The Acura RDX is an IIHS "Top Safety Pick" scoring their highest ratings in Front Offset, Side and Rear impact. The RDX scores 5 stars (no or minor injury) in NHTSA Front and Side impact testing.

The RDX scores Consumer Reports highest rating (excellent) for Accident Avoidance -- that is the ability to accelerate, stop and turn away from danger with secure control.

So what is this from Business Week???

Volvo's Big Lie: All three Volvo's on the list score only "acceptable" in the IIHS Side impact test. All three Volvo's score only 4 stars (moderate injury) in NHTSA front impact.

In Consumer Reports Accident Avoidance testing (accelerate, stop, turn) the Volvo S60 scores only "average", two levels below the RDX. The S40 and V50 -- which share the Ford Focus platform -- score only "above average", one level below the RDX. In fact, the Accident Avoidance road test numbers for all Volvos are indistinguishable from the Chevy Aveo, Cobalt, Impala or Malibu. Good company, huh?

Here is the list:

My wife drives an RDX because she values performance and safety for the family.

Safety first, ladies? The RDX is the only car on this list that is a IIHS "Top Safety Pick".

Please, if you are shopping, do your homework.

 

Nice post, 737!

 

Volvo must have a great marketing team. =)

I think they're still riding off the image they established back in the '80s. My parents used to love Volvo because they were "safe" and even nudged me to get one when I first started shopping for a new car. I did the research on the s60, showed them the safety ratings of the whole Volvo line (not to mention how many trips owners take to the repair shop every year) and they've since stopped liking the brand.

Maybe it's the Ford curse.

 

Great post! It shows that years of "Volvo is synomous with safety" advertising being pounded into our heads works.

 

Good post!

wait for AbovePrime's come back with his ford edge and mazda cx-7

 

Many automakers lie. It's the consumers who should do the homework.

Volvo "was" safe. Many European cars ain't as safe as Japanese (or even Korean) cars nowadays. And, no consumer should accept cars less than "GOOD" crash test ratings.

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=567

More for your reading and laughing enjoyment:

http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=831
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/rating.aspx?id=703

 

Automobile safety is a very contoversial topic for many reasons.

First off, there is a huge difference between a low impact head on collision test performed in a lab and a head on collision with a semi going 75 mph.

I am not that concerned with how my car will react in low speed collisions where I might break an arm or leg. I am much more concerned with how my car will react when I get sideswiped in Atlanta traffic going 70 on I-285 and I get turned around, flipped over, and dive into the concrete median. Will I survive this type of wreck? Who knows, this is never tested, but I feel a lot safer in a volvo s60 than some other cars.

I owned an s60 and was in a minor collision (got run over by a semi who misjudged a turn). If I was in my Miata, I would not be here writing about this. But the B-pillars in the Volvo are at least 3 inches thicker than any other car, hence no damage to me, my wife, or my dog.

Truly the most important safety feature of any car is the driver. It is the driver who must make safe decisions, drive within the speed of traffic, be patient enough to realize that you really don't get there much faster if you speed. It also takes a driver who is not distracted by cell-phones, radio stations, and other external distractions (the old "keep your eyes on the road" lesson).

Volvo has done a remakable job in promoting safety and I am not ready to dispense them just because Acura did better job than them in a controlled lab experiment. Kudos to Acura for scoring well (I own one).

As a side note, an officer recently told me that he sees more volvo's get into accidents than any other car make. I'll let you reach your own conclusion.

 

People who buy and drive Volvos are piss poor drivers?

 

..........and 3 of the top 10 most popular cars driven by women are Volvo's!!

 

Hey, I've seen some pretty pathetic driving by the male species too.

In a nutshell, female drivers are typically inattentive (applying make-up, zoning out to the music, talking on the cell phone, etc...) and at times can have little or no road awareness.

Male drivers are typically assholes and are overly aggressive (excessively speeding, tailgating, weaving, etc...).

All of the above aspects of driving would increase the frequency of accidents.

 

Maybe Volvo driver buy Volvos because they know it's a matter of "when" they will get into a major accident not "if".

 

I agree, people who get in accidents in Volvos, at high speeds and walk away experiance Volvo saftey, and thats why Volvo still means safe. I would buy one on the saftey alone.

 

I'd rather be 8.1 inches off the ground than 6.3 LOL.

 

roll over roll over!

 

LOL, great thread. Tripp summed up males and females to a T.

As for Volvos and safety, I work in advertising and a little secret that most people don't know is...remember those great TV spots in the '80s when they stacked a bunch of Volvos on top of each other, dropped them from a crane, etc.? FAKED. TOTALLY FAKED. The cars were reinforced with extra steel and Volvo and their agency rec'd a TINY slap on the wrist when this came out several years later. But note the power of visual imagery...and be aware (or more accurately, BEWARE) of it in your daily life as you encounter messages from the halls of commerce AND government.

And then, as has been said: draw your own conclusions as to why these folks are picking out Volvos.

 

Ouch...that generalization hurts just a wee bit, but there is some truth to it. This guy totally cut me off on the way home, I was so mad I almost gave him the finger, but I was busy texting at the time Seriously, safety was a huge consideration in buying my RDX, but I found I definitely had to weed through all the information available, especially online. I originally was thinking about buying a Santa Fe (yes, I know, what was I thinking???) but then I read about a guy who rolled the vehicle and none of the air bags deployed. Who knows whether it was true or not, but bottom line is it made me think twice.

 

Subaru is probably the top brand for safety (all models are five star). All models are AWD, and all models have above average brakes. I am quite comfortable with my wife driving a Forester.

 

Agree on most points... Volvo have always been building structurally "strong" cars. But unless you drive in a cabin block of steel, with walls that are 1 feet thick, like a battle tank basically, there is no such thing as a super safe car.
Volvo's traditionally tout their cars as having a higher density of steel used and thus their cars are super strong... but technology has now since moved on so much that, it is how you use the steel in building the structure of the car, that makes more of a difference. In essence, you can have a car body structure (minus the engine) that is lighter by as much as 30%, and yet still be stronger in rigidity.

Yes, Volvo is a good car to drive in if you are counting on good safety technology built in it, but do not discount other cars on similar safety performance, just because they don't use as much steel in them.

As some indicated, active safety technology in a car is probably more important, as you would rather be able to get away from a collision, than having to sustain one.

 

Having active safety is nice, but when all that does not work, you need something else, smashing into a car, at 80MPH the Airbags(passive I think?) are not going to save you, nor is Dynamic stability control.

Volvo has some of the safest cars on the road, I don't think that anyone is discounting the other car makers ability to make a safe car, but Volvo is the one you want to be in when you rollover, Volvo is the one you want to be in when you get T-Boned, Volvo is the one you want to sit in when you get hit from behind(WHIPS is a great system). They just make their cars to where they save lives in situations that the IIHS cannot test to see. I'm sure Toyota's perform better than Volvo's in the IIHS test, but if I were to buy a car on the Safety and security alone it would be a Volvo.

So if the car A had pillars that were thinner than the pillars in car B, car A could provide just as much strength in a rollover? I'm sure Volvo has still has the thicker steel, while bringing up the rigidity of it. Makes no sense for them not to, always advancing in safety.

 

As usual, no evidence supporting the statement above; opinion and wishful thinking.

Thank you Pacer, my point exactly.

 

So you have evidence of Volvo's big lie? PLEASE elaborate, people can give two ****s about some test.

Show me the videos where Volvo's are not safe, because you have no evidence.

 

no where in this thread has anyone made mention of a Volvo NOT BEING SAFE. The original poster said it was an "average or above-average" picks.

if you dont care about crash tests, their statistical analysis, and would rely soley on Volvo's marketing pledges about safety, then you are just ignorant to fact. you need to read the original post...you have completely missed the boat, im seeing a trend.

 

He compared Volvo to a Chevy-daewoo Aveo.

Then he moved on to say the lie that Volvo was telling is that they are not safe.


"Volvo's Big Lie: All three Volvo's on the list score only "acceptable" in the IIHS Side impact test. All three Volvo's score only 4 stars (moderate injury) in NHTSA front impact.

In Consumer Reports Accident Avoidance testing (accelerate, stop, turn) the Volvo S60 scores only "average", two levels below the RDX. The S40 and V50 -- which share the Ford Focus platform -- score only "above average", one level below the RDX. In fact, the Accident Avoidance road test numbers for all Volvos are indistinguishable from the Chevy Aveo, Cobalt, Impala or Malibu. Good company, huh?"

To say that they are LYING about being safe, is what he is suggesting.

 

Volvo does not have much thicker B pillar. Volvo hides A/C ducts in B piller, and that makes the piller "look" thicker.

Don't be a moron like me buying a Volvo. It breaks ALL THE TIME!! The parts are extremely expensive, and the dealer techs are simply fools.

 

Exactly... I for one am not saying that volvo is not a safe car to drive in. In fact, I would be glad to be driving it for safety reasons, knowing that it is one[U] of the better designed cars in terms of safety.

I may be wrong, but I think the "lie" people are discussing here is, that volvo is touting that there is not likely any other car that is safer on the road, and that "no one else" can build a safer car than Volvo.

As I said, structural engineering and metallurgy technology has advanced to a state where using different materials and how they are welded or put together to form a certain protective structure is becoming more important than how much steel you have on your car body. So if a car can be 30% lighter because less steel is used, and still get the similar structural rigidity and strength, that would be the way car makers are moving towards.
And undoubtedly, Volvo is also moving that direction, less material but equal structural strength. But that "image" of this battle tank like structural strength of volvo because it has more steel in it, is always going to hang around in people's head.

SAABs are not built like tanks, but they sure are one of the better known cars for safety around the world.

So at the end of the day, I believe we are not debating about whether Volvo is a safe car... but the question about Volvo touting itself as the epitomy of being the safest car...

For some here that claims and believes that, I say, the only way you are 99% sure you will be safe on the roads here, is ride in a Abrams M1A1 MBT. Heck, if it can take a russian shell , it sure can take a car ramming it from any direction; even if it rolled over...

 

Just to add, the S40 performs better than the TSX overall, with an acceptable Structure/safety cage rating compared to the TSX's Marginal. The S60 does better as well....
Also Volvo performs better in rear accidents.
Volvo Rear Accident Protection Ratings.
Acura Rear Accident Protection Ratings.

 

Note that Mr. Baloney, ah sorry, Maloney is from Marketing, not Engineering.

Yes-sir, Mav, as usual, you are spot-on. When dramatic claims of total dominance in auto safety are made, the consumer is conditioned to believe Volvos are the safest cars available. Volvo marketing has relentlessly associated the name with top tier safety.

But independant scientific analysis simply does not bear this out. Many other brands rank higher in IIHS, NHTSA and Consumer Reports studies. Volvo typically does not occupy the top spot in any category, and most frequently is found mid-pack. No data backs up their extravagant claims.

Impact protection is certainly important, but Consumer Reports believes that Accident Avoidance is equally critical to traffic safety. This is where Volvo's line is about equal to -- yes -- the Chevy Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu and others. Volvos perform the avoidance maneuver at moderate speeds (in category) and the entire Volvo line is rated "average" in emergency handling. (As are the Chevys.)

By comparison the RDX, X-3, and CX-7 are higher CG cross-overs that perform avoidance maneuvers better than most cars and in close company with sport sedans.

I'll take my 5 stars thank you, but I'd rather not use them.

 

CX-7 performs better than the RDX at NHTSA in multiple segments, it also as a lesser chance of rolling over. lmao.

 

The NHTSA tests in these categories: Front impact driver and passenger, Side impact front and rear, and rollover.

The RDX and CX-7 each score identical 5 stars in the Front and Side categories, and both score 4 stars in rollover.

In Hindu and Buddhism a wise teacher is known as a guru. The syllable "gu" means darkness and "ru" means light. Thus, a guru is one who leads us from darkness into light.

There are many gurus here at AcuraZine. You AbovePrime...are a rugu.

 

AP was referring to the actual detailed scores. The differences are statistically irrelevant (hence the star rating system to prevent lay people from getting bogged down in minute differences).

 

Okay so me reading that the CX-7 has a 14% chance of rollover, 15% for the RDX. Head injury for the passenger is lower in the CX-7, lower chance of head injury in the RDX for the driver, Lower TTI for the CX-7 all around.

And yes the numbers are small, I was just kidding around hence the "lmao".

Hmm, I thought I was a troll, I need to add this rugu next to my troll label!

 

That was one of the best PC slams I've ever seen. To bad some people just don't get it, but I think he's proven that he is that way!

 

Wow that was the best "pc slam" you've ever seen? Do you read on other forums besides Acurazine?

Whatever owning he tried to do was so lame, really, rugu?!

"Personal Computer slam" in its self makes me laugh, and he thought he was totally right, but he totally was not.

 

Maybe its politically correct.
Its not that your input is not of interest, its your smarmy attitude. You are clearly baiting people with your responses, which make you a troll. Something to be proud of.

 

Also, I know that there have been many unkind comments towards you as well, but you always seem to be in the center of things.

 

Hey whats the deal with Volvos logo any way? Has anyone ever really looked at it? It's the univeral symbol for the male species.

What the hell are they trying to say? Lamborghini has the raging bull, a symbol of raw power, Ferrari has the prancing stallion, a symbol of raw power and grace, hell even Acura's Caliper logo make sense as a symbol of precision.

So what's the deal with the symbol of Man on the front of the car? Are they saying its for picking up guys? Are they trying to be the most popular car among women AND homosexual men?

 

It was noted by an avid supporter of Volvo and it's owner company, in this thread that

"So if the car A had pillars that were thinner than the pillars in car B, car A could provide just as much strength in a rollover? "

The suggestion there is that more steel used always equals better strength/rigidity than less steel used, in a structural rigidity situation.

My answer to that is, yes, having more steel generally makes something stronger. But there are other ways that one can achieve this without the high cost of added weight and hence poor fuel economy.

Again, look at the ABRAMS M1A1, as a very drastic example... it is certainly one heavy vehicle. But if you look at the engineering design of it, the armour is not simply a 1-2 feet thick layer of steel. Rather, the armour is a layered skin of various composites and metals (Aluminium, steel, ceramics, polymer resins). This proved to have equal of better than simply pure steel in stopping explosive shells.
ALSO, most importantly, is how they design that hull, the sloping structure and how the various sections are carefully welded together, it all works together in harmony to make the Abrams M1 one of the safest MBT in the world (though it can still be defeated under special circumstances and with newer munitions coming into the arena).

So my point to the suggestion made about "more steel only way to be higher strength"... NOT TRUE...

So in my opinion, with current auto technology available ... this means, IMHO, volvo does not represent the epitomy of vehicle safety... That means, it would not be surprising that car makers like SAAB, BMW, Nissan, Honda, Hyundai, Suzuki, will have cars that are already equal or better than Volvos in terms of safety (both passive and active). That epitomy image of volvo may be true of yester years, but definitely not true now...

 

The S80, S40, S60, XC70, XC90 are some of the safest vehicles on the road.

Volvo came first to the market with lots of things like ROPS, WHIPS, and three row curtain airbags, the automakers are still catching up to Volvo in safety.

The XC90 was the first luxo-suv to the market that got a four out of five in the Rollover category. With not only lots of, but also high strength steel.

The S40 can absorb just as much frontal damage as the Much larger S80.

SIPS is the best side impact protection system on the market.
Which is designed to protect passengers in other cars too.

The XC90 and S80 are class leaders in safe.
Two top safety picks from IIHS.
The S80 has so much technology that it is first to the market with, With technology no one else has at the moment.

Although Volvo is not leading in all aspects, it will be, very soon.

Please note the XC90 came out in 2003(Still class leading!), the S80 a 07 release, the S40 in 04, XC70 just released for 08, S60 soon being phased out. The S40 is redesigned for 08 with improved safety.

Volvo is damn good in safety and that should not even be questioned, unless you've got something else that proves otherwise.

 

Only when I feel the need to, and not always.

 

Lilfeat, I think that observation is pretty much well founded here already, you can ask Tripp11 or several other folks...

We, the majority of the posters of this thread here have been reasonable in our discussion...we agree to disagree without wanting to draw return fire...
for some that just wants to draw "fire" just for the sake of returning fire... I say, let them be... Why should we care what their views or opinions are when they are adamant about something which is unreasonable to the whole wide world except himself/herself?

This sort of unreasonable and sometimes outright ridiculous "flame wars" is not needed... it is not constructive...

I think the sentence passed out previously by the Acura RDX forum court here last week, regarding sentencing the plaintiff to indefinite seclusion is still in effect... let's work together to keep it that way, and all will soon be over with that... ignore it and it will go away... trust me... it will...