 If this is true, wouldn’t I be able to drive mine a day or two, with no breakdowns?
That's true. Except they didnt do this test with a ww2 Bug. They used a 70s shape when safety standards were above those of the Rabbit
I owned a total of 5 of these. Hit the back end of '78 Olds with my last one. The Olds won, but I drove the little guy home. Only injury was my pride. They were actually pretty good little cars. You had to drive defensivly though.
The Bug did better than most contemporary chinese cars. Brilliant.
No lol. Bug didn't have airbags.
@@elmohead in a time before airbags it did well
@@elmohead Airbags are a complement to the seatbelts. Will worth nothing without a good seatbelt or stable chassis. Rover 100 is a example of that
@@GiordanDiodato yeah, not compared to contemporary Chinese cars.
The old Beetle did well considering the fuel tank is in the front. The New Beetle (1998 +) also fared well in a crash test.
The VW Bug had the same design since 1938
The beginning part of the song sounds like it was sung by someone who was drunk.
The offset frontal crashes always look the worst and are the most dangerous head on collision for the occupant on the side it hits (in the video the driver. But if you were to look at the passenger they should be fine maybe a little shaken up but fine. This is actually quite impressive how well the old beetle held up. I encourage you to go watch some modern offset frontal crash tests and look at the similaritys, if it had an airbag and a few reinforments to keep the front wheel out of the cabin (that is a major source of leg breakage in accidents, it would probably pass modern head on testing. However the side impact is another story....
: The Designed-In Dangers of the Volkswagen is a nonfiction book written by the Center for Auto Safety, with an introduction by Ralph Nader. The book looks at the deficiencies in the safety aspects of the vehicles sold by Volkswagen. It was published on September 11, 1972 by Grossman Publishers. The book is based on a study released in September 1971 by the Center entitled The Volkswagen: An Assessment of Distinctive Hazards. The book concluded that "the Volkswagen Beetle is the most hazardous car currently in use in significant numbers in the United States" and that "the VW microbus or van is so unsafe that it should be removed from the roads entirely."
Stopped making Beetles in Mexico a few years back. Well after 1983.
Nope. Last one stopped in 2003
and lets not forget in Mexico, the beetle final edition 2004, only 3000 sold
Actually, it was until 2003.
They don´t had walls back then, so it´s ok.
I’m assuming you chose not to attend English class in school.
I am stronger than you, so it’s ok.
by the way the frame of a beetle is triangular in the front so its not that bad. full frontal would differ greatly. and you know a baja bug with a little extra lift would fair very good in side and rear impacts
Damn I love the old beetle, but after that I'm not sure I prefer style over safety at all.
The Beetle is save for a car from the late 30s and the golf II was a cheap Hatchback.
Both of these cars have solid steering shafts, and were known to impale their drivers on impact. It's what lead to the knuckles design that was sloppy through the 90s and now electronic without a shaft at all, because people STILL drive stupid.
All cars sold in the USA had collapsible steering columns starting with the 1969 model year. Federal regulation.
@@johnhazel591 We all know that collapsible wasn't good enough though xD
I didn't think they were still making bugs in '83. The bug didn't get as fucked up as the rabbit did though.
I can attest to the fact that I hit a concrete wall with an '87 jetta, and it was pretty fucked up, but I managed to keep on going until both front tires were shredded off, and the rims were too damaged to roll anymore. Then five oh showed up. They were not amused.
I drive a 67 Bug. It’s about as safe as riding a motorcycle. Except motorcycles don’t have glass windshields to fly through, or fuel tanks mounted up front!
Umm, motorcycles do, in fact, have fuel tanks mounted up front. Right between your nuts and the bars.
Rear/mid engine cars are times safer in such crashes than front engined ones.
I keep seeing comments claiming that these are decent results, but I am watching the 'driver's' head and it's like watching the Zapruder Film. Both times I see that dummy make a very hard face plant. I have been in an old VW Bug and I have seen the surfaces in front of the driver. There weren't padded surfaces like in modern vehicles. That would be a whole world of face/head trauma. Also, back then, the steering columns were solid and the steering wheel was often driven backwards into the driver's chest. The steering box for the Bug sits in front of the torsion arms for the front suspension. Not a good placement for good crash results. What the Bug had going for it was that it was Affordable, though Spartan. Now they are expensive and Spartan. They had personality and they were functional, but they were full of compromises in order to make them affordable. Many of those compromises made them dangerous.
for a car designed before the invasion of poland and which continued to be sold until 86 (96 if you count the "itamar" variant sold in brazil), the results were decent.
In the Bug they had to cut off the legs of the Dummy to get him out.
In the Golf the head was smashed. Both were Bad but the Golf was much worse.
In the 1990s with the Golf 3 Things got better.
😭😭😭 poor bug rest in piece 🚗
They built 15 million of them it’s ok
The Beetle looks better off than the Golf/Rabbit. Except for the front-mounted fuel tank, of course.
Actually, nowadays designers consider the engine as a cross-member adding to the frame rigidity.
We in Norway also make cars, although they are tiny electric ones. I would not even THINK of buying any of them... ;)
Surprisingly good for being from 1983.
+Daniel Martinez uhmm.... well... nobody gave a crap about crash tests back then... except Mercedes and Volvo. Search for Volvo 240 crash test and you'll see it's WAAAAAYYYYY better safety wise. XD
Daniel Martinez you meen 1938
@@comanderjuul SAAB too.
30s*
@@comanderjuul Except it isn't. The Volvo crash test isn't comparable to this one. Full frontal vs offset and the speed in the Volvo crash test was lower.
QUÉ CANCIÓN TAN BAILABLE Y HASTA ESCUCHANDOLA Y SIGUIENDOLE ÉL RITMO ME DAN GANAS DÉ VERLA BAILAR Á LA LOLA DÉ MI PERRO PAT Y Á SUS 2 AMIGOS LUCY Y PICÓ. GRACIAS.
How can the Beetle do better than the golf? Probably the Golf has more things to it tbh.
Probably because of the rear-mounted engine. The Golf II is also an old car, which does not have an as effective safety cage and deformation zones as they have today, so the passenger compartment is not strong enough to protect against the engine, which is forced backwards and into the passenger compartment. The Beetle doesn't have that problem. Because the engine is mounted in the rear, it does in practice have a big deformation zone in the front so the deformation is more concentrated on the front of the car, which does not have any heavy materials in it that would intrude into the passenger compartment.
However, this test might not tell the whole picture. Instead of the engine, the Beetle has the fuel tank mounted in the front, and you don't want a fuel leakage after being in an accident either.
The 80s golf had a weaker roof structure. The roof looks so thin. It baffles me that the beetle which was designed in the 30's and had no engine to absorb impact energy did better
Part of the reason why the beetle does better Is because it's very light it's like a spider falling 10ft it dosent weigh enough to harm itself. Also body work absorbs damage engines dont they reflect damage which can cause the car to ricochet back from a collision rather violently which by itself can cause whiplash and internal organ damage from sheer energy alone
Some people say that having a rock hard steel front end is good but it's not always. The car might not absorb collision energy. In turn it will be reflected upon the driver which can thrash hard enough to liquify organs without any actual contact with the car itself.
God I fucking wrote this 5 years ago wtf? Lmao
smooth like butter...
The Beetle's actually not bad when you think about it, it was designed in the 1930s and most of the front passenger bit stays reasonably intact bar chopping yer legs off, look at the Citroen Saxo or Peugeot 205/106, Fiat Chinquecento, Rover Metro/100 all much later developments more modern safety features and none of them did any better in fact some were even worse than the golf and beetle here, Believe me I've seen worse.
I am testing that theory. i never thought id say this, but i just saw the Brilliance Bs6 (Or something like that) and it look like a nuke went off inside the car. this only looks like a train hit it.
Bug gas tank over your lap ruptured , caught fire.
@wangsta231 It looks to me like the bug's dashboard made a mad rush into the driver's body. It there had been a real person in there, he'd have to be picked up with a sponge.
OMG, the golf almost turned in to a perfect cube.
@yamahar87 of course there's ALWAYS a chance of survival. Just depends. And of course there were safety items in those days. Seat belts were made mandatory in 1974, also in the 80's "crumple zones" were becoming more prevalent.
The music just makes this whole crash seem much worse...
I don't know about you, but this whole video (crash test+especially this specific song=the video as a whole) used, and will continue to creep me out a bit. I dunno, it has a creepy vibe to it
I rolled a '63 beetle a few times until it landed upside down in a ditch. No seat belts and I was not hurt.
Not sure what people are talking about here but the Volkswagen rabbit especially the early versions up to about 1980 had one of the poorest safety crash records of any car. You were probably safer writing a motorcycle than driving a VW bug
What has the engine to do with the body structure? Also it's not a full frontal test, so the golf provided not really from it's engine in the front.
9 years later...
@Pinacler No , they do the offset crashes at 40mph .
well...at least the stereo still works
The beetle actually did better then some of the new chinese cars
Those crashes were at that speed on the video!
That music to this video though...LMFAO!
According to Mad magazine long time ago,
V.W. = *Very* bad in *Wrecks*
Not bad for a 30's Design
The A pillar on that Rabbit collapsed
FAIL
music: making me nervous- Magnatune Compilation
I'd like to know the speed of the car before the crash and also the weight ...
" powered by german engineer "
That first crash?.....goodbye legs! Anyone know at what speed these were?
Name of song please?
@totodile493 They do the offset crashes at 40mph .
STILL SAFER THAN 2011 CHINESE CARS.
thats pretty good for an old car except the airbags but that was before airbags
The name of the song is:
Making Me Nervous - Brad Sucks
What song's name?
Err Is there not a liquid "bomb" in the front of the "Pastie".WHOOSH.
Going to do this soon to mine -have wiring problems I can’t figure out. Then set on fire.
do it mean that the driver of this car have 0 probabilities of survive? are there no security items in those times?
@Volume1216 Thanks.
Is that the cars engine flying at the driver from behind?
1938 design, 1970 mechanics
its like tinfoil on wheels
@Jordanevans721 concidering that the fuel tank of the beetle is in the front. The beetle was much worse... :-)
And i thought that old cars were safer.......
Even if the beetle was worse i'd still drive that one cause i'd wanna die in style, =)
loveanianimeme The beetle did pretty good than the other car.
It is just so satisfying seeing ur least favourite car get destroyed.
Even Jeremy Clarkson, James May, and Richard Hammond hate it.
what is this song called
@totodile493 Seeing as it was conducted by ADAC, it's most likely 40mph (64 kph) which is the normal euroncap crash test speed.
Pretty good if that was 40, thats usually worst case scenario since people slam on their brakes before impact. If you were going 60 you can slow down to 30 in a very short amount of time even if the brakes lock up.
Holy shit....that Volkswagen beetle
@gta4freak7651 But they stopped selling them in the US back in 1979
i wanted to look up what my dream car would do in a crash test. Lets just say the Bug driver is dead, but died happy!
still safer than 3013 chinese cars you mean??
i got a mk2 golf....
and a mercedes.
i like both cars, but if i had the choice...i´ll take the merc
Song ?
*and then had to watch a vid 10 seconds more* damn kindle keyboard! DX
Volkswagen - Das Auto.
What's the song sound good
+the computer tech Making Me Nervous - Brad Sucks
Hey, I know watching it 2010
roll cage for sure when I get this!
Sorry, Herbie. ;D
good vid dude
That’ll buff right out
safety in the 90's?
Ask Mercedes-Benz. They had both active and passive safety features! Watch the crashtests^^
Great considering the entire front is empty space for buckling
One would expect a vehicle with a transverse engine mounted in the front to do much better against a Beetle. Shockingly, no.
Music?
@xXRoyaltyXx7 I do almost everyday and I love it! I am trying to find guidance on how to raise my '70 Beetle's top end above 65mph (110kph). My speedo goes up to 90mph(150kph) so I think the car should be able to travel at that speed from full to empty. The certified VW mechanic that workd on my Beetle says it can not travel above 65mph for prolonged periods of time without scarring/over-heating the cylinder walls. He says ONLY in cold weather should I drive it at 70mph. :(
That mechanic is an idiot.
Anyone have any data from the beetle crash test? (Or this video in more quaity?)
Does somebody know how fast they are?
64 km/h or 50 mph
I'm actually pretty sure this was 50 km/h, as the test was done back in the late 90's, before EuroNCAP increased the collision speed from 50 to 64 km/h
Clearly this music caused these crashes
Lol. The Golf did worst.
And was the Beetle made in Germany or Mexico/Brazil?
without airbag, every car would fail, dont even bother test them with dummy(s).
@CrazyBear65 they made bugs till 2003.
@SwPiotrek "Welcome to America's Mini Truck Center. We are a direct importer, parts supplier, and accessory supplier for Japanese 4x4 mini trucks." Japanese is an odd way to spell Chinese.
This scares me lol. I drive a 69 model
BradleyTV if you valew your life get a roll cage.
BugLife, I drive a motorbike so...
Reinforce your car it’s not expensive
I would take a Saab 900 over these death traps any day even a 1980 Saab is stronger than a 90s vw
Well these were designed in the 1930s so what do you expect.
Someone was driving drunk in San Diego a few years ago hit head on with a guy in a vw he died instantly, don't get me wrong I love these old cars but it wouldn't be my primary vehicle
frederick wooding
Oh yeah same here for daily driving at least. I'd take a Saab 900 or Volvo over one of these anyday but these are kinda fun weekend cars if anything and are about as safe as most cars this age.
Or maybe you won't tell anyone any stories because your dead my Friend broke his back in a accident in his bug in a roll over ,good ol stories & I know for a fact his back wouldn't have broke in a Saab, I still would drive a classic turbo 900 built to protect and is hell of a lot more fun to drive and unless you have driven both vehicles extensively which I have you wouldn't understand
And, with that criteria, a Kenworth truck is also stronger than a Smart. If you're gonna make comparisons, make them even.
wgo sings that song??