Thread: Crash test. Discovery Vs Renault

The results are as I expected but I wonder just how many people buy a car for its safety?

Would you want to drive an Espace? (Not that it's sold here.)

Or any modern Renault?

what years were the two cars?

When you consider that a D1 is really an old RRC designed in 1969 or thereabouts then it is understandable.

The D2 takes safety a bit more seriously with seatbelt pretensioners, and better designed seats, as well as the wombat bar in front.

The result is as expected but seeing you won't be hitting an Espace in Australia, then the Disco will still come off better hitting say a Mazda3, and if you hit at 100Kmh you are both dead anyway. Note they hit at 40MPH.
Regards Philip A

Just another jibe at 4wds really. To be accurate why would they not use 2 vehicles of the same year? Incorporating the latest safety features of both... Like use a D4? why? because they know the results would be quite different to what they want to portray And as Phillipe said try it at 100kmh and see, both dead!
Cheers Scott

Originally Posted by p38arover

The results are as I expected but I wonder just how many people buy a car for its safety?

Would you want to drive an Espace? (Not that it's sold here.)

Or any modern Renault?

**** yeah ..... Can you make mine a clio sport or maybe a Megane 225.

You guys are missing the point of the test. A lot of people go buy an old **** tank 'cos they think it's far safer than a car. That is quite an old renault... yes it cuts a path of destruction through the traditional ladder style chassis 4wd.

The modern 4wds will probably squish the renault ... they have the same high tensile steel crash members ... but 3tons of mementum to squish the other car with. It's like crashing into a medium rigid truck.

Have a look at single vehicle accident statistics. If your driving a **** tank, your far more likely to cartwheel it down the road, the roof structure squishes and poeple die.

Choose your poison and go with it I'd take a modern car anyday. Take my wifes tediously boring ****ty poogoe 407. No headroom, monster size pillars that could easily hide a Bdouble truck. Yet if it ever ends up on it's roof, you can be pretty confident it'll not collapse like a wet paper bag.

seeya,
Shane L.

I don't think it was a fair fight but had some interesting points.


I never knew the bar across the front of the chassis was part of the crash safety. Makes me wonder what a filthy bull bar does then. As he said the D1 crushed all the softer parts but add a bull bar and all the softer parts become one bit hard bit behind it. I know this then could make it worse because there is no crumple zone to absorb the impact.


I am also interested in what difference the length of the chassis would make. I have recently been looking at a bit of a project of a cross between an FJ40 and a D2. I love the simplicity and the look of the FJ40 but like the traction control and coil sprung D2 so I thought maybe I could put a FJ40 on a D2 Chassis. What I found was the D2 chassis is less than 300mm longer although the whole vehicle is much longer. It didn't take much thought but the FJ40 chassis runs out past the front of the body for the front of the leaf spring mounts and then the bumper is further past that however the D2 chassis ends at or about the radiator. The bull bar on the D2 actually reaches back to mount on the end of the chassis. The rear is much the same with the plastic bumper making up for the last near 200mm of the vehicle. That got me thinking about how the D2 would fend in an accident. Minus a bull bar, any front impact will almost immediately take out the radiator and bonnet. A rear impact has nothing but plastic before the rear door is hit. I suspect D2s would be written off pretty quickly. On the other hand the chassis of a FJ40 is a pretty vulnerable if it were to hit something solid but my money would be on a FJ40 chassis over modern tin.


Happy Days.

Originally Posted by joel0407

I don't think it was a fair fight but had some interesting points.


I never knew the bar across the front of the chassis was part of the crash safety. Makes me wonder what a filthy bull bar does then. As he said the D1 crushed all the softer parts but add a bull bar and all the softer parts become one bit hard bit behind it. I know this then could make it worse because there is no crumple zone to absorb the impact.


I am also interested in what difference the length of the chassis would make. I have recently been looking at a bit of a project of a cross between an FJ40 and a D2. I love the simplicity and the look of the FJ40 but like the traction control and coil sprung D2 so I thought maybe I could put a FJ40 on a D2 Chassis. What I found was the D2 chassis is less than 300mm longer although the whole vehicle is much longer. It didn't take much thought but the FJ40 chassis runs out past the front of the body for the front of the leaf spring mounts and then the bumper is further past that however the D2 chassis ends at or about the radiator. The bull bar on the D2 actually reaches back to mount on the end of the chassis. The rear is much the same with the plastic bumper making up for the last near 200mm of the vehicle. That got me thinking about how the D2 would fend in an accident. Minus a bull bar, any front impact will almost immediately take out the radiator and bonnet. A rear impact has nothing but plastic before the rear door is hit. I suspect D2s would be written off pretty quickly. On the other hand the chassis of a FJ40 is a pretty vulnerable if it were to hit something solid but my money would be on a FJ40 chassis over modern tin.


Happy Days.

I think your coming at this from the wrong perspective You don't want a car that doesn't bend ..... everyone inside will die if it's in an accident. The safest structure is one that progressively disintegrates. Modern cars obliterate themselves when they crash. Yet the passenger compartment is usually untouched and the doors still open so the person can walk away.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx5JpY9DM_k[/ame]

have you ever seen the crash test of the chinese ladder chassis 4wd. statistically most accidents are offset frontal. The "soft parts" beside the chassis just disolve.

compared to a well made monocoque pretend 4wd

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoENbWQFE_I[/ame]

checkout the rear facing isofix seats in the back.... the side intrusion test is brutal! The ladder syle 4wds body would get destroyed if hit in the side. That Ovlov is actually deeply impressive :O

Oh no. I am fully aware of the need for the impact to be absorbed. Hence my comment about no crumple zone making the impact worse.


My comments on the D2 v FJ40 are just about damage to the vehicle. Knowing bending the chassis would be worse than a couple of replaceable bent panels. I know each crash is different but basically any impact to the front or rear of a D2 will result in damage needing repair and possibly rendering the vehicle undrivable. A minor, say FJ40 front to side of a modern vehicle, I think we'd see the steel bumper and chassis tear into soft panels of a modern vehicle and receive very little damage if any to itself. On the other hand the FJ40 into something solid with even minimal speed could see the chassis bent and the vehicle a write off.


Safety wise, I have no doubt the D2 would fair the best by far. Something I have noticed is of any of the D2s I have seen rolled (online images only) none seem to end with the roof collapsing where Toyotas all seem to collapse .


Happy Days.