Insurance Institute Comments on Volvo Safety

[ChuckK]

See article on Insurance Institute's top ten safest cars at: http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/12/04/iihs_top_safety/index.html

Excerpt from the article:

The are some surprising omissions from the list of winners. There are no Volvos, for example, among the winners. Volvo, which is part of Ford Motor Company, has traditionally marketed its vehicles as being particularly safe.

"Volvo is lagging behind its competitors," said Russ Rader, a spokesman for the Institute. Other car companies with strong reputations for safety also did not have vehicles represented among the winners.

A spokesman for Volvo denied that the company's vehicles are any less safe than the Institute's top-rated vehicles.

"Not true," Dan Johnston, a Volvo spokesman, said of the notion that Volvo was "lagging" in safety.

"It's just a philosophy on safety that is different from building cars to pass these kinds of tests," he said.

The company's cars are extremely safe based on Volvo's own tests and they are built to protect occupants in real-world crashes, he said, which are more complex events than a crash test could reasonably reproduce. [End of excerpt]

I recall when I bought my 1995 Volvo 850, a Volvo factory engineer who managed the 850 design told me there was absolutely no excuse for any manufacturer's cars not doing well in all the independent tests. (The 850 did very well in both the U.S. government and the IIHS tests.) He said the test conditions are well known and manufacturers can design cars that will do well in the tests AND meet their own standards. (Who's to say that you couldn't have a real world accident that would be similar to the IIHS test?) At that time, he was critical of the response Mercedes had to a poor IIHS test result. Interestingly, the Volvo marketing guy is making exactly the same argument that Mercedes made back then.

This is not to say that Volvos are unsafe. But they have slipped relative to the competition, which hasn't been standing still on safety. You can read the Insurance Institute announcement at http://www.iihs.org/news/2005/pr120405.html

[Johno]

As an operational Firefighter with over 22 years attending Road Traffic Accidents I have seen at first hand the safety of Volvos and that is the very reason I own and drive one. When other makes such as ford, Vauxhall and others have sustained substantial damage resulting in major injuries to their occupants - or worse - the volvo occupants, yes sustained injuries, but nothing compared to the other vehicles.

[vtie]

I don't think Volvo has any significant advantage in crash tests anymore. The reason is simple: these days, safety has become a crucial marketing property of any car, and almost all car manufacturers are spending a lot of attention to this. In a sense, that's very good news of course. Safety considerations are right there where they belong: in the centre of the design of any car.

Whether Volvo still has the edge in "real-life" crashes as they claim is doubtfull as well, and it's almost impossible to verify. You can read all kinds of reports that sometimes simply contradict each other.

Personally, I'm more interested in looking for pro-active safety features: things that can avoid an accident. That's why I like 4WD, sufficient engine power, DSTC (fortunately a standard feature on Belgian XC70's), good tires and a car that handles well. That's why I think that big SUV's are intrinsically less safe: they are so bulky that you may not be able to get yourself out of a dangerous situation in time. If you risk to get crushed between two huge freight trucks, the added passive safety of an SUV or any other car won't help you at all. Your only chance it so be able to get out of that situation in time.

[al_roethlisberger]

I don't think Volvo has any significant advantage in crash tests anymore. The reason is simple: these days, safety has become a crucial marketing property of any car, and almost all car manufacturers are spending a lot of attention to this. In a sense, that's very good news of course. Safety considerations are right there where they belong: in the centre of the design of any car.

[snip]



I agree, I think that the baseline of most other manufacturers is high enough now that differentiating or identifying a particular brand as the most and consistently safety conscious is probably harder than a decade or more ago.

...and this is a good thing :cool:

What is interesting though, is that the top "gold" rated cars cited in this report are the Ford 500 and Mercury Montego(identical trim/badge engineered twins), that Ford *heavily* markets as having taken technology gleaned from Ford's Volvo division/partnership/blah-blah. When I test drove the Montego(nice car, underpowered transmission/power-plant), the fact that the safety features designed into the car came from the experience with Volvo was just about all the sales-guy could talk about.

I found that interesting, and if true... again, equals good-news for the consumer if safety technology is filtering down/out amongst the other makes.

But I do have to admit I was a bit surprised/disappointed not to see a single Volvo model in the list of "winners" :confused:



Al

[John@CdnRockies]

I think that Volvo is resting on its admittedly-wonderful past when it comes to safety. Our vehicle was equipped with DSTC but only because I was willing to pay for additional unwanted options. Faye's Mercedes, on the other hand, includes it as a standard feature.

I will give Volvo every credit for their past safety history, but I discount their current committment. It seems to me more biased towards generating additional sales than actually protecting the occupants.

This marketing nonsense about being "built for everyday circumstances, not test results" reminds me of my kids' excuses when they did poorly in a school exam. I sure wouldn't fall for that when paying C$50,000 for safety.

John

[al_roethlisberger]

I think that Volvo is resting on its admittedly-wonderful past when it comes to safety. Our vehicle was equipped with DSTC but only because I was willing to pay for additional unwanted options. Faye's Mercedes, on the other hand, includes it as a standard feature.

I will give Volvo every credit for their past safety history, but I discount their current committment. It seems to me more biased towards generating additional sales than actually protecting the occupants.

This marketing nonsense about being "built for everyday circumstances, not test results" reminds me of my kids' excuses when they did poorly in a school exam. I sure wouldn't fall for that when paying C$50,000 for safety.

John

Well, it does depend. The product I work on often has initial challenges with "Standardized" or "Competitive" testing, until we then look closely at the test, and often find that the test itself is flawed, and meeting its criteria doesn't represent the threats the real world presents. We often will then adjust/improve the product to excel at these tests, but it takes away valuable development time that honestly could be better spent on what we feel are real-world threats.

I know nothing about the safety test in question, but I do know that there are at least two different safety test standards, and they both have different criteria and resultant outcomes in ranking.

So, Volvo may still be exceedingly safe, perhaps as safe as any of these vehicles in real-world scenarios.... I really don't know though.

Owner testimonials are what really count, and I've read at least a couple here that were encouraging.

al

[SYS]

I think that Volvo is resting on its admittedly-wonderful past when it comes to safety. Our vehicle was equipped with DSTC but only because I was willing to pay for additional unwanted options. Faye's Mercedes, on the other hand, includes it as a standard feature.

I will give Volvo every credit for their past safety history, but I discount their current committment. It seems to me more biased towards generating additional sales than actually protecting the occupants.

This marketing nonsense about being "built for everyday circumstances, not test results" reminds me of my kids' excuses when they did poorly in a school exam. I sure wouldn't fall for that when paying C$50,000 for safety.

John

My exact thoughts. If the safety top gun Volvo is "built for everyday circumstances," why can't it do well (at least to make the list of good cars!!) in "test results"? Doesn't make any logical sense to me at all.... Are those "tests" computer simulations? What if you happen to get one of those "test" similar crash in real life? Is Volvo going to say, "well, sorry but you've got yourself a test-like crash unfortunately, but under other circumstances you wouldn't have broken so many bones in your body"??????

[vtie]

If you want to interpret these results, it's worth to dig a bit deeper into the details. One example: they don't seem to have tested the V70/XC70 at all! It does not appear in the list of cars you can get ratings for. The S80 is there, and has the best ratings for anything they tested. However, they did not test the side impact, so they did not include it into the overall ratings. The S60 has perfect ratings for everything, expect a single topic: an increased risk for leg injury at side impacts.

Really, there is a big risk in over-interpreting those data. It's in the human nature to reduce everything to numbers, ratings and rankings. I don't think you can capture something as subtle as car safety in such a primitive way.

Anyway, as I said before, I don't think Volvo has any significant advantage anymore in crash safety. And that is a clear sign that the market has evolved in a good direction.

[Jonliv]

Owner testimonials are what really count, and I've read at least a couple here that were encouraging.

al

Agreed, that is what I go by. And when I hear those stories, those are what make me glad I got a Volvo...

[SYS]

Well, I also like being encouraged. Who wouldn't after having spent $40,000 on a vehicle? :) But when it comes to something that carries my family (and yours), I'd be more comforted if Volvo makes the top of "safety tests" if not the top of "reliability tests."

I remember reading another institutional (perhaps by the same institution?) report regarding the number of deaths by car make that someone posted here some months ago. In that report, too, there was no mention of V70/XC70, but I distinctly remember being very disappointed with what I considered a rather high number of deaths (compared to other car makes like Toyota and Acura, someone correct me if I'm wrong) driven in S80.

Now, obviously this particular report wasn't based on a test, and yes, it can be opened to all sorts of interpretations that can be catered to one's own suitable personal conclusions, too. But, again, I'd not be a reasoning human being if I just shrug these mediocre reports that seem to contradict the time honored Volvo's safety reputation as mere anomalies of data and inexact science of interpretation.

Don't get me wrong, I love my XC70 (enough to dream about it at night!!), and if I had thought that it's not the best thing to carry my precious cargo, I wouldn't have spent $40,000 on it. But I think it's time to realize (rather than bathing in the PAST safety glory) that perhaps Volvo is just another decently safe car in the pack -- nothing more, nothing less.

And if this is the case, given Volvo's dubious records in terms of reliability, would you spend so much on your next car when another car make is as good or even better in safety but with a better record in reliability? I know I know... don't even bother answering.... just occurred to me I'm in a Volvo forum... :D

[howardc64]

Crash tests are now incorporatng side crash test. Curtain airbags improves the occupants head injury significantly in every article I came accross. I suppose head and upper torso internal injuries are probably what kills. 06 VW Jetta just earned a 5 star based on this feature. Honda Accords now comes with them standard as well. Audis has had them as long as the Volvos.

I agree all the other things matter too such as belt pretensioners, body construction etc.. These features are all filtering down to all models which is great for us consumers. It seems to be an easy fix to earn a better crash rating which all family car segments must compete on.

What is the next step in safety? So far, Volvo has shown us accident avoidance stuff with braking and balance features. What else is coming to keep Volvos in the lead? I've been looking into BMW wagons (most 000-03s don't have curtain airbags for the backseated kids) and they have fuel cut off + battery disengage whenever airbags disploy. Sounds good for preventing/minimizing electrical fires which also kills. Toyota Avalon (and I think other highend Euro brands) now has driver knee airbag to avoid getting really bag knee injuries (won't kill but probably let you have a better chance of walking better rest of your life) Third row seats are also becoming more and more popular. The 3rd row passengers takes on more forces during rear collisions than the front 2 rows. What can we do here besides trying to leave ample cargo room + real axel as barrier.

I do think others are catching us with the side + curtain airbags + pretentioners. I don't think it is fair to say Volvo is not in the top ten. But I think it is fair to say Volvo's differentiation is becoming smaller. Like to see Volvo push more to differentiate. Figuratively speaking, I certainly like the thought of my kids wrapped in airbags in the back seat :-) (I know improper airbags actually causes harm to them)

[littlewaywelt]

Figuratively speaking, I certainly like the thought of my kids wrapped in airbags in the back seat :-) (I know improper airbags actually causes harm to them)
Why doesn't Volvo include side impact airbags in the rear? They aren't as important?

[howardc64]

From the following article, it seems the forces for deploying the side air bag + proximity of the bags to the kids has the potential to cause more harm than good. 99-03 BMW 5 series wagon's rear side airbag is an option that can be disabled by the dealer.

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/ncap/airbags/pages/SABFAQs.htm

[birddog]

Read this from Volvo about the deductions made in this research.

a letter from clive (http://www.volvocars-pr.com/index.asp?mediaid=3379&menupar=newsroom&lang=1&flash=1&menuhighlight=hotoff)

[budrichard]

As a Nuclear Engineer whose expertise and training is in Nuclear Safety and Analysis, much of the analysis used can be applied to other areas. Volvo has consistantly had a commitment to safety and introduction of new safety features. Safety pervades their culture and design if you analyze how the vehicle works. SIPS is still a Volvo exclusive function I believe. A Volvo XC with DSTC is the safest vehicle in the world in a light passenger car. Safety equates to traction, handling, crash protection and drivability. Compare the size of a VW to a XC, which one do you want to be in a an accident? The other maufacturers are trying to design to an arbitrary vehicle testing standard that may or may not be real world. They are not independantly designing vehicles for safety. Volvo designs independantly for safety. The side warning system is an example.
Do you think a GM Hummer H2 or H3 is designed for safety? Safety is the last consideration for that design. The prime consideration was to make a vehicle look like a Hummer but for less money.
Park a Suburu next to a Volvo XC and you can immediately observe why the Suburu costs less, there simply is a lot less vehicle. The interior is crowded and cramped. My hunting buddy's wife purchased a Suburu because she didn't want to spend the money for the XC. When my Buddy goes hunting with me, he always remarks on the comfort of the XC. They finally purchased a Ford SUV for more room for my buddy because it was built on the same platform as the S80 and XC.
We own and drive 3 Volvo's, I would not drive anything else. -Dick

[ChuckK]

Read this from Volvo about the deductions made in this research.

a letter from clive (http://www.volvocars-pr.com/index.asp?mediaid=3379&menupar=newsroom&lang=1&flash=1&menuhighlight=hotoff)

This is a very disappointing letter, even down to the annoying capitalization of "Real World." It reads like a marketing response that GM would come up with. The letter also transparently attempts to change the subject by citing all of the previous safety advances Volvo has made over the years. Volvo deserves credit for its past emphasis on safety and the impact it has had on the industry, but that is irrelevant to how today's Volvo stacks up against today's competition in terms of safety. (Volvo's slow introduction of electronic stability control compared to many other manufacturers is in stark contrast to its previous leadership in safety equipment.) As I pointed out in my opening post, a Volvo factory engineer told me back when Mercedes was presenting the same argument for a poor crash test result that there is simply no excuse for a car manufacturer not to design a car that does well in the "Real World" AND in the well-known independent tests.

Of course, we can hardly expect a different official reponse. It is a fact that the tested Volvo model had a middling result in the well-respected IIHS test, and they can't really deny that. From a marketing standpoint, they're not going to admit they should have done better and state that they will endeavor to correct the situation as soon as possible, even if that is what they intend to do, because that would undercut sales. The only thing they can do to protect their image and sales is question the value of the test--something they have never done when their other models scored high in the same test. For those of us who have been attracted to Volvos because of their commitment to safety, let's hope that the engineers there win out over the marketers and that Volvo rededicates itself to being a leader in safety, as opposed to resting on past laurels.

[vtie]

It is a fact that the tested Volvo model had a middling result in the well-respected IIHS test, and they can't really deny that.

First of all, let me stress again that I'm not going to defend Volvo.

However, having a strong background in statistics, I find it astonishing how these data are overinterpreted. This whole crash test issue is rapidly losing any connection with reality. The S60 (perhaps the only Volvo model they tested completely) got top scores for everything, expect one aspect. This means that, perhaps during a single crash test of a single car, they found one individual thing that was measured to be less than ideal. Now they use this as a basis to claim that Volvo is losing ground. What does this tell with respect to the real life? Nothing, nada. Statistical significance: zero. During another crash test, due to slightly different circumstances (a crash *is* a complicated physical process), this one thing may behave slightly different. Perhaps another car (one that got G for every thing now) could have had a small glitch during another test.

In the 21th century, if you want to produce data that can be interpreted in a reliable way, you have to have an error estimate on them. Especially if you want to draw strong conclusions about things like saving human lifes. To do this, one would need to repeat every crash test with each car at least 50 times or so, and study the variability in the outcome. That would give some data that can be interpreted.

Of course, a single crash test can point out if a particular car is really unsafe. But, at the level of safety we have with the current set of reputable brand cars, it is my absolute opinion that the differences you get have *nothing* to do with real differences between the models, but just natural fluctuations you get from one crash test to the other.

People tend to believe everything that is claimed by a reputable source and is based on numbers from objective measurements. I'm not in that camp. I want to see the details before I'm convinced. The majority of the "scientific" studies are flawed. They are oversimplified and overinterpreted. Crash tests are just one example of this.

And, believe me, I would have the exact same opinion if Volvo came out as best. There were several factors that made me decide to buy a Volvo, but crash test reports were not in there.

[littlewaywelt]

My exact thoughts. If the safety top gun Volvo is "built for everyday circumstances," why can't it do well (at least to make the list of good cars!!) in "test results"? Doesn't make any logical sense to me at all.... Are those "tests" computer simulations? What if you happen to get one of those "test" similar crash in real life? Is Volvo going to say, "well, sorry but you've got yourself a test-like crash unfortunately, but under other circumstances you wouldn't have broken so many bones in your body"??????

Very good point. Volvo's logic is flawed. Would they say, sorry your crash wasn't similar to a real world crash. Volvo should have done better and should continue to strive to do so. Every manufacturer now knows that ppl require safety and a poor rating can tank a car's sales and as such they build much safer cars than they did even five years ago. What does it say when Volvo makes it so difficult to get a car with electronic stability control by optioning the item and a company like Hyundai includes it standard?

[Jonliv]

the XC70 wasn't even tested...

In the NHTSA tests, the XC70 came out five stars out of five stars.

EDIT
****
Also, the Ford 500 which walked away with top honors, is a Volvo S80 with some some slight syling mods.

http://www.cartalk.com/content/testdrives/Reviews/ford-500-2005.html (http://)