Date:         Tue, 7 Oct 2003 15:57:07 -0700
Reply-To:     Alistair Bell <albell@UVIC.CA>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Alistair Bell <albell@UVIC.CA>
Subject:      Re: Car Talk Vanagon caller
Comments: To: Andrew Fox <afox@cnr.colostate.edu>
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSO.4.44.0310071531110.15270-100000@neota>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

As a point of reference...

check out the tech paper on my website for a more thorough analysis of this.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/albell/vantech.html


Alistair

--
'82 Westy -> diesel converted to gas in '94
albell@uvic.ca
http://members.shaw.ca/albell



on 7/10/03 2:46 pm, Andrew Fox wrote:

>> Funny, except that the boys indicated that the Vanagon wasn't very safe
>> and was worth "not a cent"   I sent them an email on the safety rating
>> of the Vanagon and the small but highly active resale market for these
>
> According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration the
> Vanagon rates lowest (1 point) on a 4 point scale for Frontal Impact
> Safety, refernece: http://www.crashtest.com/explanations/archive/crash.htm
>
> I think that many assume that the Vanagon is very safe because of the
> famous Swedish insurance company head on crash test:
> http://www.251.org/volvocrash.html.  I think it is clear from the photos
> of that crash test that the vanagon suffered less frontal damage because
> it rode up over the hood of the Volvo.  This is likely because the
> vangagon has more ground clearance in the front than the volvo.
> Obviously, this "ride on top" effect may not always happen in all
> collisions.  It is clear from looking at the front of a Vanagon that there
> is a very minimal crumple zone protecting the front seat passengers.
> Also note that the Swedish insurance company's safety ratings are probably
> based on comparisons with other Swedish vehicles and U.S. standards are
> probably different.