High safety ratings for small cars mean little in real world accidents.

[MAGPIE]

Originally Posted by Ugg

It's not a head on collision, its a purposeful frontal offset collision between a rear wheel drive and front wheel drive vehicle.

An FG falcon would have fared similarly.

I never said it was a head on collision, I said....

That is a standard crash test based on how head on collisions usually occur in the real world.

That is a fact, that is why they actually test them like that

[TC200six]

Originally Posted by Ugg

An FG falcon would have fared similarly.

Absolutely not.

Look at the toothpick A-pillars on that old Volvo. It's obviously not designed for offset tests, whereas the FG Falcon is. That's why A-pillars on cars have changed from being toothpicks to tree stumps over the last 20 years. It is to hold the cabin straight (preventing dashboard intrusion) while the soft area in front compacts.

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by TC200six

Absolutely not.

Look at the toothpick A-pillars on that old Volvo. It's obviously not designed for offset tests, whereas the FG Falcon is. That's why A-pillars on cars have changed from being toothpicks to tree stumps over the last 20 years. It is to hold the cabin straight (preventing dashboard intrusion) while the soft area in front compacts.

Yet you always hear people complain about thick A pillars, saying they block vision. I'd rather move my head a few centremetres to see traffic and keep the thick A pillars.

[flooded one]

roll cages!!!!

[zilo]

Originally Posted by TC200six

Absolutely not.

Look at the toothpick A-pillars on that old Volvo. It's obviously not designed for offset tests, whereas the FG Falcon is. That's why A-pillars on cars have changed from being toothpicks to tree stumps over the last 20 years. It is to hold the cabin straight (preventing dashboard intrusion) while the soft area in front compacts.

I probably didn't explain my contention adequately.

What I am saying is that the FG is also a rear wheel drive car with NS configuration, If the front wheel drive Renault used in that video were to crash its entire engine mass alongside the Ford engine then all the force would be presented directly to the suspension turret and very quickly to the cabin structure and face the same level of damage.

But...in a full frontal collision it would have been a much different outcome.

Yes full frontal and partial head on collisions do often occur on our roads but if you want to sensationalize and promote a particular car, in this case the Renault,then the best way is to devise an advantageous collision angle...(but be precise cause another 6 inches might ruin your "test")

If you could have enough attempts at it you could probably demolish a landcruiser with a Yaris by specifically designing the test angle to suit your outcome.

Make sure you remove the airbags and a couple of other big bits in the subframe area and your sponsorship is assured.