Date:         Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:12:56 +1300
Reply-To:     Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Andrew Grebneff <andrew.grebneff@STONEBOW.OTAGO.AC.NZ>
Subject:      Re: Car Talk Vanagon caller
In-Reply-To:  <Pine.GSO.4.44.0310071531110.15270-100000@neota>
Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii

>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.

I have looked closely at the photos. I can see no evidence that the
van ran over the Volvo's front. The Volvo's entire front end is
GONE... evidence that it was pushed in, not run over.

This has also come through in several postings by listees who have
hit or been hit by US cars & vans and totalled them, with only minor
damage to their Type 2s.
--
Regards
Andrew