Chevy Malibu Better than Volvo S60 In Recent IIHS Side Impact Test ????

I guess this is a milestone of sorts in the evolution of crash protection from being a specialty feature of Volvo and into being something for everyone. I am also sure that a chorus of apologists will arise claiming that the IIHS test is somehow flawed. To those people I ask: When Volvo does well on IIHS tests, doesn't Volvo brag about it?

Here is the news release from IIHS today:

formatting link

A few exerpts:

>>>>>>>>

Volvo is acceptable: The S60's performance was not as good as the A4's or Malibu's. With the standard curtain airbags, head protection was good. But forces on the driver dummy's pelvis were high.

"Even though the S60 has standard torso airbags for front-seat occupants along with the curtains, a fractured pelvis for the driver would be likely in a real-world crash like this," Lund says. "Volvo still has some work to do to improve the S60's performance." >>>>>>>>>>

Granted the Malibu they speak of is equipped with optional side air bags while the Volvo has them standard. However, the Audi A4 and Saab 9-3 also did better than the S60.

Volvo is no longer the clear leader in crash protection.

John

'96 854 110,000 miles '72 1800ES 108,000 miles

Reply to
John Horner
Loading thread data ...

The Volvo's design is also older then any one of those cars - The Mailbu shares a platform with the Saab 9-3, and the Saab was picked as Swedens safest car (could have been the 9-5... but I know the 9-3 is very safe too)... so Saab knows a thing or two about safety, and teaches GM, as Volvo teaches Ford.

The Audi was also redesigned for this year.

What is more disapointing is that the new S40 got acceptable, to have the new Jetta really show everyone how to make a small car safe, it got a Best Pick for side, and a Good rating (tho not best pick) for frontal offset.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Sometime in the 90s Volvo clearly changed it's focus to go after the trendy-fashion thing and leave behind their traditional priorities. The current sales success of the XC90 is likely to continue encouraging Volvo down the fashion path. The problem with fashion is that success is always fleeting.

John

Reply to
John Horner

What else could they have done? They had to put a bit more style into their products... everyone else did, Mercedes cars were generally just as ugly and Audi cars were far uglier then the Volvo's of the 80's - and both companies changed their styles in pretty much the same way - first rounded squares, then more swoopy designs... Audi still has more of a rounded square shape until very recently... MB has made all their cars ugly (IMO), and Volvo's - well they still look muscular, strong, and Volvo-ish to me... Tho I only grew up with Volvos from the 70's/80's.

If they kept selling highly functional boxes only an enthusiast would love, they would have gone bankrupt - look how few people actually buy Saabs, and look at the stop gap solutions GM is coming up with to "help" them (rebadged Imprezza and Trailblazer - Volvo's building their own cars on top-notch global platforms that they do a lot of design work on - and they still use all their own engines).... The XC90 is well received... It's an SUV, so what - it's how you make money, don't like it - don't buy it... Its safer then a V70 in general, except on accident avoidance - performs well, and it's low emissions... Every car maker needs an SUV right now - because people want them, if you don't build what your customers want, you lose sales to other companies.

Reply to
Rob Guenther

Other manufactures are catching up, Volvo was decades ahead years ago but it's inevitable that some others will begin to catch up eventually, there reaches a point when there's much less left to improve.

Reply to
James Sweet

Right. For example:

formatting link

Reply to
Hal Whelply

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.