@@punker4Real: Of course this is a bad idea for mass murderers, psychos, terrorists and the like, but no death row inmates would volunteer for this without an incentive unless suicidal. They would be paying back some of their debt to society and might deserve a chance for a commuted sentence if they survive and otherwise demonstrate remorse and rehabilitation. It could be a few less criminals we have to pay to imprison.
@@josephmac2684 Damn thats dark and the electric model will have its high power battery cables / batteries exposed in the cabin so "if you do experience a frontal crash and somehow managed to survive our death trap we will ensure your suffering won't be long by either electrocuting or burning you and your beloved ones in it"
I worked at an auto dismantler for almost 14 years, and I saw some absolutely horrific things (teeth in the dash and steering wheel, hair and scalp in the windshield, skull fragments and pieces of brain tissue), and the cars weren't damaged nearly as bad as these were! There's no fucking way that if those were real people that if they weren't killed on impact, that they recovered without serious complications.
yeah, I mean just look at some of those decelerations. Add to that the flailing body parts and the crushed drivers compartments, and I doubt really any of those occupants would have been able to walk away.
My friend owns an auto shop and has a fleet of tow vehicles and flat beds. I've been with him for some "minor" accidents in town at the 20-30 mph range, and was shocked to see the damage of the more affordable "for the masses" cars made to be inexpensive with decent features, the Cavalier being a good example, but some even more higher priced "next step up in the ranks" of those manufacturers. I'm glad I never went to the more serious ones, because as you said, the cars alone were sometimes a horror show. I was not needing to see the actual person inside, or partially inside.
I witnessed a Chevy Astro van slide off the highway, hit an embankment, twisted right hit a second embankment. The van was split open on the drivers side, flipped, ejecting all 3 passengers out of the van. The 3 passengers hit the ground and the van landed on its roof. Unfortunately the man that was driving was under it. This Happened in 1988. I'll never forget what I saw as long as I live.
You still probably have PTSD to this day. You poor guy. I'm sorry you had to witness it. The only positive thing would be that if the man who was killed deserved heaven, he went there immediately and likely had no memory whatsoever of what happened on earth. And if he deserved hell, he is finally out of society. Sorry to say. Maybe he was a pedophile. Maybe he was a Saint. But he's where he is supposed to be, either way. I witnessed a body hanging out of a car, myself years ago. Imagine what police and paramedics see. My cousin is a fireman and of all the accidents he attended, it turned him cold and calloused.
This is why the 3 ejected passengers should have put on thier seat belts. Being ejected is usually the biggest cause of injury, especially HEAD INJURY.
I like how the airbag deploys in the Chevrolet Astro, only to have the seat fly off it's hinges and mercilessly shove the driver's face and throat straight onto the steering wheel. Oh but at least there was an airbag! You can see it happening at 2:45 . I can't believe this vehicle was produced until 2005.
@@MrMikedejeuner It looks like an Opel Frontera. My parents had one of these - a German SUV from the 90ies, with a likewise pretty bad crash performance. They probably bought the design and put it back into production, using cheaper metal. Well I wouldn't expect much from a company that names their cars "landwind".
The seat did not disconnect from the floor. The frame and floor turned into a U and the seat was forward of the bend. The seat and dash are on the same plane and the rear frame and floor are at a 45 to 60 degree angle to the seat. It was one hell of a twist. That's why the roof line lowered. The van floor and frame just bent like playdough.
" I can't believe this vehicle was produced until 2005. ". . . Well as the saying goes , " If at first you don't succeed, try and try again " . . Until in 2005 . . " Oh to hell with it !!! "
If these tests wouldn't exist, all the manufacturers would still happily build their cars from the cheapest tin and never feel a bit bad about their cars turning the occupants into chunky sauce, when profit margins are high enough. Survivability has gone from none to maimed, to pretty much "I'll be at work next morning".
They still do. South America and Asia doesn't have these regulations so cars are still sold without stuff like ABS, traction control, crumple zones, airbags. The little Ford Fiesta in the US and UK is not the same as one sold in Mexico or Peru.
Many of them are fairly recent models... Check out BMW e39, VW Golf IV, Volvo V70, Audi etc... Dozens of very safe cars from the 90s which is older than much of what's shown here.
the solution IS simple. the vehicle needs to fix these flaws. the sophisticated engineering is responsible for finding out how to correct the flaws without compromising anything else
The car being tested is NOT an XR4Ti but the Euro Sierra, Many differences between the two especially in the front crash area (Bumpers for one). Passing that test off as an XR4Ti is misleading at best.
@@tiberius1701 Same chassis underpinning all models. Bumpers would make very little difference. More cosmetic than anything. But please do list the many technical structural differences to the base chassis of the XR4Ti compared to the vehicle in the video.
The Saab 900 surprised me because they touted their safety back in the day. But I also remember that cars back then were designed to take the impact across the entire front end. Offset crashes focus the energy on a smaller area and are more difficult to pass.
The 900 tested was an NG 900, which iirc was mainly a GM design/spec with a saab label on it which happened after GM bought saab. The 900 "classic" 79-94 were saab originals and rated much safer.
I own a 9000 for years, whenever I go to my local Saab shop for maintenance, I always see 900NG coming in that needed overhaul and has all sorts of problems, despite being newer, pre 900NG models are much more reliable, fewer things to go wrong and better made than the later one.
@@worawatli8952 They may not be as reliable to a tee, but my 99 9-3 has nearly 300k miles, with few problems. It has been one of the most reliable cars I've owned, behind the Honda's. The powertrains were very similar between the 99 9-3, 900NG and the later 9000s.
My father had an 80s manual 2.4 900 and it was a rock solid car, he loved it so much he got the next model 95 900S in auto. Such a different car, horrible experience, nothing but problems, he regretted trading the old green one. Later I learned it wasn't really Saab at all.
Well, the opel roots is really showing its ugly face on the 900NG crash test. For a company that were pushing safety as one of their main selling points this had to be a big stain on their reputation and also their pride. SAAB fans love to hate on the 2000s saabs, but they are super safe. So safe in fact that the face lifted 9-3 scored the highest safety in its category both in EU and USA. I would take a newer 9-3 over that 900NG crap rust bucket any day. I’d argue late 90s and early 2000s were the worst years of the company in terms of quality.
Rusty pickup man fords one of the safest trucks on the road with “crap aluminum”. Really shows how little you know. GM is also making aluminum body trucks why you ask? Cause they can haul more and there safer.
A bit surprising to see a Saab in the list - but that was the first version of the "Saab 900" to be based on a GM platform, instead of wholly engineered in Sweden. I understand the Saab engineers were not at all happy with it. I can speak from experience, having been in a 1989 Saab 900 that crashed, that the Swedish-designed version was *much* safer.
The impressive thing though is that the SAAB engineers actually turned that chassie into a 3 star safety rating with the 9-3. None of the other car brands gave a rat's ass.
9:47 try spamming the pause/play button and see just how late the airbag goes off. The tyre actually touches the wall before the airbag goes off. Ideally the airbag should be fully inflated before the occupant has even moved from the impact.
Why does Russia invest in crash test dummies? , just look at the dash cam footage of most of those drivers, the research is right there on the streets.
No joke, there is actually an enormous amount of data that should be available. Unfortunately, training police officers to process and record data is an uphill battle, especially in the US where they are, for the most part, unskilled and untrained.
timothylegg most departments have officers specially trained to deal with accident scenes because the stuff involved with understanding the why and how of wrecks is very complicated
timothylegg what are you talking about? America has THE most highly trained police force in the world overall, we have special divisions for everything from homicide to automative accident specialists. Not Only that majority of the people on the police force here in US are either college educated or have served in the army or both.
Most Police departments in the US are highly trained, but like just about anywhere, it is not consistent across the board. Though as far as keeping records go, they really aren't so good at that.
Happy to see the usual VW T3 and Holden Commodore aren't included. Almost every other list includes them, but ignores that they were both overloaded with weight.
One thing to bear in mind while watching, a lot of these cars were designed *before* the off set test existed. Most were designed for the older full frontal impact test. The cars designed *after* that test came in (eg. *all* the Chinese cars the video) have no excuse.
The Chinese cars were sold in markets where the crash safety regulations were basically nonexistent. They built the cars to meet the regulations that existed. Debatable who’s fault it was that they’re death traps.
Well, It really isn't rocket science what needs to get done. Most of these cases the transverse beams of the safety cage need to be made either thicker, or of harder steel. The problem is designing it to be both effective and cheap that is hard. However, I think this test is unfair to the trucks in it. Because trucks have a tendency to shove a smaller car around, which results in a much longer impulse time for the truck. Running into a solid concrete barrier makes it much more difficult for the trucks to pass muster then the cars, as the trucks have alot more mass that needs to be stopped in the same time frame in this situation.
I'm hardly a Chevy Astro fan, but word has it that after that crash test, GM made changes to the frame/floorpan of that vehicle. It must've worked, because in other crash test results since then (and real-world crashes), I've never heard of that same result happening. They must have smelled the potential lawsuits coming lol
Damn, on the second crash test, the airbag system completely misses the driver. It’s there to protect... the air around. And the Ford Sierra completely spills a bunch of gas from the fuel compartment door.
Look up what happened to a lady in Washington State in the end of 2021. She stopped properly behind a semi….the semi behind her did not. Not only did it hit her Nissan Altima bunker at near full speed, but then landed on top of the car! The responding officer was 100% sure this was a fatality, until he suddenly heard her muffled screams of HELP! For Gods sake, her rear wheels were flipped 180 degrees over into the rear passenger area. He immediately had a tow truck lift the semi up…and the lady crawled out on her own and walked away. Her ribs and head HURT……plus had a nasty cut on her heart. But she was ALIVE. Apparently the seat successfully “failed” and laid her down flat when the semi landed on her roof…after crushing her rear end. Her face was inches from the trucks undercarriage. Some one commented how Nissan needed to buy that wreck, study it, and give that lady a free brand new Nissan Altima. I agree! I saved some cops the picture it the Nissan with the truck lifted off it. Even the “old time” officer were SHOCKED to learn that someone survived THAT.
My favorite is the Ford Sierra/Merkur XR4Ti at 11:27. To ensure a fiery death on impact, this model is designed to liberally spray petroleum from the filler cap.
Interesting, that some of the trucks perform as bad or even worse then some really small cars such as the Citroen Saxo, Fiat 600 or the Mini metro. I mean the Fiat has not much crumble zone to offer just because its a small car even for European standards. Also the Saxo and Peugeot 106 where designed to be extra light - both weighting under 800 kilos (That was actually Citroens development goal for that car back in the day). But the F150 or the Ford Ranger? Their hood alone is almost as long as the FIAT 600. So feeling more safe in a truck or pickup is an illusion. A bad car is just a bad car no matter what size.
True, but it is relative to mass. If you drive a heavy car that smashes into a small car, the heavy one has a headstart in passive safety. The small one has a headstart in active safety (avoiding collisions) though. It is more nimble, has a shorter brake distance and can pull off drastic steering input at high speeds better.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Two cars colliding has many more aspects then crashing a car in a more or less rigid barrier. I was talking manly only about one aspect: about crumble zones - that is what crash tests against rigid barriers are about. Crumble zones do have many factors - but roughly: The longer the way you have to absorb the energy (basically length in front of the A pillar for a head on collision) the better. To compensate for the lack of size you can try to cleverly design the structure, but if the structural design is on par, the shorter car looses. And what I wanted to point out is, that the trucks have WAY more length, thus should perform better - but they don't. That means that their structural design is sub par at least. The mass advantage over smaller cars is there, no doubt, thats just physics. But thats only one aspect and in real life, trucks seem to "compensate" for their mass advantage with sub par structural design and as you mentioned worse handling and other negative sides of "more mass". And not all crashes involve 2 cars.
@@Slazlo-Brovnik It's the body-on-frame structure, you cannot really get those safe. Just look at the new Wrangler, 1 star in the recent EuroNCAP test. The frame doesn't crumple well and one that is designed to be stiff puts way too much force on the passengers. Car looks good on the outside after the crash, but the people inside are dead, basically.
Geely buy volvo for "use the standarts of safety in the chinese cars" yeah that guys used the sweeden standart and do you see any change? No? Is because chinese cars are build with shit
Nice that the Citroën Saxo airbag decided to fire the driver out of the car to safety. Also nice that the door had conveniently disintegrated to facilitate a quick exit...
If I remember correctly Chery were told to not even bother to send a revised version for testing, because the car performed so shockingly bad that there was no way to realistically make it even the slightest bit safe.
In the defense of the Ford Sierra 11:25 in this video .. This was a car that went on sale in 1982 (In the UK anyway) Also this was back in the day when designing an all new car from scratch took around 5 Years .. The design on the Ford Sierra (Project Toni) Started around 1977 ... If you crash tested ANY mainstream car from the early 1980's the result would be the same. A bit harsh putting a car in this video from ALMOST 40 Years ago.
10:34 If I recall correctly, which I probably don't, the Pontiac Montana was advertised to have a 5 star crash test rating. In what category I don't know, but it was another example of GM lying, and it made me think that the ratings must be out of 10. Also, did anybody notice the lack of German and Japanese cars on this list?
ik but we are sitting here mind you not with 2017 cars that are in america and other contreys and they crumble like tinfoil why? its killed so many people cuzz of that :/
Stick with top-tier Japanese or European cars for safety. Japanese brands for safety and reliability. Brands with low sales numbers tend to lack R&D money, too. For the GM and Ford models here, there is no excuse.
@ERVMEDVAC old comment chains wooooo The reason for this is that statistically, cops were getting rear ended at very high speed quite a lot more than civilians. This is because civilians simply weren't parking their cars on the shoulder behind someone else for a living. Cops use their cars as a shield to block them from being hit by inattentive motorists. Most, if not all rear fuel tank cars have the same issue; fuel leaks if rear ended in a high speed collision (60+ mph). This doesn't happen as much, since people don't park on the shoulder.
Sounds like my dad. The strange thing is that he use to be a Doctor in the ER and would see people that were involved in accidents on almost a daily occurrence.... Also people in my town can’t drive to save their lives... so rip me
Tempered glass for the windshield should be a big no-no. Most of the time the windshield is what helps to support the car in a crash; especially the roof.
Tempered glass also stops the occupants head from smashing through the windscreen and then decapitating it on the way back into the car, if you are relying on a windscreen to provide structural rigidity, maybe you should question your knowledge of engineering, btw it is the job of the a pillars and b pillars (and c and d pillars) that provide structural rigidity for the roof, thing is if you make the car too rigid the occupant may not be crushed inside but will receive brain injuries just purely down to the speed of the car coming to a stop.
This is disturbing, I thought by law companies HAD to pass minimum safty requirements, one of which being a steel roll cage built into the car? This should be shown to young and new drivers, the consequences of careless driving; people these days seem detached from the consequences of their actions.
Been driving a death trap for years. Knowing full well how your car is made out of toilet paper, gives you that much more motivation to follow the road laws and drive defensively.
@15:55 - Not surprised to see the Metro / Rover 100 on this list. When the test was done & results came out Rover removed the car from sale with pretty much immediate effect. It suffered from (pretty much the same as most on this list I suspect), being designed in the late 80s, early 90s when cars didn't have to go through crash testing like this. Hence why cars now are much safer. Still, the original Mini was one of the worst, frequently crashes would push the engine through into the passenger compartment!
Few comments: 1. the one that leaked fuel all over the place wtf 2. Surprisingly, the first place, the nissan Sentra/Tsuru, the passenger was relatively unharmed compared to the driver 3. I did NOT expected to see so many Fords in this list 4. I am glad to not see any modern vehicle, seems that most brands are getting their sh17 together and performing better each year 5. All Protons OMG
I had to be removed from. 2000 Citroen Saxo (number 14)which I hit a street light at approx these speeds, left fractured femur, and open severed right femur, shattered tibia under my knee and compression fractured pelvis, and sheared half my right ear off too.. the scrap yard couldn't believe how anyone would survive such a crash let alone be able to walk again. I truly was lucky that night.
When SAAB was independent, its cars were truly strong. I once saw a picture of a 99 which was on a transporter which had gone under a bridge which was too low. The car was caught up on the bridge, its windscreen was smashed, but the doors still opened (and closed) easily. The SAAB 9000 shown in this video (it is not a 900, that is a derivative of the 99) was developed under GM ownership and is based on the same platform as the FIAT Chroma, Lancia Thema, and Alfa Romeo 164, You may have noticed a few other GM cars performing badly on this video.....
Saab mechanics were crying into their wheaties over GM buying Saab. The quality of the cars really turned to shit in a short period of time and even loyal life-long buyers deserted for other makers.
I would say though that for it's time it was pretty safe but that 900 (yes it is actually a 900, a NG900 and not a 9000) I would say performed worse than the other Saabs when they were independent
11:26 That's what a Ford Sierra collapses like when it is brand new. Imagine how it would fold up after 5+ years of Ford rust had set in. Shockingly low quality vehicle even for the time.
I'd also like to note that the Saab 900 was designed from 87 to 91 on a shared platform GM forced Saab to use... it was the European equivalent to a shared Cavalier platform basically... so they did what they could. Anyways, the FRONT impact is marginal in safety with potential foot injury, but the side impact was better, and in 1999 they included side airbags which greatly improved side impact safety. Anyways it's basically an early 90s car that they had to milk into the early 2000s because of budget, there were PLENTY of other much more dangerous cars. Considering it gets a modern "marginal" and other cars obliterate it was pretty solid.
Yes, but that solution isn't always possible. FWIW ALL these cars are safer than anything being produced in North American when Ralph Nader published "unsafe at any speed". Let that sink in.
The most of it was well known and not much of a surprise but the SAAB 900.....i never expected it to have such a poor performance in that area!!! Cool video!!!Bravo!!!
I was in a head on collision in one, we were only going 20 mph and the dashboard smacked me in the knee (still hurts decades later). The car was utterly destroyed. The driver got a nice head contusion from hitting the steering wheel. Somehow we both walked away with nothing worse, more luck than anything. The paramedics said if we weren't buckled in we'd be dead.
Over 5 million classic minis were made. Are the majority of those that owned one lucky to be alive? The fact is most people never have a serious accident 🤷
Started the video and after seeing a few crashes i was like "i should find the best crash test compilation, my SAAB should be in there" Aaaaaaand then No. 15 rolled up showing how my NG900 has the structural integrity of a discount milk carton. Pretty grim if you ask me. Also, is it just me or are most of these cars made under GM?
A few months ago, a girl ran a stop sign at a blind intersection, where I had the right of way. I managed to start braking, but there was only a fraction of a second to react. I hit her a low-overlap at 25 to 30mph, I would estimate. My beautiful, black, 2019 Yaris that I had purchased new, loved, did a bit of work to and took immaculate care of, was totaled. I got out with no injuries. After I finished with the police, I gathered my things and walked the last two blocks to my job. I completed my day's work on time, in spite of coming in late. As outraged as I am that that stupid girl didn't simply stop and look if anyone was coming... Instead of not stopping and totaling the first car I ever bought new... I'm glad I wasn't still driving my 2000 Civic. 25-30mph isn't 40mph by any means, but it's still moving. If I were in a 22 year old car, it might have been a different story for me.
Totally agree! So, you have to thank the crash test organizations for improving safety and pressuring government and the buyers for increasingly increased safety regulations. This is why I ausolutely refuse to buy a pre-2005 car unless it's has been rated high in the modern crash tests, which are very rare. The only car I can think of that scores high in modern crash tests is the 1998 Toyota Sienna.
@@punchy207 And I suppose you drive an off-road apartment building, just so you don't get tangled up in the challenging terrain of the Starbucks drive-through? ;)
17:54 finally something I have seen in my polish backyard. And one question: Where is Trabant and PF126p? About Toddler (popular name for PF126P) we, in Poland, have a joke: Why is Toddler as safe as Volvo? Because the smash zone (Idk if I wrote it correctly) also ends on the engine (PF126p had an engine in the back). And Trabant was called "Kartonwagen", which could be translated as cardboard car.
#7 Steeringwheel actually hit the headrest o_O Fiat Punto, Peugeot 106, Saab 900, Ford Sierra, Austin Metro, Fiat Seicento.. Oh dear I actually owned or regularly drove 6 cars from this list... so far.. And it surprises me that the Seicento is there but the Panda (old model) isn't, which I also drove. Oh well made it this far though... I guess it helps that while driving these cars I never actually had the illusion of them being safe by any measure.... I mean just close the door on either one of them, and the sound will pretty much tell you everything... When I had my Punto, my father drove a Volvo.. The difference between closing a cookie-jar and a bank-vault pretty much..
You get the feeling that some of the vehicles were engineered to just stay in one piece going down the road...nothing more or less. Very thankful for the mandates and testing that has us in much safer vehicles. Now if we could just put down the phones!
Didn't expect anything built on a truck frame to make this list. I just kind of naively assumed that trucks/vans would be sturdier than anything smaller. Guess profit margins can turn anything into a turd. Awesome.
I've owned a few of these. Thank God I never had an accident in any of them. My sister was rear ended when she had a Rover Metro 20 years ago and the rear of the car was up against the back of the driver's seat after the crash. No-one would have survived if they had been sat in the back.
Part of the problem with the GM Astro/Safari minivans is that there's simply not enough distance between the front bumper and the passenger compartment.
@@deanosaur808 Back in the day I witnessed several rear-end collisions involving Pintos and the Mercury Bobcat twin. In every case the fuel tank ruptured. Fortunately there was spark or flame to ignite it. Also, as a "service salesman" (gas jockey) I remember more than one rear-end-wrecked Mercury Montego/Ford Torino cars in which the rear impact had ripped the filler pipe out of the gas tank and the customers' demand that we "fill it up with NoNox" could not be executed because gas never made it to the tank.
2:45 Astro- with a modern and clean sure-death mechanism, it ensures that you will die on the spot, thanks GM. 9:35 chinese something- those are so dangerous that even being closer to one is a risk. 11:13 GM van- its likely to have full body fatal injuries, including the every tip of the hair. 19:25 proton - weeeee 21:05 cherry - both car and driver had the same damage.
Here is the perfect ad for a car company: Crash test with the CEO in the drivers seat instead of a dummy. You say your cars are safe, right? I would do it if I had true confidence in the safety of what my company is building.
Wait, the Astro was actually designed to do that with the seat...it was Chevy's experimental "Fixing Occupant Protection System", or FOPS. In the event of a crash, the driver's seat was designed to release and pin the occupant to the airbag, ensuring maximum facial contact
the problem is they keep putting a block of concrete in the way
they should use real people in them (that are on death row) if they survive they get to go free if they die they get to go in the ground..
@@punker4Real I mean, that would be a pretty cool way to get executed not gonna lie...
@@punker4Real: Of course this is a bad idea for mass murderers, psychos, terrorists and the like, but no death row inmates would volunteer for this without an incentive unless suicidal. They would be paying back some of their debt to society and might deserve a chance for a commuted sentence if they survive and otherwise demonstrate remorse and rehabilitation. It could be a few less criminals we have to pay to imprison.
@@punker4Real I agree but the getting off free, no. Take them off death row and put them to life in prison
@@punker4Real yup
Manufacturers response: It's important not to have any frontal encounters while driving. This is clearly stated in the owners manual.
I'll keep that in mind so I'll remember.
And also, if you do experience a frontal crash and as you get sprayed with gasoline, we will remind you we also offer an electric model.
@@josephmac2684 Damn thats dark and the electric model will have its high power battery cables / batteries exposed in the cabin so "if you do experience a frontal crash and somehow managed to survive our death trap we will ensure your suffering won't be long by either electrocuting or burning you and your beloved ones in it"
nice! i always drive in reverse anyway
Fuck off, its clearly stated in the owners manual
I worked at an auto dismantler for almost 14 years, and I saw some absolutely horrific things (teeth in the dash and steering wheel, hair and scalp in the windshield, skull fragments and pieces of brain tissue), and the cars weren't damaged nearly as bad as these were! There's no fucking way that if those were real people that if they weren't killed on impact, that they recovered without serious complications.
yeah, I mean just look at some of those decelerations. Add to that the flailing body parts and the crushed drivers compartments, and I doubt really any of those occupants would have been able to walk away.
You are probably forgetting that people don't use seatbelts.
My friend owns an auto shop and has a fleet of tow vehicles and flat beds. I've been with him for some "minor" accidents in town at the 20-30 mph range, and was shocked to see the damage of the more affordable "for the masses" cars made to be inexpensive with decent features, the Cavalier being a good example, but some even more higher priced "next step up in the ranks" of those manufacturers.
I'm glad I never went to the more serious ones, because as you said, the cars alone were sometimes a horror show. I was not needing to see the actual person inside, or partially inside.
Another on the list of jobs that would give you PTSD! All the vehicles in the video folded up like a nickel drum.
, i,m adding that to the list of jobs that cause PTSD
"It's not very good, in fact it's bad"
I want his job.
"bad is not the same thing as good in fact its the complete opposite of good" oh yeah im qualified for his job no doubt
That's expert Techno-Speak for "Basically, it's crap"
its terrible hahaha
I wanted this dudes job when I was a kid watching these on msnbc.
That's the equivilant of telling a car company to gut gud
when your crumple zone is the whole car
nice
yep!
When your crumple zone incorporates structural weaknesses ...in the barriers.
It's really bad when the chassis sills and the A-pillar crumple.
You are the crumple zone
I witnessed a Chevy Astro van slide off the highway, hit an embankment, twisted right hit a second embankment. The van was split open on the drivers side, flipped, ejecting all 3 passengers out of the van. The 3 passengers hit the ground and the van landed on its roof. Unfortunately the man that was driving was under it. This Happened in 1988. I'll never forget what I saw as long as I live.
You still probably have PTSD to this day. You poor guy. I'm sorry you had to witness it. The only positive thing would be that if the man who was killed deserved heaven, he went there immediately and likely had no memory whatsoever of what happened on earth. And if he deserved hell, he is finally out of society. Sorry to say. Maybe he was a pedophile. Maybe he was a Saint. But he's where he is supposed to be, either way. I witnessed a body hanging out of a car, myself years ago. Imagine what police and paramedics see. My cousin is a fireman and of all the accidents he attended, it turned him cold and calloused.
Wow that's deep
Did any of them live? Dumb question i know but just curious
...
This is why the 3 ejected passengers should have put on thier seat belts. Being ejected is usually the biggest cause of injury, especially HEAD INJURY.
I like how the airbag deploys in the Chevrolet Astro, only to have the seat fly off it's hinges and mercilessly shove the driver's face and throat straight onto the steering wheel. Oh but at least there was an airbag!
You can see it happening at 2:45 . I can't believe this vehicle was produced until 2005.
the landwind x6 is far more terrifying
@@MrMikedejeuner It looks like an Opel Frontera. My parents had one of these - a German SUV from the 90ies, with a likewise pretty bad crash performance. They probably bought the design and put it back into production, using cheaper metal.
Well I wouldn't expect much from a company that names their cars "landwind".
The seat did not disconnect from the floor. The frame and floor turned into a U and the seat was forward of the bend. The seat and dash are on the same plane and the rear frame and floor are at a 45 to 60 degree angle to the seat. It was one hell of a twist. That's why the roof line lowered. The van floor and frame just bent like playdough.
The seat back was like "oh no you don't, here lemme help"
" I can't believe this vehicle was produced until 2005. ". . . Well as the saying goes , " If at first you don't succeed, try and try again " . . Until in 2005 . . " Oh to hell with it !!! "
If these tests wouldn't exist, all the manufacturers would still happily build their cars from the cheapest tin and never feel a bit bad about their cars turning the occupants into chunky sauce, when profit margins are high enough. Survivability has gone from none to maimed, to pretty much "I'll be at work next morning".
Capitalism in a nutshell
@@sonicxdudex765 The result of Russian automobile manufacturering during the Cold War proves otherwise...
They still do. South America and Asia doesn't have these regulations so cars are still sold without stuff like ABS, traction control, crumple zones, airbags. The little Ford Fiesta in the US and UK is not the same as one sold in Mexico or Peru.
If you want safe pay 45k for a new car 🥺
@@sonicxdudex765 too bad we can't switch to Communism huh
The seat flying forwards in that minivan to crush you against the steering wheel was a nice touch.
“They don’t make cars like they used to”
Me: Good!
Many of them are fairly recent models...
Check out BMW e39, VW Golf IV, Volvo V70, Audi etc... Dozens of very safe cars from the 90s which is older than much of what's shown here.
I think it’s sad because I think new cars are ugly.
I like when he said the solution is “simple” and then said it would require sophisticated engineering.
the solution IS simple. the vehicle needs to fix these flaws. the sophisticated engineering is responsible for finding out how to correct the flaws without compromising anything else
@@misseselise3864 sophisticated and simple are words that simply don't go together.
@@andylaauk Nah, it's "Make the cabin not collapse" so it is simple, but making it happen isn't.
@@andylaaukLook up "oxymoron".
Sophisticated and Complicated are not synonyms.
I like how the XR4TI covers it's self with fuel. in case the crash didn't kill you.
Known as Sierra in my part of world
The car being tested is NOT an XR4Ti but the Euro Sierra, Many differences between the two especially in the front crash area (Bumpers for one). Passing that test off as an XR4Ti is misleading at best.
@@tiberius1701 Same chassis underpinning all models. Bumpers would make very little difference. More cosmetic than anything. But please do list the many technical structural differences to the base chassis of the XR4Ti compared to the vehicle in the video.
Like the Pinto
Sierra Cosworth > Pinto turbo XR4TI
4:31 "The solution is relatively simple, it requires some sophisticated engineering" :D :D :D
porkimond I know I was dying laughing when I heard this. Makes no sense.
condradictions at its best
I think that he meant deciding what needs to be changed is easy to determined but engineering those changes would be difficult.
Simple in theory, difficult in execution.
It requires sophisticated engineering my but.you dumbbells producing the car clearly don’t have enough common sense to make the car safe
The Saab 900 surprised me because they touted their safety back in the day. But I also remember that cars back then were designed to take the impact across the entire front end. Offset crashes focus the energy on a smaller area and are more difficult to pass.
The 900 tested was an NG 900, which iirc was mainly a GM design/spec with a saab label on it which happened after GM bought saab. The 900 "classic" 79-94 were saab originals and rated much safer.
I own a 9000 for years, whenever I go to my local Saab shop for maintenance, I always see 900NG coming in that needed overhaul and has all sorts of problems, despite being newer, pre 900NG models are much more reliable, fewer things to go wrong and better made than the later one.
@@worawatli8952 They may not be as reliable to a tee, but my 99 9-3 has nearly 300k miles, with few problems. It has been one of the most reliable cars I've owned, behind the Honda's. The powertrains were very similar between the 99 9-3, 900NG and the later 9000s.
My father had an 80s manual 2.4 900 and it was a rock solid car, he loved it so much he got the next model 95 900S in auto. Such a different car, horrible experience, nothing but problems, he regretted trading the old green one. Later I learned it wasn't really Saab at all.
Well, the opel roots is really showing its ugly face on the 900NG crash test. For a company that were pushing safety as one of their main selling points this had to be a big stain on their reputation and also their pride. SAAB fans love to hate on the 2000s saabs, but they are super safe. So safe in fact that the face lifted 9-3 scored the highest safety in its category both in EU and USA. I would take a newer 9-3 over that 900NG crap rust bucket any day. I’d argue late 90s and early 2000s were the worst years of the company in terms of quality.
11:28 you gotta love the large cloud of liquid/atomized gasoline ejected out of the fuel tank after the filler door pops open.
I learned to drive in one of those cars, lol.
Fire Hazard :D :D :D
@@Lurch-BotI still drive one
pick ups and vans should be tested with a full max load
Agreed, fill them with their safe working load and then do a second test with their maximum GVM (max body load and max towing capacity.
Some tests are done this way.
tomato6999 then ford would be screwed especially now that they make their crap out of aluminum
Most would fail with even a fraction of their capacity, especially cab-over vans like the extremely popular Toyota HiAce which I see as death-traps!
Rusty pickup man fords one of the safest trucks on the road with “crap aluminum”. Really shows how little you know. GM is also making aluminum body trucks why you ask? Cause they can haul more and there safer.
A bit surprising to see a Saab in the list - but that was the first version of the "Saab 900" to be based on a GM platform, instead of wholly engineered in Sweden. I understand the Saab engineers were not at all happy with it.
I can speak from experience, having been in a 1989 Saab 900 that crashed, that the Swedish-designed version was *much* safer.
Have you seen the crash test videos for the c900? SUPER safe!! Much better than NG 900
The impressive thing though is that the SAAB engineers actually turned that chassie into a 3 star safety rating with the 9-3. None of the other car brands gave a rat's ass.
Slobbs are about the worst cars out there,glad they are not around anymore
Saabs were great cars until GM got involved.
When SAAB got hold of a GM car to base their car on their verdict of it's safety was, and I quote; 'Not good at all'.
So the architects live.
9:47 try spamming the pause/play button and see just how late the airbag goes off. The tyre actually touches the wall before the airbag goes off. Ideally the airbag should be fully inflated before the occupant has even moved from the impact.
music: _none_
RESPECT 100
Just as well we can't hear crash-test dummies scream!
9:36 with the piece of glass flying towards the camera reminds me of something you would see out of a racing movie.
that was very cinematic.
Talk about accidentally epic stuff!
Saab's had some of the best safety ratings... then GM took control and made then turn out junk
Skiddins I wouldn’t be suprised if og900 is more safe than the ng900. 9000 is for sure.
Another case of an American company giving a good brand 'the-kiss-of-death'!
@@megasvennen 9000 was still holding upp to modenr cars in a retrofitted test and beat the volvo 700 series in some.
@@MrWombatty Like a certain Italian company?
Don't kid yourselves, Saabs had been crap for a long time before GM got ahold of them.
Why does Russia invest in crash test dummies? , just look at the dash cam footage of most of those drivers, the research is right there on the streets.
No joke, there is actually an enormous amount of data that should be available. Unfortunately, training police officers to process and record data is an uphill battle, especially in the US where they are, for the most part, unskilled and untrained.
timothylegg most departments have officers specially trained to deal with accident scenes because the stuff involved with understanding the why and how of wrecks is very complicated
timothylegg what are you talking about? America has THE most highly trained police force in the world overall, we have special divisions for everything from homicide to automative accident specialists. Not Only that majority of the people on the police force here in US are either college educated or have served in the army or both.
Highly trained to shoot people to death.
Most Police departments in the US are highly trained, but like just about anywhere, it is not consistent across the board. Though as far as keeping records go, they really aren't so good at that.
Rating system:
Good
Fair
Poor
Hell naw
Most of these cars are hell naw.
Good
Acceptable
Poor
Dead
aaaand...
COMPLETELY FOLDED
last should be "deadly". If you are safer on a MTB than in a car it is scary.
@@xXadambXx poor basically is deadly
Happy to see the usual VW T3 and Holden Commodore aren't included.
Almost every other list includes them, but ignores that they were both overloaded with weight.
F***K Volkswagen. 2 bit crap.
Definitely 2 cars I will avoid.
@NoahLmao HAhahhahaa LOL, If you're a masochist.
"The solution is relatively simple, it requires some sophisticated engineering" - IIHS Engineer, 1997
Engineer: ok! Let's rewind the vhs tape and see how we can improve.
That one kid: *takes a crash test dummy*
One thing to bear in mind while watching, a lot of these cars were designed *before* the off set test existed. Most were designed for the older full frontal impact test. The cars designed *after* that test came in (eg. *all* the Chinese cars the video) have no excuse.
The Chinese cars were sold in markets where the crash safety regulations were basically nonexistent. They built the cars to meet the regulations that existed. Debatable who’s fault it was that they’re death traps.
the nissan tsuru was made until 2017 though. awful
@@Gabbu_Plays You've missed the point entirely
This is great, "The solution is simple, it just requires some sophisticated engineering"
Well, It really isn't rocket science what needs to get done. Most of these cases the transverse beams of the safety cage need to be made either thicker, or of harder steel. The problem is designing it to be both effective and cheap that is hard. However, I think this test is unfair to the trucks in it. Because trucks have a tendency to shove a smaller car around, which results in a much longer impulse time for the truck. Running into a solid concrete barrier makes it much more difficult for the trucks to pass muster then the cars, as the trucks have alot more mass that needs to be stopped in the same time frame in this situation.
Goes on to say "make this part stronger and this part weaker"
*sophisticated engineering*
Korea: What's that?
It isn't rocket science! All you need is a 3 year career at NASA!
GM is shitty
15:55 My mom used to have a Rover 100. I often sat besides her on the passenger seat. I'm glad we never ended up in a crash!
I love how the Proton Saga's windshield explodes, like it wasn't even laminated. I was shocked at how flimsy the Ford F150 appears.
I remember it being big news back in the day how poorly that era of F150 performed in crash tests. I was very interested as I owned one of them.
Don't see any Hondas or Toyotas.
Guess I chose wisely, then.
They just aren't as bad as the cars in this video. Look up your car's safety rating, my Passat has a 4 star euro NCAP rating which is cool
There were Toyota's in this video. Don't know the timestamp, you can look for it yourself.
until the takata airbag hurls aluminum shrapnel into your chest
@@frankvandendool882 the toyota cavaliers wich is just a rebadged chevrolet cavalier
@@v6tex yo is that your passat in your pfp?
A whole lot of General Motors in that list!
Just as many fords... Wait there was more fords and they did worst....
@@ajflament8012 ? There were 6 GMs and only 4 or 5 Fords.
Where did the Corolla fare, because my friend was killed in an overlap crash?
GM HAS ALWAYS BEEN AMERICAS FAVORITE DEATH TRAP.CANT BELIVE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE SO UNEDUCATED ON THIS TOPIC
I'll take my chances in a GM car vs number 1 Nissan
I especially liked the Merkur. Not only did it crumple like paper made, but it'll also catch fire with all that spray from the gas tank.
I'm hardly a Chevy Astro fan, but word has it that after that crash test, GM made changes to the frame/floorpan of that vehicle. It must've worked, because in other crash test results since then (and real-world crashes), I've never heard of that same result happening. They must have smelled the potential lawsuits coming lol
Damn, on the second crash test, the airbag system completely misses the driver. It’s there to protect... the air around.
And the Ford Sierra completely spills a bunch of gas from the fuel compartment door.
Look up what happened to a lady in Washington State in the end of 2021.
She stopped properly behind a semi….the semi behind her did not.
Not only did it hit her Nissan Altima bunker at near full speed, but then landed on top of the car!
The responding officer was 100% sure this was a fatality, until he suddenly heard her muffled screams of HELP!
For Gods sake, her rear wheels were flipped 180 degrees over into the rear passenger area.
He immediately had a tow truck lift the semi up…and the lady crawled out on her own and walked away.
Her ribs and head HURT……plus had a nasty cut on her heart. But she was ALIVE.
Apparently the seat successfully “failed” and laid her down flat when the semi landed on her roof…after crushing her rear end.
Her face was inches from the trucks undercarriage.
Some one commented how Nissan needed to buy that wreck, study it, and give that lady a free brand new Nissan Altima.
I agree!
I saved some cops the picture it the Nissan with the truck lifted off it.
Even the “old time” officer were SHOCKED to learn that someone survived THAT.
Wow, I just looked that up. That’s incredible
My favorite is the Ford Sierra/Merkur XR4Ti at 11:27. To ensure a fiery death on impact, this model is designed to liberally spray petroleum from the filler cap.
Interesting, that some of the trucks perform as bad or even worse then some really small cars such as the Citroen Saxo, Fiat 600 or the Mini metro. I mean the Fiat has not much crumble zone to offer just because its a small car even for European standards. Also the Saxo and Peugeot 106 where designed to be extra light - both weighting under 800 kilos (That was actually Citroens development goal for that car back in the day).
But the F150 or the Ford Ranger? Their hood alone is almost as long as the FIAT 600.
So feeling more safe in a truck or pickup is an illusion. A bad car is just a bad car no matter what size.
True, but it is relative to mass. If you drive a heavy car that smashes into a small car, the heavy one has a headstart in passive safety. The small one has a headstart in active safety (avoiding collisions) though. It is more nimble, has a shorter brake distance and can pull off drastic steering input at high speeds better.
@@ronaldderooij1774 Two cars colliding has many more aspects then crashing a car in a more or less rigid barrier.
I was talking manly only about one aspect: about crumble zones - that is what crash tests against rigid barriers are about. Crumble zones do have many factors - but roughly: The longer the way you have to absorb the energy (basically length in front of the A pillar for a head on collision) the better.
To compensate for the lack of size you can try to cleverly design the structure, but if the structural design is on par, the shorter car looses.
And what I wanted to point out is, that the trucks have WAY more length, thus should perform better - but they don't. That means that their structural design is sub par at least.
The mass advantage over smaller cars is there, no doubt, thats just physics. But thats only one aspect and in real life, trucks seem to "compensate" for their mass advantage with sub par structural design and as you mentioned worse handling and other negative sides of "more mass". And not all crashes involve 2 cars.
@@Slazlo-Brovnik It's the body-on-frame structure, you cannot really get those safe. Just look at the new Wrangler, 1 star in the recent EuroNCAP test. The frame doesn't crumple well and one that is designed to be stiff puts way too much force on the passengers. Car looks good on the outside after the crash, but the people inside are dead, basically.
@@bloodknight667 It's still surprising that you are probably better off in a 1998 Citroen Saxo, than in a 2001 Ford F150.
I loved my 106 - with its 66Hp it could go a tad beyond the Speedometer. Truly a marvellous Car.
The Geely is hilarious, mostly because Geely owns Volvo. You'd think they would have borrowed the structural engineers for a week.
The Geely being tested predates buying Volvo. Why do you think they brought in foreign expertise?
Exactly what I was thinking!!
Geely buy volvo for "use the standarts of safety in the chinese cars" yeah that guys used the sweeden standart and do you see any change? No? Is because chinese cars are build with shit
@@alanbrown397 "foreign expertise"... How did they buy Volvo in the first place? Selling hundreds of thousands of deathtraps 😃
They might have borrowed the engineers but not the budget!
Nice that the Citroën Saxo airbag decided to fire the driver out of the car to safety. Also nice that the door had conveniently disintegrated to facilitate a quick exit...
"This is the Kia Sephia from Korea"
1:36
LOL IT RHYMES SO FLUENTLY
Russian cars doesn't need crash tests.
Just look at their dash cam videos: the drivers always leave the cars walking (and cursing).
The vast majority of those drivers are drunk and "invulnerable" - until the anasethetic effect wears off.
American burgers be like: aLwAyySsS RUsSia!!!!!
"SUKA BLYAAAAT!!! IDI NAHUI!!" russia in a nutshell
@@alanbrown397 Thank you for the adequate opinion of us.
Russian cars do not collapse so much, with the exception of very old models.
If you thought the Daewoo Matiz was bad, check out the Chery QQ.
Same goes for the B13 Sentra vs the Tsuru.
If I remember correctly Chery were told to not even bother to send a revised version for testing, because the car performed so shockingly bad that there was no way to realistically make it even the slightest bit safe.
In the defense of the Ford Sierra 11:25 in this video .. This was a car that went on sale in 1982 (In the UK anyway)
Also this was back in the day when designing an all new car from scratch took around 5 Years .. The design on the Ford Sierra (Project Toni) Started around 1977 ...
If you crash tested ANY mainstream car from the early 1980's the result would be the same.
A bit harsh putting a car in this video from ALMOST 40 Years ago.
10:34 If I recall correctly, which I probably don't, the Pontiac Montana was advertised to have a 5 star crash test rating. In what category I don't know, but it was another example of GM lying, and it made me think that the ratings must be out of 10.
Also, did anybody notice the lack of German and Japanese cars on this list?
And VOLVO. Or maybe I missed it..
umm the sentra and the mazda?
@@germanmemerboi3157 Volvo was bad untill 1998 when new platform was introduced,, however it was not 5 stars. First reaaly safe volvo is 2003 xc90
@@김브-l2h Sentra is Korean
Did we watch the same video? Japanese Nissan 'won' this list...
"The solution is simple, it requires some sophisticated engineering"
It quite simply complicated 😂
“This is the Kia Sephia, from Korea!
LMAO.
Gaems Gaem ...
No shit
i thought arabia made cars where tincans we arent the only one it appers
ik but we are sitting here mind you not with 2017 cars that are in america and other contreys and they crumble like tinfoil why? its killed so many people cuzz of that :/
also the seatbelts dont stay and people get ejected alot
Am pretty sure that the dislikes are from people who own such a car.
Stick with top-tier Japanese or European cars for safety. Japanese brands for safety and reliability. Brands with low sales numbers tend to lack R&D money, too. For the GM and Ford models here, there is no excuse.
There aint any thumbs down. 😄
@@scdevon Comment brought to you by a representative of the Toyota Automobile Company: Home of the Nonfunctional Brakes.
Impossible. All owners of these vehicles are already dead.
11:30 notice the fuel spill. Didn't Ford learn anything from the Pinto?
@ERVMEDVAC old comment chains wooooo
The reason for this is that statistically, cops were getting rear ended at very high speed quite a lot more than civilians. This is because civilians simply weren't parking their cars on the shoulder behind someone else for a living. Cops use their cars as a shield to block them from being hit by inattentive motorists. Most, if not all rear fuel tank cars have the same issue; fuel leaks if rear ended in a high speed collision (60+ mph). This doesn't happen as much, since people don't park on the shoulder.
They don't care , they would rather pay up lawsuits than make safe cars .
Did you order original or extra crispy?
Dante Inouye
Citizens not civilians. Cops are not military.
Fire hazard, recall GALAXY NOTE 7
11:34 never seen that in a crash test before gas spilling out of the tank.
Colin Grubbs play Beamng drive and you’ll see it plenty.
1:42 that camera just had a heart attack
Me: Mom, I want a car
Mom: We will give you the one that at home
The car at home:
Sounds like my dad. The strange thing is that he use to be a Doctor in the ER and would see people that were involved in accidents on almost a daily occurrence....
Also people in my town can’t drive to save their lives... so rip me
Tempered glass for the windshield should be a big no-no. Most of the time the windshield is what helps to support the car in a crash; especially the roof.
Tempered glass also stops the occupants head from smashing through the windscreen and then decapitating it on the way back into the car, if you are relying on a windscreen to provide structural rigidity, maybe you should question your knowledge of engineering, btw it is the job of the a pillars and b pillars (and c and d pillars) that provide structural rigidity for the roof, thing is if you make the car too rigid the occupant may not be crushed inside but will receive brain injuries just purely down to the speed of the car coming to a stop.
Damm, the Astro has indestructible windows.
Yeah that thing was like nope I'm outta here!
My dad drives one and well I'm very reluctant to be a passenger lol
This is disturbing, I thought by law companies HAD to pass minimum safty requirements, one of which being a steel roll cage built into the car?
This should be shown to young and new drivers, the consequences of careless driving; people these days seem detached from the consequences of their actions.
Cool I'm driving a death trap
timforsyth15 which one
RIP
Are you alive?
We're all just walking around in coffins
Been driving a death trap for years.
Knowing full well how your car is made out of toilet paper, gives you that much more motivation to follow the road laws and drive defensively.
Music : none Yeeeeeeeessssss thank you !
Yeah but it lacked crunchiness 😂
Lowest Safety Score is poor? Why not DEATH TRAP??
All Chinese clones.
Lowest rating should be called "Yugo".
Or RECALL.
Or rolling sarcophagus.
@15:55 - Not surprised to see the Metro / Rover 100 on this list. When the test was done & results came out Rover removed the car from sale with pretty much immediate effect. It suffered from (pretty much the same as most on this list I suspect), being designed in the late 80s, early 90s when cars didn't have to go through crash testing like this. Hence why cars now are much safer. Still, the original Mini was one of the worst, frequently crashes would push the engine through into the passenger compartment!
I'd still rather drive a metro or mini!
Mini killed Marc Bolan
@@jumhed994 Millions of people have driven Minis and are still alive. That's amazing.how did they manage it?
@@ronnieg6358 The old minis? Probably didn't crash them.
The metro was designed in the late '70s and early '80s
Few comments:
1. the one that leaked fuel all over the place wtf
2. Surprisingly, the first place, the nissan Sentra/Tsuru, the passenger was relatively unharmed compared to the driver
3. I did NOT expected to see so many Fords in this list
4. I am glad to not see any modern vehicle, seems that most brands are getting their sh17 together and performing better each year
5. All Protons OMG
Tbf anything American made is an automatic no go. Made with the cheapest materials with the cheapest labor to push it out the door at the fastest time
I had to be removed from. 2000 Citroen Saxo (number 14)which I hit a street light at approx these speeds, left fractured femur, and open severed right femur, shattered tibia under my knee and compression fractured pelvis, and sheared half my right ear off too.. the scrap yard couldn't believe how anyone would survive such a crash let alone be able to walk again. I truly was lucky that night.
All the usual suspects.... except SAAB. That really surprised me.
Its because gm bought them
When SAAB was independent, its cars were truly strong. I once saw a picture of a 99 which was on a transporter which had gone under a bridge which was too low. The car was caught up on the bridge, its windscreen was smashed, but the doors still opened (and closed) easily.
The SAAB 9000 shown in this video (it is not a 900, that is a derivative of the 99) was developed under GM ownership and is based on the same platform as the FIAT Chroma, Lancia Thema, and Alfa Romeo 164, You may have noticed a few other GM cars performing badly on this video.....
Saab mechanics were crying into their wheaties over GM buying Saab. The quality of the cars really turned to shit in a short period of time and even loyal life-long buyers deserted for other makers.
After 1992 SAAB (ng900) build on modified Opel Vectra base. This Vectra was a big shit. SAAB NG900 nickname is GM shit.
I would say though that for it's time it was pretty safe but that 900 (yes it is actually a 900, a NG900 and not a 9000) I would say performed worse than the other Saabs when they were independent
11:26 That's what a Ford Sierra collapses like when it is brand new. Imagine how it would fold up after 5+ years of Ford rust had set in. Shockingly low quality vehicle even for the time.
The same could be said of any car of that era 🤷
I'd also like to note that the Saab 900 was designed from 87 to 91 on a shared platform GM forced Saab to use... it was the European equivalent to a shared Cavalier platform basically... so they did what they could. Anyways, the FRONT impact is marginal in safety with potential foot injury, but the side impact was better, and in 1999 they included side airbags which greatly improved side impact safety. Anyways it's basically an early 90s car that they had to milk into the early 2000s because of budget, there were PLENTY of other much more dangerous cars. Considering it gets a modern "marginal" and other cars obliterate it was pretty solid.
Stop passing the blame 😂
GM: you swept me off my tires
Concrete wall: You’re welcome
Safety tip: Don't drive into a concrete barker at 40 MPH!
But it was their destiny 😅
I used to love me those dateline NBC car crash segments.
Daewoo didn't last long in the US.
Daewoo is made in South Korea,,It's GM
In the UK Daewoo cars have been re-branded as Chevrolet!
Daewoo and GM had a Partnership and GM managed Holden (major former Australian Car manufacturer) also. I wonder how that went...
I remember the ads "they who" 🤣
"The solution is repetitively simple." Don't crash!
Yes, but that solution isn't always possible.
FWIW ALL these cars are safer than anything being produced in North American when Ralph Nader published "unsafe at any speed". Let that sink in.
Don't drive
Ur a special dumb ass kind
LOL... like you always have a say in that! NOT.
You can't control other drivers on the road, no matter how safe you drive. Life is unpredictable.
12:34 "You want an airbag? EAT IT, BITCH!"
What is the point of having an airbag when the rest of the body is going to get crushed by the car? To recognize the corpse? 😂
That's why they are tested 😉
It reminded me of that Simpson's gag "the googles do nothing" 😂
The most of it was well known and not much of a surprise but the SAAB 900.....i never expected it to have such a poor performance in that area!!! Cool video!!!Bravo!!!
You know when you see the steering column moving back into the driver's face, he's either dead, or he wishes he was.
Some of the airbags in the cars are about as useful as an ashtray on a motorcycle
Motorbike ashtray 🤯 this could start a new trend.. on tiktok! 🤣
2:08 Kia: Taking it to a new level of poor.
Feeling lucky to be alive after owning a MG Metro when I was younger!!
I was in a head on collision in one, we were only going 20 mph and the dashboard smacked me in the knee (still hurts decades later). The car was utterly destroyed. The driver got a nice head contusion from hitting the steering wheel. Somehow we both walked away with nothing worse, more luck than anything. The paramedics said if we weren't buckled in we'd be dead.
Over 5 million classic minis were made. Are the majority of those that owned one lucky to be alive?
The fact is most people never have a serious accident 🤷
I'm glad the editor pointed out that thete was no music, I'd have been confused otherwise.
Started the video and after seeing a few crashes i was like "i should find the best crash test compilation, my SAAB should be in there"
Aaaaaaand then No. 15 rolled up showing how my NG900 has the structural integrity of a discount milk carton.
Pretty grim if you ask me.
Also, is it just me or are most of these cars made under GM?
The Saab 900 was made in Sweden,the 9-3 9-5 were made here
I have a LeSabre and this is some big oof
I don't think cars are supposed to bend that way!
11:35. I like the way the ford Sierra squashes the occupants and then releases the contents of the fuel tank in order to destroy the evidence 😱
In other Ford Sierra vids, the steering wheel rushing inwards actually beheads the dummy.
I'm surprised they didn't feature in horror movies 😅
@@rijkemans5114 Yeah the wagon Sierra i think
A few months ago, a girl ran a stop sign at a blind intersection, where I had the right of way. I managed to start braking, but there was only a fraction of a second to react. I hit her a low-overlap at 25 to 30mph, I would estimate. My beautiful, black, 2019 Yaris that I had purchased new, loved, did a bit of work to and took immaculate care of, was totaled. I got out with no injuries. After I finished with the police, I gathered my things and walked the last two blocks to my job. I completed my day's work on time, in spite of coming in late.
As outraged as I am that that stupid girl didn't simply stop and look if anyone was coming... Instead of not stopping and totaling the first car I ever bought new... I'm glad I wasn't still driving my 2000 Civic. 25-30mph isn't 40mph by any means, but it's still moving. If I were in a 22 year old car, it might have been a different story for me.
Totally agree! So, you have to thank the crash test organizations for improving safety and pressuring government and the buyers for increasingly increased safety regulations. This is why I ausolutely refuse to buy a pre-2005 car unless it's has been rated high in the modern crash tests, which are very rare. The only car I can think of that scores high in modern crash tests is the 1998 Toyota Sienna.
well i mean you bought a yaris, you kinda deserved it
@@punchy207 And I suppose you drive an off-road apartment building, just so you don't get tangled up in the challenging terrain of the Starbucks drive-through? ;)
@@zackw4941 you drive a yaris, you ARE the starbucks drive through
17:54 finally something I have seen in my polish backyard.
And one question: Where is Trabant and PF126p? About Toddler (popular name for PF126P) we, in Poland, have a joke:
Why is Toddler as safe as Volvo? Because the smash zone (Idk if I wrote it correctly) also ends on the engine (PF126p had an engine in the back).
And Trabant was called "Kartonwagen", which could be translated as cardboard car.
w rzeczywistosci trabant jest bardzo bezpieczny, to tworzywo jes t bardzo mocen
I think the Trabant was just too old. Also, I've heard that it strangely does fairly well on crash tests..
@Mäkirannantörmä Trabants regularly went on the East German Autobahns, and cruised at 100 km/hr easily
7:16 wow I expected a lot more from a 2007-2011 ford ranger
Who the heck would expect the Chevy Cavalier to do good??
'This is the Kia Sephia from Korea'
Bojack writing team: We missed that one
I love how the Geely only looks like a Mercedes and the sad fall of the GM 900 Saab is there for all to see.
When an airbag means nothing because the passenger cabin is crushed like aluminum foil.
#7 Steeringwheel actually hit the headrest o_O
Fiat Punto, Peugeot 106, Saab 900, Ford Sierra, Austin Metro, Fiat Seicento..
Oh dear I actually owned or regularly drove 6 cars from this list... so far.. And it surprises me that the Seicento is there but the Panda (old model) isn't, which I also drove.
Oh well made it this far though... I guess it helps that while driving these cars I never actually had the illusion of them being safe by any measure.... I mean just close the door on either one of them, and the sound will pretty much tell you everything... When I had my Punto, my father drove a Volvo.. The difference between closing a cookie-jar and a bank-vault pretty much..
You get the feeling that some of the vehicles were engineered to just stay in one piece going down the road...nothing more or less. Very thankful for the mandates and testing that has us in much safer vehicles. Now if we could just put down the phones!
Didn't expect anything built on a truck frame to make this list. I just kind of naively assumed that trucks/vans would be sturdier than anything smaller. Guess profit margins can turn anything into a turd. Awesome.
I've owned a few of these. Thank God I never had an accident in any of them. My sister was rear ended when she had a Rover Metro 20 years ago and the rear of the car was up against the back of the driver's seat after the crash. No-one would have survived if they had been sat in the back.
Daewoo, just remove the front seats and sit in the back. Move controls so you can reach them, problem solved!
Part of the problem with the GM Astro/Safari minivans is that there's simply not enough distance between the front bumper and the passenger compartment.
11:25 watch the fuel door as this progresses. Looks like Ford didn't learn all its lessons from the Pinto.
The pinto only loses a pint.. the ford loses a gallon 😱
Should have named it Gallono 😅
@@deanosaur808 Back in the day I witnessed several rear-end collisions involving Pintos and the Mercury Bobcat twin. In every case the fuel tank ruptured. Fortunately there was spark or flame to ignite it.
Also, as a "service salesman" (gas jockey) I remember more than one rear-end-wrecked Mercury Montego/Ford Torino cars in which the rear impact had ripped the filler pipe out of the gas tank and the customers' demand that we "fill it up with NoNox" could not be executed because gas never made it to the tank.
2:45 Astro- with a modern and clean sure-death mechanism, it ensures that you will die on the spot, thanks GM.
9:35 chinese something- those are so dangerous that even being closer to one is a risk.
11:13 GM van- its likely to have full body fatal injuries, including the every tip of the hair.
19:25 proton - weeeee
21:05 cherry - both car and driver had the same damage.
ua-cam.com/video/UyZCFzk90WU/v-deo.html SEAT Toledo Mk1 it's a Chery
Does the astro crash applies to chevy g20s?
The Saab 900 performance is very poor. Btw: governments throughout the world should ban cars with low ratings.
Here is the perfect ad for a car company: Crash test with the CEO in the drivers seat instead of a dummy. You say your cars are safe, right? I would do it if I had true confidence in the safety of what my company is building.
I'll keep my Lincoln Town Car, thanks.
Wait, the Astro was actually designed to do that with the seat...it was Chevy's experimental "Fixing Occupant Protection System", or FOPS. In the event of a crash, the driver's seat was designed to release and pin the occupant to the airbag, ensuring maximum facial contact
In otherwords, fling the passenger out the windshield?
11:45 Jeez that car lost its gasoline. I didn’t know you could knock the gasoline out of a car 😱
Broken legs are the least of the problems in these tests
"the solution is relatively simple-- it requires sophisticated engineering..."