2018 Jeep Wrangler - 1 Star Euro NCAP rating.

One can't simply look at the deformation of a Vehicle

My understanding is that a car crash can sends a shock wave of energy through the vehicle and everything in it. And this shock wave can and often shatter bones, rupture internal organs, strain muscles, and sprain joints. Many times cause internal bleeding.

I will aruge it is smart for the energy to be absorbed by the car. At least it seems that's how the car industry believe

If defender is safer than average car, we will surely have solid cast iron billet 10Tons SUV for soccer Mons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozscott

I was waiting for someone to chime in with the Renault Espas.

Several things. It was a D1. D2 is far stronger with outer steel shell for doors and bonnet etc and many other changes. D2 was crash tested and did well despite its heavy weight.

The D1 was old and out of a wreckers. Knowing the salted roads over there the chassis was probably weakened by rust on the inside. A single rail does not have to carry all the burden of a decent bull bar is used so in an offset crash a bull bar helps distribute the load over both rails. This D1 didn’t have that advantage.

Air bags disabled it seems.

It was being crashed into a heavy vehicle.

I have seen D2, Deefer , RRC in real world crashes. There is a reason Monash when evaluating real world crash data rate then as having good crash protection for their occupants.

Cheers

---

I too wondered how rust riddled the D1 may have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by martnH

It's a bit of ad hoc analysis. I.e. you can always manipulate data to prove/suggest your point.

The question if defined, should be:
If a defender is involved in a Fatal crash with another vehicle, how likely is the driver and passengers of the defender be alive.

This is the question of interest. The result you quotes has a lot of noise as there maybe a lot of low speed small crashes involved a defender as defender drivers usually don't/can't speed.

Cheers

---

I don't know where this information came from (I can't remember, I found it a long time ago), but it's unlikely the person who put it together was trying to push a pro-Defender agenda so I'd suggest manipulation of the data for such a purpose is unlikely.

As to the data being noisy, yes - potentially; although I would find it hard to believe that the nature of Defender (and, I guess, Land Cruiser) two-car crashes is so different to other vehicles as to influence the percentages that drastically. You may be right though.

Defenders (and Land Cruisers and Wranglers, I suppose) are just slow and heavy; that makes them very safe... for the occupants, at least. It seems the crash safety ratings are just not a good reflection of reality for heavier vehicles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

The Discovery 2004-2009 got a four star rating, while later Discos got 5 stars. I couldn't find an earlier rating.
BTW the FAQs about the ratings make some very interesting points. For example, a bullbar can cause occupants to suffer greater injuries because it does not crumple to absorb the impact forces. So we are more likely to die if our vehicle has a bullbar.
Also, smaller vehiclican be safer than larger vehicles if the smaller vehicle crumples more than the larger vehicle.
In a crash between a rigid larger vehicle and a smaller vehicle which crumples more, the occupants of the smaller vehicle may be more likely to survive.
Interesting.
Crash Test Results | Crash Test Ratings | Crash Tests | ANCAP

---

Small cars are crumple zones for heavy rigid cars...so heavy one achieves it's reduced deceleration. The small cars crumple zone works well....until it runs out and the heavy rigid 4wd rips past the fabric of the air bags and the fully deformed crumple zones. If you want an example of that there was a thread on here of a D3 being struck in a full frontal by a near new A4 at vers high speed...incredible. The A4 exploded onto tiny pieces. D3 looked intact...very little damage. D3 occupants minor injuries. Police pulling bits of A4 driver body parts out of d3 roof rack...

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozscott

Small cars are crumple zones for heavy rigid cars...so heavy one achieves it's reduced deceleration. The small cars crumple zone works well....until it runs out and the heavy rigid 4wd rips past the fabric of the air bags and the fully deformed crumple zones. If you want an example of that there was a thread on here of a D3 being struck in a full frontal by a near new A4 at vers high speed...incredible. The A4 exploded onto tiny pieces. D3 looked intact...very little damage. D3 occupants minor injuries. Police pulling bits of A4 driver body parts out of d3 roof rack...

Cheers

---

HORRIFIC ACCIDENT WITH A D3 IN SOUTH AFRICA

Brutal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

BTW the FAQs about the ratings make some very interesting points. For example, a bullbar can cause occupants to suffer greater injuries because it does not crumple to absorb the impact forces. So we are more likely to die if our vehicle has a bullbar.

---

But that's why you are supposed to install only air bag compliant bull bars and they are mounted on crush cans.

And why you shouldn't jack and snatch off a crush can mounted bull bar.

Looking at the results, i don't think any of them will be statistically significant. I.e. any significant difference between the comparing vehicles


Also check out the top right corner. You still reckon the person is not "pro-defender"?

I think I have said enough. I don't have anything else to add. I drove the defender and I am aware of the danger I faced. I also have adequate income protection and life insurance so I have well taken care of the risk.

I was actually thinking about this when renewing my insurance. Should my insurance company know I drive a defender?

Will they lower my premium? Or will they increase my premium. They hired statisticians and have good database. I bet they know real life if the defender is any safe


Cheers
Martin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dervish

I don't know where this information came from (I can't remember, I found it a long time ago), but it's unlikely the person who put it together was trying to push a pro-Defender agenda so I'd suggest manipulation of the data for such a purpose is unlikely.

As to the data being noisy, yes - potentially; although I would find it hard to believe that the nature of Defender (and, I guess, Land Cruiser) two-car crashes is so different to other vehicles as to influence the percentages that drastically. You may be right though.

Defenders (and Land Cruisers and Wranglers, I suppose) are just slow and heavy; that makes them very safe... for the occupants, at least. It seems the crash safety ratings are just not a good reflection of reality for heavier vehicles.

---

Martin Deefers open up or crush when rolled but are very strong in head ons. You can speculate but if you have seen them do so it's easy to see that you are safe. I saw photos of one hit a H3 head on. Not a good day out for the H3...

Cheers

A seatbelt and an airbag will most times save your butt as will something solid like a full chassis will stop an oncoming car going right through you.
Why do you think that the most reliable 4WD's have full chassis and live axels, Maybe its because they can survive harsh conditions and brutal treatment over and over again including running over bushes and trees when off road.
Give me a substantial 3t 4WD anytime over one of them ****ant little 800kg buzz box city cars any day in a prang despite their crush panel design[bigwhistle]

I agree with the comment above that my Defender should be reasonable in a head on crash, but would crush if rolled.
If I was going to crash either of our vehicles head-on into something rigid I would choose our Mazda 2 every time because of its airbags and five star rating. The Mazda would be a write-off, but I'd feel more likely to survive. The Defender might be repairable, but it's more likely I'd be dead.
Just my opinion.