Level VI Member
Join Date: Jan 2017
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 100 Post(s)
Feedback Score: 0 reviews
Out of curiosity I watched it. Of course he used a Volvo, a more expensive car that has touted its' safety record for centuries over other brands. Why they fully weld there. I would be curious to see the underside of the roof to compare the two front crossmembers, obvious differences there. Differences you choose to pay for or not when buying a car. Boron steel is nothing special, the Nissan likely uses HSS steel which is stronger but if not utilized in a full rock solid robust way it does not matter what steel is used there. He used the moonroof as a roof stiffener and knew it, but claims it was to test 'if the glass would break', comparing apples to oranges there, the two car roofs cannot be compared. What lawyers do best, twist facts around. Client rides in a Nissan but wants Volvo protection, see any issue there?
Yeah, they made a car that surpassed the test way back then, they also made Ford Pintos, look those up for the safety record there. I'd dare him to use a CURRENT Volvo, they have dropped in crash protection too. The car was picked for the strongest one at the roof they could get and then unfairly compared and what they do.
Cheap crackerbox cars ALWAYS give up some safety to lower the price and to help the overall vehicle production hit CAFE standards, one either gets that or they don't.
And tell me what % of wrecks involve objects from higher up off the ground striking up high like that? The numbers will be way low and why they risk it.