AbovePrime.

Yeah because the only posts that I make are baiting people, 270 posts of bait to get arguments out of people.

MMike1981

give or take a few.

Boon

Well I was one of the ones who got pissy with AbovePrime a few weeks ago (mostly cuz I got flooded with those dang email notices which I've since learned to turn off) and after a few PMs, realized he's actually a half-decent guy who just likes to play devil's advocate...a lot...

I say half-decent, cuz really, there's something wrong with you if you own an Edge.

j/k =)

lilfeat

270 posts in 5 months. I have 283 in 6 years. And I actully drive Acuras.

Thanks you for providing us with your opinion on everything.

Shun.

AbovePrime.

Wow I've had Acura's too, CRAZY.


I'm just not as brainwashed as most Acura owners are, I don't have to buy another or tuck my problems under the rug.

And, my point was to say that I don't totally "troll" the board, Because I don't.

XIS

Uh, yes you do troll the board and spout utterly asinine comments...

She is both a troll and a rugu - Amen.
Go muddy up a mazduh forum....


Oh and about the head injury comment - you need to have a head injury to choose a mazduh over an acura...
CX-9 over an MDX? Are you frickin kidding me?
CX-7 over an RDX? You are proof that a head injury is in your past....

AbovePrime.

"rugu", that one was pure gold.

CX-9 over the MDX any day of the WEEK, The CX-9 does not have mis aligned interior trim panels, huge panel gaps, a utterly unusable third row, vents falling out, poor alignment. the CX-9 speaks volumes over the MDX, the only place where it does not win is the handling, and even the the difference is not worth the premium you paid for the MDX.

I would choose a MazDUH over a HonDUH any day of the week.

CX-7 Looks and stops better, Nice race to 60, lets see if you can stop without fading carlengths ahead. CX-7 has more potential as well. Exhausts, EMS, CAI's, suspension upgrades, coilovers, TMIC upgrades.

VChron

There are so many misconceptions about safety and Volvo that I'm not sure where to begin.

Mr. Maloney said Volvo owns safety, which is absolutely true in the minds of consumers. Safety has been Volvo's core value since the company began 80 years ago and there is a long string of safety innovations pioneered by Volvo to prove it. These include the safety cage (1944), 3-point safety belt (1969), accident research team (1970), side impact protection SIPS (1991), whiplash protection WHIPS (1998), rollover protection (2002), etc.

There has been an unrivaled consistency in the high level of safety across Volvo's line-up for decades. Volvo was paying attention to safety long before it became fashionable. When the NHTSA was designing their NCAP testing program over 30 years ago, they used the Volvo 240 as the benchmark.

It's wholely unjustified to suggest that Volvo's safety reputation is just smoke and mirrors, because other manufacturers are now finally earning crash test scores on selected models that are as good as, or even better than some Volvos. Especially when comparisons are being made between models designed several years apart. Volvo's reputation is well earned.

Safety is a very complicated subject that goes far beyond a handful of simple crash tests. As for Consumer Reports' Accident Avoidance scores, they have no scientific validity whatsover. It looks plausible, but no one has established any relationship between such handling tests and safety. Indeed, the NHTSA (directly) and EuroNCAP (indirectly) have said CR's test is invalid as a measure of safety.

Volvo safety is based on what happens in the real world, which is far more complex than a lab test. For example, a simple side impact test will not tell you what happens when the car is T-boned, then struck from behind, pushed into a frontal collision or off the road down an embankment.

The Volvo C70 and the Chrysler Sebring convertible both got top scores in recently conducted IIHS side impact tests. Now look at this video (at about 8:54) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP7xZzknX0k and you'll see that the Sebring's driver probably wouldn't fare well in a subsequent impact because the dummy ends up lying like a sack of potatoes across the seat after the initial T-bone, unrestrained by the shoulder belt, and completely out of position for the front airbags and other safety systems to be effective.

The IIHS would have you believe that the Sebring is just as safe as the C70 in these kinds of crashes, but the test scores don't tell the whole story.

The IIHS did its first round of dynamic whiplash testing in 2004, and all Volvo models earned top scores. No other manufacturer comes close even now. Instead of just touting their triumph, Volvo's response to the results included the following statement: "Tests only show a sliver of what happens in real life." It seems Volvo isn't kidding about their emphasis on real world safety.

Innovations are developed and evaluated based on data from real accidents that Volvo has been investigating individually in exacting detail since 1970. There are now over 36,000 accidents in the database that is growing by over 1,000 accidents a year. http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/ly/crash.htm

I could go on and on, but I'll just make one last point. Volvo was a pioneer in the use of high strength steel in cars to improve safety while keeping weight down.

Lrpba300

Again, you just prove my point & 737 jock's point over, & over again!

AbovePrime.

AbovePrime.

But apparently no one here cares about real world accidents, only test numbers from Consumer Reports of all places, the same people that review toasters.

737 Jock

Thank you VChron for the informative post.

Exactly; Mr. Maloney is a Marketing Exec. His carefully choosen words would imply that Volvos are the safest cars -- but actually mean that Volvo "owns" the perception of safety in the minds of people who rely on Volvo Marketing for their information: the prized "captured customer".

Volvo deserves credit for being an early safety innovator.

Nonetheless, Volvo's boasting regarding the cars on the "Women's Luxury" list is deceitful and unwarranted as these models do not perform nearly as well as the RDX, (and other newer models) which was my original point.

When competing organizations do not endorse one another's results, it does not nullify the data. Perhaps if other safety researchers followed CR's lead in Accident Avoidance, the industry (Volvo certainly) would feel compelled to engineer more maneuverable vehicles.

An intra-Volvo battle took place a few years ago between Engineering and Marketing over the infamous third-row seat in the 70 series wagon. In the 70, as in most other third-row applications, the seat is placed in the rear crush zone. Volvo Marketing won this battle, knowing full well that children will be occupying this rear facing seat and crushed in rear impacts.

The third-row is the dirtiest secret in the industry, and in fairness, most manufacturers have jumped aboard. Apparently however, Volvo's realworld studies provided insufficient evidence that children are crushable.

AbovePrime.

The XC90 outperforms (in safety tech) the RDX and MDX, anything else is not comparable. Regardless of the test results from various sources, Volvo has the lead in safety, SIPS, WHIPS, and ROPS, all technology no one else has. SIPS is the best, WHIPS is the first, ROPS has been praised by many.

Just because the RDX Scores high in this series controlled tested does not put it above the other.

Case and point.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ncap/cars/2250.html
One of The Most unsafe things on the road, but performed well in THIS series of tests administered by NHTSA.

Volvo has a rep that cannot be beat, and its all from first hand experience and people telling others about the stories of them walking away (literally unharmed besides a sore chest and maybe burns from the AB's) from that high speed accident, but the other people were not so lucky.

Volvo, and NHTSA taking notes from a bunch of morons at Consumer Reports? THAT will be the day! And they are invalid because they are inaccurate measures of accident avoidance, period.

Do you remember all of that car seat mess!?

VChron

I think you are inferring rather than Mr. Maloney implying. We don't even know the specific questions Maloney was responding to.

Are women responding primarily to Volvo's marketing or to Volvo's reputation as "an early safety innovator"? Take this woman quoted in the article, for example:

"Safety was the reason I got into it, that I got interested in Volvos," said Gretchen Adams of Afton, N.Y., a quilter who also happens to be a board member and vice-president/events director of the Volvo Club of America, which is also based in Afton, in central New York State. She said she and her husband both drive Volvos daily, and they have driven nothing but Volvos since about 1970, when they bought a two-tone, 1959 Volvo station wagon.

CR has published no research in this area. I'm also unaware of any scientific research relating the results of such handling tests to safety. CR has never provided credible answers when asked about the validity these scores. Specialists in automotive safety have said it cannot be done either experimentally or statistically from accident data for individual models. But I am willing to change my mind if you can provide the evidence showing the validity of CR's scores.

The third-row seat in the 70 series and the XC90 is not in the crumple zone. Both vehicles are designed and tested to ensure the safety of third-row occupants within the specified height and weight limits. Here is an XC70 after a rear-end collision with a Nissan Quest and Volvo's official statement on 3rd-row safety in wagons:
http://www.volvoxc.com/volvo_photo_g....php?pos=-4155
http://au.geocities.com/ozbrick850/crash-rear.html

Here is Volvo's marketing material on the XC90. Volvo is one of only few manufacturers that will say unequivocally that the 3rd-row seat is designed and tested to be safe. Click on features and then 3rd-row safety. http://www.volvocars.us/campaigns/MY...al/default.htm

Where's the evidence supporting your contention?

mav238

Okay, what is the point of these back and forth "discussions" about Volvo safety?

Volvo is a very well designed car in terms of safety, it comes from decades of safety engineering research... but SAAB, if you do the research, is also a pioneer in safety technology. But like I said before the latest rendition of the 9-3 sports sedan, topped the swedish safety rankings for vehicle protection in a collison, even better than the volvo. But does that mean volvo is not a safe car or not as safe??? No I think not... Volvo is still ONE, and I say again, ONE, of the safest cars to be in today.

Granted, there are vehicles out there today, new ones, where I would seriously doubt it's ability to safeguard the car occupants in the event of a non-typical (real-life) hard collision.

but IMHO, the marketing done by Volvo, as touting themselves as the epitomy of vehicle safety, "no one is better than them", is a bit of a stretch... But heck... that is what commercials are for... they are there to sell their brand... I think there are some even more far-fretched commercials out there in the market than what volvo did with their marketing ploy...

IMHO, we can take whatever real ingridient there is in the Volvo marketing scheme, which is, it is one of the safer car to drive in. But not "THE MOST..."...Period...

AbovePrime.

The XC90 is thesafest SUV, the S80 is the SAFEST luxury sedan with BLIS and advanced cruise control, some of the best tech. Volvo leads safety into new directions, the XC90 was the first with full three row curtains that actually work to protect third row occupants, others are still catching up in that department.

Their concept car, the SCC was so innovative in safety at the time, in 2001.

Volvo is one of the safest, and if you have ever read or listened to anything they say about how safe they are, they never say they no one is better than them, they say we are one of the safest car makers, or something of the sort. Not we are the best everyone bow down to our feet.

Volvo still owns safety.

737 Jock

Thank you for providing this classic example of a "captured customer". No scepticism or analysis from her; just--decades--of--the--Vol--vo--Man--tra. "Why, thank you Mr. Maloney, I'd love another cup of Kool-Aide." This is the uncritical acceptance I was cautioning women about.


The best safety device in any car is the driver. If you parked your RDX unscathed in the garage tonight, you practiced Accident Avoidance all the way home. You excercised Situational Awareness about traction, velocity and hazards; continually computed the safest course and through your machine interface, acted on it.

Impact protection is only Passive Safety. Avoiding those impacts is Active Safety and has been a dynamic science in auto design from nearly the beginning. Recently, electronics has provided giant leaps in Active Safety:

ABS (an aviation technology) has prevented otherwise panicked drivers from locking their front wheels and allowed them to steer around hazards even with the brake pedal crushed and bent under the dash.

EBD minimizes nose dive, keeping the car's weight distributed evenly.

Traction Control prevents wheel spin on slick surfaces.

ESP or DSC prevent over and understeer. Stability Control now intervenes in the Escape/Tribute/Mariner's nasty tendancy to tip-up and roll over; a digital band-aid on a flawed chassis.

These are all products of scientific research in Active Safety (handling). But the greatest contribution to Active Safety has long been a chassis design that accelerates, stops and turns with secure agility. VW/Audi, Subaru, Mazda, Honda and BMW have been steadfast leaders in Active Safety through responsive chassis designs for decades. Their research is necessarily proprietary.

Consider a competent driver of a Miata swerving around and just missing a hazard. That same driver, swerving at the same moment in a Highlander is going to hit it. Physics allows nothing else.

I agree, it is difficult to quantify by model statistically through accident data due to countless variables and inadequate accident recording. But automakers have been measuring it experimentally since Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot ran his Fardier into a wall.

Basic escape maneuvers can certainly be scientifically measured. NHTSA conducts roll-over tests. Consumer Reports presently leads in agility testing, (and is well regarded by as many as villify them).Relating it to safety is another matter as agile cars tend to be over-driven by inexperienced helmsman -- and crashed more. Thus oversight attention is placed on easily quantifiable Passive Safety.

Consumer Reports publishes their research in every issue. They may consider the detailed, scholarly findings you want -- to be proprietary. Unlike tax-payer funded NHTSA and industry funded IIHS, CR is independant; they have to work for a living; and suffer the legal ramifications when a vehicle doesn't test well. Much criticism of their testing has come from disgruntled automakers.

I didn't cite the XC90 because the third row has adequate crush space and testing proves it.

But I didn't call the 70's seat "infamous" lightly. Volvo owners concerns prompted the letter you reference; which contains evasions and dismisses rear impacts as unlikely and at low speed. It further states that the seat was installed as a better solution than carrying people "unrestrained". So it's better than having morons for parents....

In 2003 the 70 series wagon was one of three finalists for my wife's new car. I pointed out to the sales staff that the third row was well within the crush zone and with my young kids seated their feet rested on the rear lip. Behind closed doors they admitted that the seat was a bitter compromise within Volvo, because it was in the crush zone, and even showed me photos of rear impact testing to crush limits: up to the wheel arch.

The photo you cite is clearly very low speed. The rear windows and taillights are intact. Numerous owner reports (on Volvo sites) of rear impacts state the cargo area is crushed to the top of the wheel arch. Note that the seat is several inches aft of the rear axle:

[IMG][/IMG]

When a low Situational Awareness driver demonstrates his 50 to 0 stopping distance using your rear bumper at a light; would you really bet your kid's life on this seat? Imagine the horror for a child, helplessly watching two tons of metal bear down on him.

The final evidence is that the third row is not available in the 70 after 2006 -- with new rear impact testing coming into play. Volvo helpfully points out in your XC90 link that the third row requires sufficient crush space to be safe. The 70 doesn't have it and never did.

Lastly , I would like to point out that my original post referenced only the three Volvos on the list: the S40, V50 and S60. Women are purchasing these cars for safety, when in fact they are old designs that yield only average or above average safety. Many new designs with excellent safety scores are better choices; the RDX is one.

AbovePrime.

The handling characteristics of a car are Active?

737 Jock

Reviewing this photo again; take a good look at where the body structure begins to bend -- this defines the transition from the safety cage to the crushable frame.

The crease in the quarter panel and bend in the window frame is about 2 inches aft of the top of the wheel arch. Everything aft of this point is subject to sacrificial compression in direct relationship to impact force.

Thankfully, Volvo has been compelled to eliminate this seat for 2007.

AbovePrime.

One of the reasons CR's tests are inaccurate is because they are driver dependant, if the driver was different you would get completely different results=inaccurate.

AbovePrime.

Just to double post, people read CR like its the bible or something, and base ALL of their purchases off of their reviews, but they are completely biased(VERY biased in the Auto industry, believe it or not, how the F can the HIGHLANDER score FIRST in a comparo?!), and have been found to be inaccurate many of times, they don't reveal the way they test(most of the time), their reliability surveys are not standardized, and they(their subscribers) think "oh well they don't accept advertisements so they MUST not be biased at all!" Which is pure ignorance, and thats why most of the people that read CR, because they claim to be unbiased, which is a blatant lie, if you read what they have to say with a clear mind, back to back with real facts, and have a little common sense, you can tell CR has a bias.

CR=TRASH, they really should not be taken seriously for accident avoidance or in any other aspect. Their opinion, should be taken very very lightly, not as heavily and highly praised as it is now by most.

AbovePrime.

A triple post because I love posting.


Lastly , I would like to point out that my original post referenced only the three Volvos on the list: the S40, V50 and S60. Women are purchasing these cars for safety, when in fact they are old designs that yield only average or above average safety. Many new designs with excellent safety scores are better choices; the RDX is one.

The RDX, again performed well in the layed out controlled enviorment tests that the IIHS has layed out. But to compare a CUV to cars and wagons is just wrong, and I would love to roll a the S40, and compare it to the RDX, I would love to do all of this at high speeds as well, I'm sure we all know who will come out on top.

People buy Volvo's because they are undoubtedly going to save your life in most cases, and I would buy a Volvo over anything if my purchase were to be purely on safety, Not an Acura, just based on the accidents I've seen, the people in them, the people in other cars, the high praise, the fact that Volvo had their seats tested and passed the First time in 04 I might add, (can't say that for the EDGE or MDX both new for 07).

The XC90(this SUV was made in 03, and is still safer), safer than your RDX, the S80, safer than your RDX, The Kia Amanti, just as safe as the RDX(only proven by tests), the Audi A4 just as safe as the RDX, The CX-7, safer than your RDX(NHTSA testing). Get my drift? The RDX is not the end all safe choice, they're better choices out there for safety.

They might have dropped the third row because no one was buying it, much like most car manufactures do when they are in their last year before a major redesign(take the Sport wagon Mazda6, discontinued after 08).

VChron

737 Jock, I find it quite ironic that you rage against uncritical acceptance ("no skepticism or analysis"), yet you accept CR's results in the complete absence of any evidence of scientific validity. "Oh, maybe they have the evidence", you say, "but they can't show it because it proprietary." Who is really drinking the Kool-Aid?

That's the crux of the issue right there. People have been measuring handling, but no one has yet provided a quantitative link between different levels of handling and different levels of safety. That's required to establish the scientific validity of any handling score that purports to measure safety.

There you go again putting words into other people's mouths. Volvo said no such thing. They only said that the XC90 has sufficient space for a crumple zone behind the 3rd-row seat, and that one has been incorporated.

Space for a crumple zone makes it less difficult to engineer safety into a vehicle, but there are ways to deal with the absence of space. The RDX, like other vehicles, has no space for crumple zones along the sides. There are only about 6 inches between you and an impacting vehicle; considerably less than the space between the back of an XC/V70 and the 3rd-row occupants. By your logic, we should declare the RDX unsafe in side impacts, because you are sitting in the crush zone.

The rear end of the Volvo wagon is a part of the rigid safety cage, in the same way that the sides of the RDX are a part of its safety cage. Crash forces are distributed to other parts of the vehicle where they can be safely absorbed through deformation, while preserving sufficient space for the occupants. The back of the XC/V70 doesn't crush in a rear end collision. Instead, the crash forces are tranferred forward and absorbed by bending the whole backend of the vehicle downwards.

Of course, safety exist within limits. You talk about 2 tons (4,000 lbs) of metal hitting the back of an XC/V70 at 50 mph. How about such a collision into the side of the RDX? That's over 3 times the energy in the IIHS test which uses 3,300 lbs at 31 mph.

Here are some more photos of the results of high speed collisions into the back of a V70. You can see that the 3rd-row space is still preserved. The grey V70 was apparently struck by a large vehicle, judging from the smashed tail lights all the way to the top.

http://community.webshots.com/slides...h-7Cyvr?user=1

The earlier photo (the XC70) was the result of a collision on the interstate. According to the driver:

"From the force of impact I'd be guessing at 50mph, I had almost come to a stop due to a previous accident ahead that occured in heavy rain, I don't think the other driver saw my brake lights."

He may be wrong about the speed, but it doesn't sound like it was a low speed collision. The vehicle was totalled.

Let's be clear, I'm not arguing about whether the RDX is safer than the S40, S60 or whatever. Rather, I'm saying that question is far too complex to be answered by simply looking at a few crash test scores. Where are the crash test scores for the higher speed collisions, or even lower speed ones at different angles? In addition, the CR Accident Avoidance scores have no established validity.

The RDX is a very safe vehicle insofar as we can tell, and that should be enough for you.

mav238

Your last point exactly nailed the main point... Volvo is a well built car in terms of safety technologies, so is RDX, Honda Accord, BMW, Mercedes, Toyota etc... some better than others, but ultimately, each car's safety technology has proven that it works...

Cars nowadays are built with special impact absorbing crumple zones and special impact force diverting technologies that directs the impact forces away from the main cabin. So even if a car body outer skin does not seem as strong as for example to a volvo, but most likely it was built like that to facilitate the proper implementation of the technology mentioned before. But under neath the soft skin, is a spaceframe, made either with light high tensile steel or even lighter Aluminium. The latter may seem lighter, but current technologies have made the aluminium frame as strong as a comparable one designed with the standard steel.

This kind of "return fire" from avid Volvo/Ford/Mazda owners/fans is meaningless... We are definitely not saying Volvo is not as safe a car or is mediocre in safety... contrary, it is a very safe car to drive in in comparison to a number of other cars, but it IS NOT the epitomy or the best or is No. 1. Current advances in technology has rendered this field an equal playing field...

casa7

Honda ACE technology write-up

http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/070926.htm

MMike1981

Above prime-please to stay out of this intelligently, well-written debate, for the love of god.

mav238

MMike1981, I was teaching a class of grade 5's and there was this kid, that just kept arguing about something where, we told him that we did not disagree with his point about a certain topic of discussion... but he kept on arguing and ended up being a nuisance to the class... the rest of the class boys were also fed up with the constant arguing about something that became out of context, because this one grade 5 boy wanted to make his point as THE point and that he was absolutely right... even though the rest of the class saw that he was being ridiculous...
He was ejected from the class to meet with the superintendant... It ended being found that the kid was just being a kid... immature and filled with an attitude problem...

AbovePrime.

For the love of someone that does not exist, please do not post in this thread only to go off topic.

Thanks.

XIS

So now you question God?

You are a piece of ....work.



I have never encountered such a moron and a loser....

IGNORE LIST

mav238

there was one, ordered by the court of the RDX forums earlier in this thread... we all just need to enforce it...

AbovePrime.

How narrow minded of you to call me a piece of work for being an athiest.

Anyways back on topic, Volvo is the leader in safety.

XIS

I love this ignore list... It just says "some moron posted, but since you understand he is a moron and since his posts have no value whatsoever, you are successfully ignoring them"


WOO HOO !!! Talk about a reduction in aggravation. Just ignore the idiots and this forum improves by leaps and bounds....

MMike1981

i second that. ignore is a nice feature.

i must say tho pics of the rear-end of the volvo bending like that, very cool stuff. I never would have thought thats how it would look if a wagon got rear-ended, looks like they are doing something right back there.

sasair

Thread closed.

If you all want to continue discussing Volvo safety, take it to Car Talk....