Does anyone have any opinions on what would be the safest car be it volvo, bmw, Lexus or Mercedes for a mid 90's car. thanks...Jeffrey...

Hi,

Interesting question. Volvo makes a very safe automobile and has done a lot to contribute to the acceptance of automotive saftey technology. They were the first to install 3 point seatbelts in cars. Volvo is somewhat a follower rather than a leader however. Most of the "major" saftey innovations have been done by the Germans and specifically by Mercedes-Benz. Mercedes Benz was the first automaker to make the "energy absorbing car bodies" in the early 1960's (they even have a patent on the concept that they don't enforce because of the benefit to the motoring public). They were also the first automaker to put an airbag in a "production" automobile (the Americans did it in the 70's but the cars were not production models that were sold to the general public and were HIGHLY resistive to putting them into real production vehicles when the time came in the late 1990's when Mercedes had been doing it since the early 1980's). I drive a 1982 126 Chassis S class Mercedes Diesel. The 126 was introduced in 1979 (1981 for the US market) and was the first Vehicle in the world with an Airbag, Antilock Brakes and a body designed to withstand an "offset" crash.

Before My 126 S class I owned a Volvo S70. While the Volvo was technically superior to my Mercedes I feel safer in the Mercedes due to how solid the car feels. Items such as Airbags are secondary to seatbelts and bodystructure in my opinion.

I think Volvo manages to take the right blend of engineering and usability with their cars. Not everone can afford 86K for the "botton of the line" current model S430 that Mercedes produces. The simplicity of a Volvo is also somewhat useful and charming. Ever see the back of a Mercedes Wagon? They handle just like the car but the strut towers intrude into the cargo space. In a 740 or 240 wagon there is plenty of space because the swedes did not loose track of the function of the vehicle. Not many wagon users race through cones with a load of "stuff" in the back.

I'll take the 69 Chrysler Imperial over most any collapsing structure car. Would need a 4 point or better harness though.
Are you most concerned about...

running off the road
hittin another vehicle
rolling over
being able to manuver out of trouble
being able to see it coming
being in control in adverse conditions

Safety has many definitions...What are you after here?

Airbags are neat and effortless to use, but there is a reason NO purpose built racecar uses them.

Interesting thought on the airbags. Do you know why racecars don't use them? I have never thought about it before.

hi,
It has to be the weight .. airbags and its components weight a lot.. and racecar builders doesn't use abs either....
Sammy

it's weight, and the fact that airbags are superfluous when you're strapped into a molded racing seat with a 4 or 5 point belt harness, with a full roll cage surrounding you


as for ABS, it's the last thing race car drivers want, since they need to be able to break into controlled powerslides sometimes to get round corners quickly.

the weight issue is also there, but a lot of the time, it's an issue of necessity and weight.

reason street cars like airbags, is due to the fact that large roll cages are impractical, and we're secured into more or less flat seats from three points. flat seats + the three point harness in cars is sufficint for low speed crashes, but in a bad situation, the airbags help out.

Street vehicles like ABS, because for the most part, people don't need to drive like maniacs, and if a wheel starts to skid, it's more likely from loss of traction than from slinging around a corner.

anyway, that's about all I have to toss out in this direction tonight

please, correct me if I'm wrong, I write this half asleep

CCC