Saab have decided to film their crash safety team testing out their new Saab 9-5’s safety systems in the form of a head-on crash test. What better way is there, right? They pitted two cars against each other to collide head on at 60km/h. Watch the video above and check out the front ends of the two cars turn into what can only be described as a mess of crushed metal. But if you look a little closer, you’ll notice that the passenger area is relatively intact. The video is educational in a way that it shows you what kind of data crash test engineers actually look at after a car has been smashed. Or at least that’s what Saab makes it out to be.
Look after the jump for a full gallery of the Saab 9-5.
[zenphotopress number=99 album=457]
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
nice car with cool crash test
Looking forward to this SAAB 9-5 ~! =)
conclusion:
sweedish chicks are hawd.
hahaha….. agreed…….
Been to Stockholm and Gothensburg.. if you like tall blondes with curves and “big” on the right places that the place to go.. yumm
Swedes are kind people too :)
another awesome product from Saab, too bad it’s not popular in Malaysia…
Never heard also….
if only all proton and perodua comes with these basic safety features… then more lives will be spared, just like recent accident in cheras.
That is not their top priority. Making $$ is the most important.
This is because goverment don’t enforce law to make ABS and airbags compulsory for every new cars sold in Malaysia. So think about that, people want to buy new cars at most affordable price by giving up these features, which is more expensive.
Yes. They should be the minimum requirement. But you know lah, some people need cheap transportation because our world class public transport system :roll: … every knows the story lah.
Another way to counter this is by having insurance premiums based on risk. More safety features, less premiums. More risky driver, more premiums. I’ve heard about this loooooong time already. But nothing has came out so far.
:(
No, everyone should drive a car with a minimum safety standard. If you see all the New Car Assessment programmes, Extra ratings are given for active safety. Things like ESP and ESC (see below) A holistic approach is needed to road safety. Also, good efficient public transport will reduce the number of vehicles on the road, the road design should be changed with crash absorbing barriers etc and resurfacing of accident prone areas. A crash test is only one component (although a very important one) of road safety
I remember MIROS crash tested a perodua vehicle – can’t remember into a back of a lorry – The speed was too slow into a back end off a truck – this is a much better way to do a crash test and also it’s offset, concentrating stress on one part of the car? I wonder if MIROS is really serious about crash testing – it’s a government body after all.
wats d safety rating for this car?
Wow.. that’s 120kph on contact… Most cars on the road cannot tahan that in malaysia.
I might be wrong. Didnt on audio to listen. XD Issit, 30kph each? Or 60kph each?
SAAB havent arrive at sabah yet.. to bad,,
each car move at 60kph before crash. equal crash at 120kph?
not so fast, according to mythbuster, its not true.it still a crash at 60kph.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-JGIYLZZUg
Spot on!
From Newton’s 3rd Law, both identical cars at 60 kph exert the same force but at opposing direction. So, for easier understanding, you can assume that the demonstration is equivalent to one 9-5 hitting a heavy wall at 60 kph with 50% frontal collision.
In my opinion, they have just wasted a proper 9-5 just to verify a known phenomon.
I don’t think it’s a waste. The way a wall would deform during an impact would be totally different from a car, because of crumple zones and etc. You have to take into account all of that too when you design your car’s crash safety zones. Crashing things into a wall is fine but you also have to test crash compatibility with other objects that you might find on the roads.
agreed….one cannot just simply add up…mythbusters had put this to test b4..
Can our local car producer provide this kinda crash test results to the public…..
T-T
Read newspaper. Normally the passenger won’t come out alive. :-(
60kph head-to-head ngan 60kph TAK create total impact 120kph.
women driver = women “engineer”
Hai yah… ask your physic teacher lah about ‘moment and inertia’ subject!
Nice to have for malaysian car… at least shows how savy ratings compares to persona or waja
when Proton going to conduct this kind of test for their Saga/Persona/Waja….
thanks paul for the video… if it wasnt for the girl, i wouldnt even press play… dont really care about the crash though..lol
60kmh. combing impact 120km/h
If that was the case, certainly impressive
No bucking of the passenger compartment and the doors all open properly
They must have made many more simulation, but only this shown, which the probability to happen is 0 (I guess). Actually car on car heads on should be the most unsevere, because modern car design has better front absorption especially. But what happend when cars were spinning and hit solid post/tree at middle… broke into 2 lah, and the passangers sprawled. Why? Because while structurally modern cars were made stronger, they’re also heavier which made their momentum of collision larger.
Ah… just like uncle sams SUVs, they mourned for lack of impact safety, especially for self impact (vs solid things).
While true, you are also making this overly simplified. Stronger does not necessary mean heavier. Uncle Sam’s SUVs were horrible for impact protection is simply because those vehicles are classified as “trucks” and they dont have normal passenger car safety standards applied, although the trend is changing.
Obviously there is an emphasis on head on collision for the simple fact that the combined force can be potentially higher.
They do also have side impact test in case you have forgotten.
Most of the injury of side impacts are passengers actually hitting the insides of the car in the impact. Injuries can be mitigated by side and curtain airbags, but sadly, the Forte 2.0 is the ONLY car with those under $100k, with the $114k 308 Turbo being close.
A force enough to “break into 2” usually is a death sentence for the occupants anyway. If that were to happen, you are going waaaaay to quickly for your own good in the first place.
As far as my observation, there’s almost no case in wieght reduction from model to model change, until very recently with introduction of ultra thin higher tensile steel.
Thats why I spoke it in general, not special case, cuz special means for those small no. of target people only.
But technically speaking, higher tensile means less ductile…
Want both, pay more. Read BMW-F10 development how tough the production process is, so cost up. Premium car can afford la, but mainstream?
that’s one nice saab gone
4G63tDSM, what u say is true. A friend of my friend had this kinda experience when his car skidded at NSE causing the car to spin and hit the guardrail really hard. Luckily, for God sake, the car he is driving was an old Volvo fitted with side curtain…and all his kids on board escape with no serious injuries…Can’t remember the series though…but when the time you need them most, then you’ll eppreciate it regardless how much you are paying extra per month…but in this case, it is an used old volvo..
Volvo- For Life..and it may be true too..
my dad’s friend was hit on the driver’s side by a speeding car but he survived with minimal injuries.He was driving a volvo 244 and this was in the 80’s.so it’s not only the airbags/ABS/VSC that count but also the sructural integrity of the vehicle. I ‘d rather be in an old volvo with no airbags than a small tin-can car with airbags.
yeah…proton should look into volvo’s technology…the old volvo not the new models…i love the old volvo…i own a 1989 740GLE…i would be happy to hit any car with this tank…hahaha
Do you know that guard rail itself is intended to absorb crash, although the one used in Malaysia is among the least safest one (compared to developed country)?
Thats why the rail crumpled, and it looked like it was badly hit.
There’ve been public cry last time on our guard rail design, with many fatal cases it should have been guarded.
So that judgement is I guess not so relevant to the case of hitting SOLID things, with almost no deformation, where 100% of the impact being distributed thruout the poor car.
Also, I’m against the idea of having bigger&heavier car. If the world can put a dead end on this… but who can stop egos of the riches.
Cuz no matter how good a small car being design for safety, when it ‘fight’ against bigger car, sure it will lose. Just look at how kancils being sardin-ed by the lorries (at the most extent case)
You don’t need just a volvo to be safe. If the government just makes a rule or law which mandates ESP (Electronic stability program) or ESC (Electronic Stability Control) as standard in all cars just like the European Union it would cut fatal accidents by 40%. Do a google search. Malaysia is not serious about vehicle safety. Many car companies are ensuring that ESC and ESP is available as standard across their vehicle range, and in some markets like the EU and Australia virtually every vehicle for sale has ESP or ESC as standard. A survey was done amongst car manufacturers and ESP / ESC costs just EU 200 (Probably around RM 800) extra to cost of making a car ? The technology is there, but the political will is not. This is Malaysia, who cares?
If the law applies, P1 best seller will be eradicated and will die standing compared to P2 or others.
There is another report that says ESP is actually bad. It makes drivers feel they are fantastics drivers and pushing the car to its limits. Actually, the ESP is doing all the work trying to keep the driver from losing control.
When physics finally wins over ESP… all the Schumacher wannabe will realise they are really lousy drivers.
i want her job…really…
i bet with my 10 months salary…she isnt the one who doing the job…in fact, maybe she isnt really understand wth she doing for the test…wtf….