Old Top Gear 1997 - Euro N-Cap Supermini Crash Test
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 фев 2018
- Michelle Newman takes a look at Euro N-Cap crash test centre and them testing superminis
Taken from an early 1997 episode of the old Format Top Gear 
Авто/Мото
Авто/Мото
"There's no point in finishing the sentence Lynn, because I'm NOT driving a Mini-Metro."
-Alan Partridge
Rover actually intended the metro to stay in production until the new mini came out, they only withdrew it at the end of 1997 because of its dismal crash test the car wouldn't sell anymore
Good thing too, the thought of new Metros in 2001 is pretty horrifying.
A brand which was taking every profit to it's own chairmans trying to put on sale an already outdated car when the competition was about 1 gen ahead at least.
Paint me not surprised.
To be fair the reason the 100 did so badly was that it was a 20 year old design being compared against much newer designs.
@@sameyers2670And to quote Quentin Wilson, the dashboard looked like an early Doctor Who prop.
This is why government regulation and oversight WORKS. Car manufacturers simply wouldn't have built cars to the safety standards we enjoy today if they were not forced to by the authorities.
True, some aspects of life require some sort of authority to exist to guide them in doing business in a mutually beneficial way. Others, such as career choices, let us be.
All Rover did was refresh the Metro body and interior to give it a much better look and improve the driving position (the old one felt like you were driving a bus), but for all that, they still used a, rather elderly, late seventies floorpan / chassis, and the shortcomings of such an elderly design and a new body weren't exactly going to give it a glowing EURONCAP crash test result.
The result was useless, the body crumpled up like a pop can in the frontal impact test, the footwell / cockpit intrusion into the cabin and rearward pedal travel were pretty horrendous, and as for the driver's airbag, that was pretty useless too - the steering wheel and airbag shot off to the left while the driver's head struck the door pillar on the right.
Rover merely did a makeover job to the old girl at the request of their dealers who wanted something cheap to sell, using as little money as possible to build and deliver it and they succeeded then gave it the name, the 100 later on to bring it into line with the 200 400 600 and 800.
it's 1998
It’s not
The test isn't realistic. In reality, the barrier would have felt pity with the poor Rover.
Cars before the 2000's are unsafe.
...I doubt it.
That's an absolute sentence telling what it's not the true. Regular cars after 2000 are a little bit safer, but a collision over 120Km/h-70Mp/h can kill you anyway.
I would say that it depends.... A 1999 Mercedes S-class or Volvo S80 is hardly what I would call "unsafe" cars. But some other manufacturers still had a long way to go.
@@mattiasjohansson1727 Of course, both cars you mention have a huge ammount of passive safety systems that prevents or else try to prevent the risk of lethal injuries in an accident. However, despite all those measures, up to certain levels of speed or even in certain kind of colissions in not so higher speeds will end up in a fatal result.
In fact, Lady Di and Dodi died in an accident while it's choffer was running up to 80 km/h in that tunnel of Paris trying to evade the papparazzis, and they were exactly in an S 600 of that particular generation.
@@Sammael66685 Safer drivers as well as safer cars make for safer roads. We have to do our bit and take responsibility for our own safety when we drive our cars. Not be overly reliant on airbags, crumple zones, lane keep assist, etc.
it's 1998
It’s not