[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main Other Cars Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: GMC Yukon XL Posted by Snowmobile [Email]  (#686)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Snowmobile) on Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:17:17
In Reply to: Re: GMC Yukon XL, vvk, Wed, 17 Jul 2019 19:34:40 Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup |
In terms of passive testing, the 2 big additions since SAAB was producing cars are roof strength and the small overlap frontal testing. I agree, testing like this is making the average car way safer. That said, the average car was pretty bad before. Eg for roof strength, SAAB and Volvo from the 80's easily would pass (remember the Volvo ad with a crane and 7 volvos stacked, or Jeremy Clarkson's ode to SAAB stunt, see link below), whereas the average car (or even expensive eg BMW) would not:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1Z284Fv0cc
Saab (and afaik, Volvo also) conducted much more thorough in house safety testing than was required at the time, so they were very far ahead of the curve. Some of the major iihs tests came from testing that originated at SAAB/Volvo. The goal was to make the cars actually safe rather than just pass the test (eg the Toyota Rav4 (iirc) where they initially only upgraded the drivers side with features to pass the low overlap frontal). As you say, passing the test can even be to the detriment of overall safety. The example for me are the giant (usually active) headrests that block view when checking blind spots... they used to have a headrest measurement spec in iihs testing... og9-5 active headrests are amazing because you can actually see around them! Few probably realize but c900 headrests were also specifically designed to reduce whiplash injuries, but they were supposed to cradle the lower part of the head and neck, not just support the back of the head. Of course, such a design doesn't pass the iihs measurement test, but the overall level of safety is quite good, especially considering you can see around them.
So I agree with you, but I wonder if the passive differences between 2019 and 1999 are not especially pronounced for SAABs whereas they absolutely are for many other brands that needed to be forced to improve. One way to get an idea of this is to look at something like Folksam. The latest info I could find was from 2017 and the og9-5 was still at least 20% safer than the average car. Not bad considering it is now 10 years out of production (and 20+ years on the design), but this has been typical of SAABs over the years in these kinds of reports. Their safety program was way ahead of the curve.
, Sun, 14 Jul 2019 16:21:10, Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:12:20, Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:13:34
, Mon, 22 Jul 2019 10:01:04, Wed, 17 Jul 2019 08:40:21, Sat, 20 Jul 2019 07:17:17 <-- Viewing This Message, Wed, 17 Jul 2019 17:33:58, Sat, 20 Jul 2019 18:01:00
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
