If you've been following my blog for any length of time, you probably know that 1980s French cars, especially Peugeots, were death traps. But surely the Germans and Swedish were at the cutting edge of safety, right? Well, it depended on the manufacturer you were talking about.
Only Volvo and Mercedes-Benz were truly consistent in offering above-average safety during the era. The fleetwide average for injury risk in the NHTSA full frontal test for 1982-1985 passenger cars was 34% for drivers and 24% for passengers.
For premium European cars - defined by the brands Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Volvo, SAAB, Peugeot, and Merkur - it was 34% and 21% - pretty much the exact same. (The NHTSA full-frontal crash test was the only consumer comparison crash test done in the 1980s, so all injury risks given are from that test)
Mercedes-Benz
Mercedes famously was willing to accept average NHTSA full-frontal scores due to their super-rigid bodies optimized for offset crashes, and their three tests over the course of the 1980s reflect that.
The Mercedes W123 - tested as a 1980-model 240D - had a severe injury risk of 48% for the driver and 49% for the passenger (fleetwide average for 1980: 51% / 48%). It did have a super-strong body structure with very little intrusion into the occupant compartment, a rarity for 1980.
The Mercedes W126 was tested as a 1984 model with the optional SRS system (driver airbag and dual front seat belt pretensioners) - the first vehicle NHTSA ever tested with an airbag (and the only airbag-equipped vehicle tested that year). Its severe injury risks were 32% for driver and 15% for passenger (fleetwide average for 1984: 32% / 28%). It's a lot better in reality than on paper for this car, though. That elevated driver injury risk was caused by high chest G's, but the airbag spreads loads throughout the chest, meaning that the 63 chest G's would have been far less harmful than 63 chest G's with only a seat belt. The driver HIC of 890, while little better than average, has the same effect; the airbag eliminates head contact and spreads the loads out. Overall the actual driver injury risk would have likely been closer to 20% - much higher than modern vehicles, but very good by 1980s standards.
The W201, tested as a 1990 model 190E, is included in this comparison because results would likely apply all the way back to 1986 (when the W201 got the SRS system standard). The 28% driver and 27% passenger injury risks are, again, right at the fleetwide average (29% / 26%), but again, the use of a steering wheel airbag and seat-belt pretensioners means that in reality, this vehicle would be safer than a seat-belt only vehicle, which still made up the vast majority of vehicles tested in the 1990 model year.
BMW
Only one BMW was tested in the 1980s: the 1985 model 3-Series (E30). With a severe injury risk of 62% for the driver and 9% for the passenger, it was already significantly worse than the 47% / 33% average for 1985 (which was already anomalously bad compared to surrounding years). The A-pillars and doors buckled and there was substantial occupant compartment intrusion, as well as significant upward steering wheel movement. It's widely claimed that BMW was almost as safe as Volvo or Mercedes in the 1980s, but their safety excellence clearly didn't extend to their smallest model. The next generation of BMWs - the E32 7-series (1987-1994), the E34 5-series (1989-1996), and the E36 3-series (1992-1998) were far safer than their 1980s counterparts.
Audi
NHTSA tested 5 Audis throughout the 1980s, and they were actually less safe than average for their time - until they made a dramatic improvement toward the end of the decade, culminating in the best score NHTSA had ever seen. A large portion of this improvement was due to Audi's introduction of the procon-ten safety system and airbags.
Audi's early-1980s core lineup, consisting of the B2 4000 (1980-1986) and C2 5000 (1978-1983) were near average for their era on safety. The 1980-model 4000 had severe injury risks of 64% and 57% and the 1981-model 5000, 51% and 19%; the fleetwide average for 1980 was 51% and 48%. Both vehicles showed average structural performance for their era, with too much intrusion into the occupant compartment but no collapse.
The C3 5000 (1984-1991) may have looked ten years newer than it was, but early models were shockingly deficient on safety. NHTSA tested an '85, and the risk of severe injury to the driver was 91%, while the passenger did very well with just a 7% risk (the fleetwide average for 1985 was 47% and 33%). While the structure held up reasonably well, the steering column moved upward, allowing a driver HIC of 2,105.
The next generation of Audis did far better. The B3 4000 was renamed the 80, while later C3 5000s were renamed 100. Both were tested as 1989 models. The 80 had a severe injury risk of 14% for driver and 8% for passenger; the 100 had a risk of 4% for driver and 10% for passenger. The 100 did so well that its driver injury risk was the best ever recorded in the then 11-year history of the test program. The fleetwide average for 1989 models was 31% / 28%. Both had the procon-ten safety system as standard, while the 100 also added a driver airbag.
In effect, both Audi and BMW went through "safety revolutions" in the late 1980s.
Merkur
For the uninitiated, Merkur was a Ford brand, active from 1984-1989, that sold two models - the XR4Ti and Scorpio - that were federalized versions of cars made by Ford of Germany. Since they were designed and manufactured in Germany and sold at premium price points, I count them. The XR4Ti - a version of the Ford Sierra - was the only one of the two crash-tested, as a 1985 model. With a driver injury risk of 30% and passenger injury risk of 58%, it was slightly worse than the fleetwide average of 47% / 33%.
Volvo
As widely known - and mentioned earlier - Volvo was a masterclass on safety in the 1980s. NHTSA tested 5 Volvos throughout the decade, and all did extremely well for the time. The 1982 model 240 they tested had severe injury risks of 12% for each occupant, setting a new record at the time (1982 fleetwide average: 30% / 25%). The then-new, larger 760 was tested the next year with risks of 17% for driver and 15% for passenger (1983 fleetwide average: 35% / 31%).
A pair of 240s were tested for 1985: the wagon had a 9% risk for the driver, and the sedan a 10% risk for the driver; both had an almost unbelievably low 4% risk for the passenger. To put that into perspective, both 1985-model 240s got 5 stars for both occupants under the standards that remained in effect until 2010, and bested even some of the safest cars from the 2000s such as the 8th generation Honda Accord in front passenger protection. A 240 is nowhere near as safe overall as an 8th gen Accord (the design is 33 years older!) but to beat it in an individual crash test says a lot about how far ahead the 240 was on safety. Fleetwide average for 1985 was 47% / 33% risks.
The final 1980s Volvo test, the 1988 model 740, also got 5 stars for both occupants with a driver severe injury risk of 10% and passenger severe injury risk of 9% (fleetwide average: 35% / 19%). This 740 had a driver airbag and was the only 1988-model vehicle tested that earned 5 stars for both occupants.
SAAB
SAAB was overall above average on safety, but a big step below their chief rival Volvo. Four SAABs, two 900s and two 9000s, were tested in the 1980s.
The first SAAB tested was the 1982-model 900, which had a 12% risk of injury to the driver and 30% for the passenger (fleetwide average: 30% / 25%), somewhat better than average for the time, especially for a 1979 design.
The 9000 debuted for the 1986 model year, and its initial test was a disaster: 41% injury risk for the driver and 55% for the passenger, despite a solid structure and one of the first seat belt pretensioner systems. The reason is that the front seats broke loose, allowing the occupants to hit the steering wheel and dashboard with great force. Saab fixed the problem for the very next year, and the '87 model scored an impressive 9% risk for the driver and 7% for the passenger, making it among the safest vehicles tested that year (fleetwide average: 37% / 23%).
Unfortunately, the 1988-model 900, now in its tenth year of the design, was no better than average for its time. With a driver injury risk of 15% and a passenger injury risk of 37%, it was near the fleetwide average of 35% / 19%, just with the driver and passenger risks flip-flopped. While the 900's structural performance was good, it had an issue with the passenger's head moving too far forward and hitting the dash.
Peugeot
Longtime viewers of this blog will know that Peugeot's safety was a disaster through the 1980s. NHTSA tested the 505 - Peugeot's best-selling model - 4 times throughout the 1980s. And while the first version was surprisingly safe for a Peugeot, the other three had horrendous performance.
After the 504 disaster, the 1983-model 505 saw amazing improvement. A driver injury risk of 20% and passenger injury risk of 34% compared favorably with that year's fleetwide average of 35% / 31%.
The 1987-model 505 was far less safe than the 1983. While the 1983 had manual belts, the 1987 had a very badly designed automatic belt system that tore loose from its anchorage. Combined with excessive intrusion into the cabin, it earned an 85% risk of driver injury and an 80% risk for the passenger. NHTSA re-tested the 505 for 1988, and it still did terribly, with a 78% driver risk and a 57% passenger risk. A third test was done for 1989, and the results were the worst of all, with a staggering 91% driver risk and 96% passenger risk. (Fleetwide average was 37% / 23% for '87, 35% / 19% for '88 and 31% / 28% for '89)
The 1987-model 505 was among the worst cars tested that year; only the Volkswagen Fox and Nissan Sentra were worse. Those models saw dramatic improvements for '88, leaving the 505 as the worst-performing passenger car that year; only the Chevy van and Isuzu pickup were worse (and pickup trucks, vans and SUVs were subjected to far lower safety standards than cars until the early 1990s). For 1989, the 505 was the worst performing vehicle in any class.
Peugeot also began selling a smaller model, the 405, in the USA for the 1989 model year (released in Europe first as an '88 model). While it was never subjected to a frontal test, in a 30-mph rear test, it leaked fuel as bad as the infamous Ford Pinto - and suffered severe intrusion into the occupant compartment that the Pinto didn't have in a similar test. Since the 405 is larger than the Pinto, and the barrier is the same size for each vehicle, this means the 405 had it easier than the Pinto - meaning that in reality, the 405 was far more unsafe in rear collisions than the Pinto, a design that was already 17 years older and already infamous for its horrible level of safety in rear-end collisions even for a 1971 economy car.
Comments
Post a Comment