Audi's Pro-Con 10 system was already being used in the late 80's. It was brilliant. A cable wrapped around the rear of the engine and linked to the steering wheel caused the steering column to retract away from the driver as the force of an impact caused the engine to be driven backwards. The engine would break free from its mounts in a severe crash and drop down as to not intrude into the passenger compartment. The rigidity of the body did the rest. Arguably, in those days Audi's were the safest cars built. This video shows that. My family has been driving Audi's since 1991 (and still do). My wife was in a head-on collision with the model shown in this video. Her's was a 94' model with the airbag, which deployed in the crash. No injuries what so ever. The Audi "ate" the car that caused the crash, but was unfortunately totalled due to repair costs. The safety tech has only improved, and for a brand to be so forward thinking back then, there is no other to consider as far as I'm concerned.
Ich bin ganz einverstanden! Meine Familie auch fährt Audi seit vielen Jahren (ab 1996). Ich selber habe der neue Audi A3 und bin begeistert, auch wegen Sicherheit.
I saw this in a book in early 90's. SRS airbags were introduced already but they chose trims without airbags for test fairness. Some interesting safety features I remember are crumpling steering wheel in Mercedes W124 and retractable steering column in Audi 100.
AMS did a crash test a couple of years later of the 9000 CSE, you would hardly believe that it was on the "same" platform as the Fiat. Except for some risk of leg injuries, the performance was impressive.
I think "safest cars on the road" overstates the point a little. The 9000 was no death trap, but was behind the Mercedes W124, for example. Also compact class vehicles, like the Opel Kadett E, became very safe in these kind of tests around that time, so it was by no means the only safe car on the market. They certainly did a good job on that platform though, especially on roof strength.
@@captmcneil "One of the" I didn't not say safest of all. Also the Folksam and HLDI data generally does prove Saab 900 and 9000 models to be some of the safest vehicles in terms of real world accidents at the time.
And nowadays, having the passenger compartment undeformed and the dummies "unhurt" in a 56 KPH impact with a 50% offset is the minimum requirement (it' the homologation crash test). At the time, the standard homologation test was 30 MPH (48 KPH), full-frontal and with no dummies, just the pedals and steering wheel intrusion mustn't exceed a mandated limit.
Imagine that only ten years later in a Renault Laguna you would have been able to get out of the vehicle by yourself after this crash, shake once and walk away without injury, maybe some scratches...in some of these cars here you would probably have died. Incredible how much progress was made in only a few years.
These crash tests were conducted in 1990, with the exception of the Audi tested in 1991. So this probably would have been broadcast in 1991 or 1992, as further evidenced by when they say the Legend has been superceded by a new model (that new model came out in 1991). The reason that the vehicles were not equipped with airbags, despite most of the US versions of these cars having airbags by 1990, is that airbag availability in Europe lagged the US by several years; for instance, all US model Mercedes Benzes had a driver airbag from the 1986 model year (November 1985), whereas some Mercedes Benzes in Europe didn't have an airbag until as late as October 1992. In the US, 6 of these vehicles, the Nissan Maxima, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes E-Class, Honda (Acura) Legend, Volvo 740, and Audi 100 were sold; the remaining 3 were not sold in the US. Of the 6 sold in the US, 5 of them, all but the Maxima, had a driver airbag as standard equipment for their 1990 model. In fact, the Mercedes even offered a passenger airbag as an option! (The Audi 100 tested here was a 1992, the C4 body style, but all C4 and 1989 and later C3's in the US came with a standard driver airbag; '93 and newer C4's had dual airbags) The C4 Audi 100 must be one of the safest vehicles ever made without an airbag. An airbag equipped C4 would be even safer and would probably be among the safest early 1990s vehicles. August 7, 2019 12:15 am
I remember mid 90s Swedish insurance statistics said that the Audi C4 was the car that caused the least amount of injuries in real world crashes by then. Other top performers were Saab 9000, Volvo 7/940, Volvo 850, BMW E34, VW Passat and surprisingly enough considering its age, the Mercedes W123.
Thanks for the clarification as I was sure the Mercedes had airbags in the US. When my mom got her new 1992 w124, she had the option of adding a passenger airbag for $800. At the time we didn’t know much about airbags so we skipped it. Surprisingly, she decided to get a Mercedes bc after her accidental in a Camry, she wanted a safe car and decided to get the Mercedes. After watching this. I guess she made a good choice.
Procon-ten system at Audi was actually a great one not only in its time, pulling the steering wheel by a metal rope on a pulley and even without airbag made the head contact only a very minor one. The crash at 55kph into the wall resembles 64kph into a deformable barrier, so even today would Audi pass the test without airbags, which would not probably work now anyway, after 25 years, but the metal rope would.
Remember this test well. German (apart from Opel) and Swedish cars very safe. My dad had the Audi 100 2.8E Quattro from 1992-2010. Was a really reliable and awesome car.
When I look at all of them, but especially at the Nissan, Opel, Fiat or Honda, all I can say is: Thank God for EuroNCAP and other organizations like it.
Giorgio Nikola Rigas Nenadov but i also remember Volvo claiming to be the safest car in the world at that time, something that I see now was probably a lie. But they were good, still are.
@@kyrkbymannen i think they never claimed that, just said to care for safety and bla bla, in 1992 the volvo 850 was already out since 1 year like the audi 100, volvo 740 stopped production in 1992, so for the very end of that car did good, unlike the other early 80s car like the fiat designed in 1984 and renault too in 1984, the renault 25 also stopped production in 1992, so probably the 740 was the safest medium saloon back in 1982/3/4 then in 85 a very hard race with the w124 that probably won due to major weight
I don't know about the Japanese cars, but the Fiat, the Opel and the Renault cars were models designed in the 80's, contrary to the bmw and the Audi which were released in early 90s. Of course all models were on sale back in this time but I knew the older models would be worse off before watching it.
Соточка порадовала. Однако при ремонтах, нужно тросы надевать обратно на кранштейны мотора, чтобы ремни затягивались и руль складывало, иначе ущерб будет сильным в таком жестком кузове.
Audi's windshield was smashed and the car itself wasn't as rigid and solid as the Mercedes. Mercedes windshield was still intact, and it had the strongest body
DolleHengst The head impact was still quite a bit more significant than the audi mostly due to the steering wheel being pulled away from the driver. Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. These cars only had lap belts and no airbags. I'd rather be in any car built after 2010 than these other than Chinese and some Russian models.
The Mercedes-Benz and the Audi were the safest. The Volvo had a solid structure but it didn't have a collision proof steering collomn like the Mercedes and Audi have. The BMW had a too soft cage and therefore the passenger cell deformed which is quite dangerous. It didn't do as good as you'd expect from a premium brand. The other cars speak for itself and are death traps. The Mercedes has a good crumple zone and a ridgid passenger cell and even after this 58 km/h crash, it had some hood space left for faster collisions. Quite impressive that a car designed in the 70's and produced in from 1985 has a body structure comparable to a modern day car. The Audi had a solid cage and good crumple zone, the passenger cell seems to have a little more stress though. Where the Mercedes steering colomn is designed to stay in place when you're in an accident, the Audi colomn moves away from you. Therefore you'd kiss the steeringwheel less than in the Mercedes. They both do very good though, I would call this a tie between the Audi and the Mercedes.
DJ S the Mercedes Benz was the oldest of this contest, but still the safest. Surprisingly, the new Audi 100 did not get a really better result ... but did way better than Nissan and Honda, which were new versions too.
@Axel Straf The Mercedes might have come out two years after the Volvo, but the design work was substantially completed in 1976-1979. That puts it and the Volvo at basically the same age. The Volvo did quite well in this test, too, especially considering the age of the design.
@@VeryDL The safest japanese car back then was the Lexus LS400 wich performed incredibly well for a 1989 car and at the same level of the 1991 Mercedes S Class.
I've been driving Audi C4 types like the one shown for the last 15 years, done a million miles in all conditions always feel solid, yet the only crash I've ever had I was driving an Opel Vectra, it was one hell of a crash yet survived 😁
I do my 15 year's now with the C4 type. Now I drive the facelift station quattro with the 2.6E V6 139hp with airbag, before I had the same kind of car but with proconten and the 2.6 V6 and 150hp. My worst accident was with an Omega 3.0 V6 and 211hp. I drove into the back of a truck driving 80 km/h but my cruise control was set on 160 km/h, man that was an hell of an impact but I did well.
in the Opel omega the driver would get: smashed skull and both legs broken. if there was an airbag the driver would have posseble not broken his skull but the neck would be more injured
The procon ten system was very good for the time, coupled with an airbag may be even more effective. I wouldn't mind seeing more safety for taller drivers.
Most of these crash tests were done in 1990, the Audi's was done in 1991. Perhaps this aired in 1992 though. I looked through a magazine article with detailed information on the crash test (What Car, December 1990) and the July 26, 1991 issue of Auto Motor und Sport. Best performer: Audi 2. BMW 3. Mercedes 4. Volvo and Nissan 5. Renault and Opel 6. Honda and Fiat The cut-off for likely serious injury is a HIC of 1000, they also measured chest deceleration and pelvic and thigh force. the best performer was the Audi, the HIC wasn't readily available but I did see the G force graph for the head and would estimate the HIC to be around 500. The BMW (880), Nissan (905) and Renault's (865) HICs also fell below 1,000, but in the Renault's case it was due to the head hitting in a manner that HIC wouldn't accurately measure, as noted in the video where they say that serious head injury is likely. The Benz was 1,238, that won't kill you but it will put you in hospital. The Volvo's was 1,349. Actually, the only driver that would have had any chance of avoiding the hospital was the Audi's. March 8, 2019 12:23 am
Warum hat man für den Honda nicht das Modell genommen welches 92 aktuell gewesen ist? Das hier getestete ist es jedenfalls nicht und stammt von der Entwicklung aus Mitte der Achtziger.
The structure of the Volvo was one of the best performers in the group along with the BMW, the Mercedes, and the Audi. The Volvo's only problem was that the head hit the steering wheel hard. An airbag would have prevented that contact. The poor performers like the Renault, Honda, Fiat, and Opel had structural problems and still wouldn't have performed very well even if they had an airbag. The Nissan's mediocre performance also would have improved with an airbag. Since the BMW, Mercedes, and Audi performed well without an airbag, they would have obviously still performed well with an airbag. May 14, 2018 11:29 pm
...and Volvo already had a newer (safer) car in this class, the 850 from 1991, while the 700 series as tested came out in 1982. Much fair then? -> Typical "independent & objective" testing from a german car magazine, as usual. ...a new generation Opel (Vauxhall) Omega came in 1994 ...and the Lancia Kappa, successor of the Croma/Thema, also came out in 1994 as well. -etc pp.
Petteri Lautamäki Is it from 1990? Ok, my bad then. However the volvo 850 was introduced only half a year later... while the audi 100 was brand new in late(!) 1990. This puts the 8 year old volvo 740 at a considerable disadvantage. Especially at a time when progess in safety and stability of cars were vastly improved.
Swedish (Volvo, Saab) cars and Mercedes did the most in safety, later came Audi. Volvo GAVE the world the 3 point safety belt (did not asked money on there patent). The USA gave us the airbag (Ford) but because of the people wearing no seatbelts it was a problem. (safety in the USA was almost a non topic, maybe why the Tucker 48 failed?) Mercedes did a lot in Europe and also used seatbelt tensioners in combination with airbags. The French gave us the ABS systems and together with the English gave us the tires. At the end of the day the safety of a car is first measured by it's tyres, brake system and road holding (and Driver). Then the rest.
The Test was made in September 1990 - without the Audi (the Audi 100 C4 was introduced in Winter 1990). I have the original ams printed version of this time. The Audi was tested in 1992. So, its clear that the Audi got better results than the Volvo (introduced 1984) Mercedes (1984) and the BMW (1988). If the C3 (1982-1990) had been tested, it would have been performed less well. BMW and Mercedes were the only two cars with a low risk of injuries for head, chest and legs. The BMW had best dummy measurements, the Mercedes had the best passenger cell which was very rigid also at higher speeds.
legorainbow12p hahaha, really? Probably never drove volvos s80 v8 or a old 960turbo (rwd), saabs 99 turbo and so on... Btw: we were talking here about safety, which is based upon mesurable data, not excitement, which is just a feeling, thats just pathetic. But as you came up with it: Tell me one car from vw(audi) that isnt equally as "boring"? (the r8 which is just a gallardo rip-off doesn't count)
Many people back then argue that cars from Italy, France or Japan where so much cheeper than German Cars. Well what is the win in a crash-situation? I had a crash with a Audi 100 with Procon-Ten, left the scene without any harm!
Funny thing is Lee Iacocca and Chrysler were in the midst of making the first ever in the world cab Forward Design 1993 Chrysler Concorde Dodge Intrepid Eagle Vision with dual airbags when is was aired!
Includes comparisons with the W124 Mercedes-Benz, E34 BMW 5-series, Renault 25, Honda Legend, Opel Omega and more. Категорија Аутомобили и возила Лиценца Стандардна RUclips лиценца
Airbags were in use back then. Wth? Why did the benz Volvo and audi not have one in this test? My parents 1987 Volvo 760gle had a damn airbag. A 1986 mercedes 300e had a standard airbag. I’m confused here. But I am also talking about cars for USA
абсолютно не объективное сравнение тут. набрали с разных годов машин и сравнивают. практика и реалия повседневности показывают что Вольво и Сааб на вершине безопасности. Сколько бы не было подушек безопасности - если сама конструкция (как тут у большинства) просто деформируется и складывается - не спасет жизнь. Подушки смягчают ушибы, сотрясения итд, но не спасают от переломов и сжатия в корпус кузова.
I'm confused, this is 1992, but there are no driver's airbags. I know in the US, driver's airbags were standard in 1990. My 1990 Audi 100 had it, as well as my 1990 Mercury Grand Marquis. What gives?
У ауди руль утопает при ударе там трос есть который проходит за кпп. При ударе кпп тянет трос и руль утопает в панель. Кто снимал кпп на ауди знает как трос крепится на кпп
And didn't airbags starting being common place in the EU from 1993 onwards? But safety standards of today compared to just 30 years ago is chalk and cheese.
No, that head impact was extreme in the Volvo even though the structure held up equally well to the MB and the Audi. The MB and the Audi were the best performers because their steering wheels deformed properly to reduce injury to the driver. All of them would have been better served by and airbag, though.
I remember that Auto Motor und Sport didn't publish the results of the (new) Audi 100 back then so that BMW and Mercedes-Benz wouldn't be put out of favour. I read every magazine back then as a teenager. Today, as an adult, I have to admit: they didn't want Audi in the premium class of German car manufacturers. Well...the German manufacturers have all become mediocre, Ferdinand Piëch has died, as has Fritz B. Busch. Greetings to Motor Presse Stuttgart. Even your TV format has become ridiculous. The only suitable person who understands and appreciates engineering is Alexander Bloch.
Almost. The HIC cutoff between “good” and “marginal” they used was 1,250. “Poor” was 1,500 or higher. The Volvo’s HIC was 1,349, in the better part of the marginal range. The Benz was 1,238, narrowly landing in the good range. January 20, 2020 7:40 am
@@whattheheck1000 Actually, the yugo was safer than most hatchbacks at the time(especially for the 70s and 80s) so, it whould beat defenitly some cars, so stop saying that bs!
@@WarCrimeGaming The cars in this video, even the Legend, passed the NHTSA full-frontal crash test, which is performed at around the same speed as this test, but with the whole front end instead of just half of it. They became structurally overwhelmed in this test because only half of the front end had to take the same energy, making the test in this video twice as hard on the structure as the NHTSA full-frontal test. The Yugo couldn't pass the NHTSA test, so it definitely couldn't pass a test that required twice the structural rigidity. It wasn't a narrow failure, either - the NHTSA test required a head injury criterion of less than 1,000 to pass. The Yugo got 1,855. A HIC of 1,855 has an almost 50% chance of causing fatality. That means the Yugo did worse than all of these cars in a test that was only half as difficult. So if the Yugo was put in this test, it would probably be a certain fatality for the driver with massive deformation of the occupant compartment, far worse than any of these cars. From a structural engineering standpoint, all the cars tested in this video - especially the BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, and Audi - were far better designed than the Yugo. These were higher-end cars whose designs came out in the mid-to-late 1980s. The Yugo was based on a Fiat economy car whose design came out in 1969. Its safety was average for a hatchback from about 1975. By the time it was made, 1985-1992, it was behind the ball. October 4, 2020 1:44 am
yes shure BMW and Mercedes performed well in 50% because the engine is longitudinal and absorbs the impact, but in a IIHS small overlap the merc and BMW would had performed worst as all other front zheel driven transversal engine cars
Of course the Audi passed, it had to. Only Swedish cars and Mercedes were really serious about safety. Other company's had to go with it. So that's 2-1. Audi is here the new one, mind you the Volvo is 10 years older. The Merc is 8 years older. The BMW is only 6 years older, so the most inferior of the better ones. The rest was already known for not to take safety in to consideration. So thanks to Audi is was then 2-2. Many people will be saved because of company's that used their intelligence. Thank you Volvo, Mercedes, Saab and Audi. Very nice upload. See also: www.folksam.se/polopoly_fs/1.11226!/webbversioneng_R6546.pdf
Audi's Pro-Con 10 system was already being used in the late 80's. It was brilliant. A cable wrapped around the rear of the engine and linked to the steering wheel caused the steering column to retract away from the driver as the force of an impact caused the engine to be driven backwards. The engine would break free from its mounts in a severe crash and drop down as to not intrude into the passenger compartment. The rigidity of the body did the rest. Arguably, in those days Audi's were the safest cars built. This video shows that. My family has been driving Audi's since 1991 (and still do). My wife was in a head-on collision with the model shown in this video. Her's was a 94' model with the airbag, which deployed in the crash. No injuries what so ever. The Audi "ate" the car that caused the crash, but was unfortunately totalled due to repair costs. The safety tech has only improved, and for a brand to be so forward thinking back then, there is no other to consider as far as I'm concerned.
Ich bin ganz einverstanden! Meine Familie auch fährt Audi seit vielen Jahren (ab 1996). Ich selber habe der neue Audi A3 und bin begeistert, auch wegen Sicherheit.
@@markseibert8270 I don't believe the Audi 'ate' the other car.
I saw this in a book in early 90's. SRS airbags were introduced already but they chose trims without airbags for test fairness. Some interesting safety features I remember are crumpling steering wheel in Mercedes W124 and retractable steering column in Audi 100.
Amazing to see that Saab was able to take the platform of the Croma and turn it into one of the safest cars on the road at the time...
did they modified it?
@@215alessio Very much so.
AMS did a crash test a couple of years later of the 9000 CSE, you would hardly believe that it was on the "same" platform as the Fiat. Except for some risk of leg injuries, the performance was impressive.
I think "safest cars on the road" overstates the point a little. The 9000 was no death trap, but was behind the Mercedes W124, for example. Also compact class vehicles, like the Opel Kadett E, became very safe in these kind of tests around that time, so it was by no means the only safe car on the market. They certainly did a good job on that platform though, especially on roof strength.
@@captmcneil "One of the" I didn't not say safest of all. Also the Folksam and HLDI data generally does prove Saab 900 and 9000 models to be some of the safest vehicles in terms of real world accidents at the time.
"The risk of injury is low" *smashes head on steering wheel*
Safety standarts of 1990 :P
And nowadays, having the passenger compartment undeformed and the dummies "unhurt" in a 56 KPH impact with a 50% offset is the minimum requirement (it' the homologation crash test). At the time, the standard homologation test was 30 MPH (48 KPH), full-frontal and with no dummies, just the pedals and steering wheel intrusion mustn't exceed a mandated limit.
TenorCantusFirmus Although modern NCAP and IIHS tests use a deformable barrier instead of that concrete block.
I watched video with crash testing Lada 2101 and Moskvich 407 yerstaday. I can say that this cars quite safety 👍😂
😂
BMW drivers don't have a brain that's why
Imagine that only ten years later in a Renault Laguna you would have been able to get out of the vehicle by yourself after this crash, shake once and walk away without injury, maybe some scratches...in some of these cars here you would probably have died. Incredible how much progress was made in only a few years.
The early to mid 90's saw a big jump in safety. Ignore the FanBoys, 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's cars were death traps.
These crash tests were conducted in 1990, with the exception of the Audi tested in 1991. So this probably would have been broadcast in 1991 or 1992, as further evidenced by when they say the Legend has been superceded by a new model (that new model came out in 1991). The reason that the vehicles were not equipped with airbags, despite most of the US versions of these cars having airbags by 1990, is that airbag availability in Europe lagged the US by several years; for instance, all US model Mercedes Benzes had a driver airbag from the 1986 model year (November 1985), whereas some Mercedes Benzes in Europe didn't have an airbag until as late as October 1992.
In the US, 6 of these vehicles, the Nissan Maxima, BMW 5 Series, Mercedes E-Class, Honda (Acura) Legend, Volvo 740, and Audi 100 were sold; the remaining 3 were not sold in the US. Of the 6 sold in the US, 5 of them, all but the Maxima, had a driver airbag as standard equipment for their 1990 model. In fact, the Mercedes even offered a passenger airbag as an option! (The Audi 100 tested here was a 1992, the C4 body style, but all C4 and 1989 and later C3's in the US came with a standard driver airbag; '93 and newer C4's had dual airbags)
The C4 Audi 100 must be one of the safest vehicles ever made without an airbag. An airbag equipped C4 would be even safer and would probably be among the safest early 1990s vehicles.
August 7, 2019 12:15 am
Saab even took the Fiat Croma and turned it into one of the safest platforms.
I remember mid 90s Swedish insurance statistics said that the Audi C4 was the car that caused the least amount of injuries in real world crashes by then. Other top performers were Saab 9000, Volvo 7/940, Volvo 850, BMW E34, VW Passat and surprisingly enough considering its age, the Mercedes W123.
Aqui no Brasil, air bag obrigatório só em 2014, uma lástima.
on end of video guy says that they don't use airbags because its about passive protection, airbag is not
Thanks for the clarification as I was sure the Mercedes had airbags in the US. When my mom got her new 1992 w124, she had the option of adding a passenger airbag for $800. At the time we didn’t know much about airbags so we skipped it. Surprisingly, she decided to get a Mercedes bc after her accidental in a Camry, she wanted a safe car and decided to get the Mercedes. After watching this. I guess she made a good choice.
Procon-ten system at Audi was actually a great one not only in its time, pulling the steering wheel by a metal rope on a pulley and even without airbag made the head contact only a very minor one. The crash at 55kph into the wall resembles 64kph into a deformable barrier, so even today would Audi pass the test without airbags, which would not probably work now anyway, after 25 years, but the metal rope would.
Roman Ruzicka
Remember this test well. German (apart from Opel) and Swedish cars very safe. My dad had the Audi 100 2.8E Quattro from 1992-2010. Was a really reliable and awesome car.
you heard and saw here that volvo was not top class!
This test had given a huge inspiration to me when I was only 10 years old!
2019 год, а я до сих пор езжу на Ауди 100 ! Машина созданная на века!
Такая же херня
Буду рад пообщаться узнать более о машине
У меня ауди 100 с4 2,3
Уменя тоже с4 2.6 пушка
@@NDShow даа у меня тоже 100 авант 2.3 уже 11 лет
А у меня вольво 740))) Тоже до сих пор ежу.
@@stanislavmikhaylovich7587 а меня лось 850-й,1994-го года,уже 6 лет на нем гоняю,и менять не хочу)))
When I look at all of them, but especially at the Nissan, Opel, Fiat or Honda, all I can say is: Thank God for EuroNCAP and other organizations like it.
the volvo was a 1982 design, impressive for that age, the new audi 100 won, other are the merc and the volvo
Giorgio Nikola Rigas Nenadov but i also remember Volvo claiming to be the safest car in the world at that time, something that I see now was probably a lie. But they were good, still are.
@@kyrkbymannen i think they never claimed that, just said to care for safety and bla bla, in 1992 the volvo 850 was already out since 1 year like the audi 100, volvo 740 stopped production in 1992, so for the very end of that car did good, unlike the other early 80s car like the fiat designed in 1984 and renault too in 1984, the renault 25 also stopped production in 1992, so probably the 740 was the safest medium saloon back in 1982/3/4 then in 85 a very hard race with the w124 that probably won due to major weight
@@casparpolitmanThe first safe Volvo was the 850.
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k i have to agree with that! In 1991!
@@ChrisPatrick-q6k if i Remember well the 850 even got 4 stars in the euro ncap, 7 years after the release as the "v70" facelift
This video is actually... Really amazing.
I don't know about the Japanese cars, but the Fiat, the Opel and the Renault cars were models designed in the 80's, contrary to the bmw and the Audi which were released in early 90s. Of course all models were on sale back in this time but I knew the older models would be worse off before watching it.
Early 90's? The E34 and the 100 is designed in the 80's.
The Mercedes w124 came out in 1984 so what's your point?
Соточка порадовала.
Однако при ремонтах, нужно тросы надевать обратно на кранштейны мотора, чтобы ремни затягивались и руль складывало, иначе ущерб будет сильным в таком жестком кузове.
Audi BMW and Mercedes. End of story.
Perhaps how much money you have to buy a car.
@@kermikal6296 if i dont have the money for a new Mercedes or audi i buy a used one
Great result for the Procon-ten safety system, and the result is extensive to the 1st A6 with the plus of the driver airbag 😀
Audi did really good there!
Did the first A6 have procon-ten?The last Audi 80s especially had A/Bs,but i dont really know if procon-ten was installed too...
Late B4/C4 models had both procon-ten and airbag, yes. The B5 and C5 dropped the system though.
@@fernandomartinez1624 Yes. The first A6 have both systems, procon-ten and airbag, and the last 80 have both too.
Audi 100 win
Audi's windshield was smashed and the car itself wasn't as rigid and solid as the Mercedes. Mercedes windshield was still intact, and it had the strongest body
DolleHengst The head impact was still quite a bit more significant than the audi mostly due to the steering wheel being pulled away from the driver.
Ultimately it doesn't matter, though. These cars only had lap belts and no airbags. I'd rather be in any car built after 2010 than these other than Chinese and some Russian models.
94XJ ehm.. these cars did have airbags... actually.
elvisprofessional 0:46 to 0:52 I'm not seeing any airbags deploy.
Cars in the late '90s were safe. Also, if the windscreen is smashed or not, it doesn't matter, the Audi was safer.
The Mercedes-Benz and the Audi were the safest. The Volvo had a solid structure but it didn't have a collision proof steering collomn like the Mercedes and Audi have. The BMW had a too soft cage and therefore the passenger cell deformed which is quite dangerous. It didn't do as good as you'd expect from a premium brand. The other cars speak for itself and are death traps. The Mercedes has a good crumple zone and a ridgid passenger cell and even after this 58 km/h crash, it had some hood space left for faster collisions. Quite impressive that a car designed in the 70's and produced in from 1985 has a body structure comparable to a modern day car. The Audi had a solid cage and good crumple zone, the passenger cell seems to have a little more stress though. Where the Mercedes steering colomn is designed to stay in place when you're in an accident, the Audi colomn moves away from you. Therefore you'd kiss the steeringwheel less than in the Mercedes. They both do very good though, I would call this a tie between the Audi and the Mercedes.
DJ S the Mercedes Benz was the oldest of this contest, but still the safest. Surprisingly, the new Audi 100 did not get a really better result ... but did way better than Nissan and Honda, which were new versions too.
not if smallo verlap, then mercedes and BMW would had been worst as nissan or fiat
@Axel Straf The Mercedes might have come out two years after the Volvo, but the design work was substantially completed in 1976-1979. That puts it and the Volvo at basically the same age. The Volvo did quite well in this test, too, especially considering the age of the design.
The Bmw was good for its time.
@@VeryDL The safest japanese car back then was the Lexus LS400 wich performed incredibly well for a 1989 car and at the same level of the 1991 Mercedes S Class.
I've been driving Audi C4 types like the one shown for the last 15 years, done a million miles in all conditions always feel solid, yet the only crash I've ever had I was driving an Opel Vectra, it was one hell of a crash yet survived 😁
No wonder, old cars, especially old german cars are masterpieces and last infinity, unlike GM or british cars...
I do my 15 year's now with the C4 type.
Now I drive the facelift station quattro with the 2.6E V6 139hp with airbag, before I had the same kind of car but with proconten and the 2.6 V6 and 150hp.
My worst accident was with an Omega 3.0 V6 and 211hp.
I drove into the back of a truck driving 80 km/h but my cruise control was set on 160 km/h, man that was an hell of an impact but I did well.
in the Opel omega the driver would get: smashed skull and both legs broken. if there was an airbag the driver would have posseble not broken his skull but the neck would be more injured
The procon ten system was very good for the time, coupled with an airbag may be even more effective. I wouldn't mind seeing more safety for taller drivers.
I think actually for tall drivers Procon Ten was said to be not so good because it pulls in the steering wheel, potentially smashing the knees
Volvo and Mercedes-Benz have the best safety. Audi is also side by side but slightly worse. Other brands have poor safety.
Most of these crash tests were done in 1990, the Audi's was done in 1991. Perhaps this aired in 1992 though. I looked through a magazine article with detailed information on the crash test (What Car, December 1990) and the July 26, 1991 issue of Auto Motor und Sport.
Best performer: Audi
2. BMW
3. Mercedes
4. Volvo and Nissan
5. Renault and Opel
6. Honda and Fiat
The cut-off for likely serious injury is a HIC of 1000, they also measured chest deceleration and pelvic and thigh force. the best performer was the Audi, the HIC wasn't readily available but I did see the G force graph for the head and would estimate the HIC to be around 500. The BMW (880), Nissan (905) and Renault's (865) HICs also fell below 1,000, but in the Renault's case it was due to the head hitting in a manner that HIC wouldn't accurately measure, as noted in the video where they say that serious head injury is likely. The Benz was 1,238, that won't kill you but it will put you in hospital. The Volvo's was 1,349. Actually, the only driver that would have had any chance of avoiding the hospital was the Audi's.
March 8, 2019 12:23 am
I'm studying the Engineerate of Viecle Safety in Japan.Actually,Japanese Auto had made huge progress in recently years.
I daily drive an Audi A6 1995, and feeling safe even în today safety standards.
That thing must stink
buy a saab..
вольво выступила ничуть не хуже мерса, как можно говорить что бмв на уровне когда он сложился?
VolvoSafety у вольво водитель ударился головой об руль
Вольво самая безопасная. Бмв гав...о
Вольво,мерс,бэха и ауди самые идеальные автомобили
Warum hat man für den Honda nicht das Modell genommen welches 92 aktuell gewesen ist? Das hier getestete ist es jedenfalls nicht und stammt von der Entwicklung aus Mitte der Achtziger.
The Volvo would have been one of the top performers if the cars were equipped with driver airbags.
December 23, 2017 9:34 pm
The structure of the Volvo was one of the best performers in the group along with the BMW, the Mercedes, and the Audi. The Volvo's only problem was that the head hit the steering wheel hard. An airbag would have prevented that contact.
The poor performers like the Renault, Honda, Fiat, and Opel had structural problems and still wouldn't have performed very well even if they had an airbag.
The Nissan's mediocre performance also would have improved with an airbag.
Since the BMW, Mercedes, and Audi performed well without an airbag, they would have obviously still performed well with an airbag.
May 14, 2018 11:29 pm
@Matthew Dawood Khaghani The volvo was 1982 design, 10 years older than the Audi, so there obviously are differences!
bullshit, because all other would set better perfomance too
@@whattheheck1000 BMW? Its shit.
Renault 25 went into production in 1984, so it is not that fair, Safrane came early in 1993.
same about mercedes 200
...and Volvo already had a newer (safer) car in this class, the 850 from 1991, while the 700 series as tested came out in 1982.
Much fair then? -> Typical "independent & objective" testing from a german car magazine, as usual.
...a new generation Opel (Vauxhall) Omega came in 1994
...and the Lancia Kappa, successor of the Croma/Thema, also came out in 1994 as well.
-etc pp.
+alfisti93 This test is from 1990 and Volvo 850 was not introduced yet back then.
Petteri Lautamäki
Is it from 1990? Ok, my bad then.
However the volvo 850 was introduced only half a year later... while the audi 100 was brand new in late(!) 1990.
This puts the 8 year old volvo 740 at a considerable disadvantage. Especially at a time when progess in safety and stability of cars were vastly improved.
This is a German magazine auto motor sport
And only German cars winns 😂
Audi is the best 80/90/100/200 in this time line...
Who knows the music in the background?
Funny thing is that it took Fiat/Chrysler/Dodge 2 decades to 2018 to give any sort of a crap about safety.
Fiat is safe since 2005 or so.
all cars become better after ncap where Introduced.
even a bmw e36 or mercedes w202 was crap (developed befor ncap)
Yarın 1992 Audi 80 alcam tavsiyesi ne ihtiyacım war..!!
Ауди только ауди!!!
Мерс тоже хорошо себя показал. БМВ, хуже себя показ в краше тесте. Мерс и Ауди, лучше.
@@sergeymoraliov2670 Про вольву забыли
Lucky Guy это уже не Германия
Ауди и вольва тема
В AUDI можно чувствовать себя в безопасности!!!
Audi, BMW and Mercedes building the Best - from 92 and now !!!
I agree.Both three were from the best!
Moral of the story? German cars are the safest
and volvo is the safest wich isn't german ;D
The Volvo is medium.
Swedish (Volvo, Saab) cars and Mercedes did the most in safety, later came Audi.
Volvo GAVE the world the 3 point safety belt (did not asked
money on there patent). The USA gave us the airbag (Ford) but because of the people wearing no seatbelts it was a problem. (safety in the USA was almost a non topic, maybe why the Tucker 48 failed?)
Mercedes did a lot in Europe and also used seatbelt tensioners in combination with airbags.
The French gave us the ABS systems and together with the English gave us the tires.
At the end of the day the safety of a car is first measured by it's tyres, brake system and road holding (and Driver).
Then the rest.
english jenson was the first ABS with many other firsts.
Finland makes the best tires bois!
Nr 1 in this test - best - Audi A6 C4, with Procon Ten
3:33,6:13 Driver >>>> R.I.P
The Test was made in September 1990 - without the Audi (the Audi 100 C4 was introduced in Winter 1990). I have the original ams printed version of this time. The Audi was tested in 1992. So, its clear that the Audi got better results than the Volvo (introduced 1984) Mercedes (1984) and the BMW (1988). If the C3 (1982-1990) had been tested, it would have been performed less well.
BMW and Mercedes were the only two cars with a low risk of injuries for head, chest and legs. The BMW had best dummy measurements, the Mercedes had the best passenger cell which was very rigid also at higher speeds.
Volvo body 700 (760 - 6 cilinder) was introduced in 1982 the 740 (4 cilinder) in 1984 ;-)
they don't call that mercedes model "the tank" for nothing
Rajčugo , zato si i uzeo w126 😂
W124 and volvo 740 were the safest of their time, the rest dead trap machines.
Audi 100, BMW 5series???
@@WarCrimeGaming yeah those 4 ok i agree. sorry forgot the audi 100 and bmw
audi 100 is the real winner
In the bad cars the dashboard and steering wheel move backwards towards the driver which increases the forces much more.
Три лучших результата: 1 место Audi 100 2 место BMW E34 3 место Mercedes w124
Откуда взят такой вывод?
Mercedes, Audi and BMW won...
we may not be best at winning wars, but we certainly make the safest cars :)
You're referring to Germany? Right?
thats correct sir :)
muh1h1 errrr... thats a no.
Volvo and SAAB rule(d), the award for safest cars goes undeniably to sweden.
alfisti93 those cars are boring
legorainbow12p hahaha, really?
Probably never drove volvos s80 v8 or a old 960turbo (rwd), saabs 99 turbo and so on...
Btw: we were talking here about safety, which is based upon mesurable data, not excitement, which is just a feeling, thats just pathetic.
But as you came up with it: Tell me one car from vw(audi) that isnt equally as "boring"?
(the r8 which is just a gallardo rip-off doesn't count)
Ауди 👍👍👍💋💋💋😍😍😍🇰🇿🇰🇿🇰🇿🖐🖐🖐
Many people back then argue that cars from Italy, France or Japan where so much cheeper than German Cars. Well what is the win in a crash-situation? I had a crash with a Audi 100 with Procon-Ten, left the scene without any harm!
Just bought this car, not sure I should watch :D
EuroNCAP before there even was EuroNCAP.
The background musics are the most early 1990s they could have put 😀😀.
Funny thing is Lee Iacocca and Chrysler were in the midst of making the first ever in the world cab Forward Design 1993 Chrysler Concorde Dodge Intrepid Eagle Vision with dual airbags when is was aired!
Includes comparisons with the W124 Mercedes-Benz, E34 BMW 5-series, Renault 25, Honda Legend, Opel Omega and more.
Категорија
Аутомобили и возила
Лиценца
Стандардна RUclips лиценца
Vorsprung durch Technik. Audi
Airbags were in use back then. Wth? Why did the benz Volvo and audi not have one in this test? My parents 1987 Volvo 760gle had a damn airbag. A 1986 mercedes 300e had a standard airbag. I’m confused here. But I am also talking about cars for USA
The airbags were disabled
Actually, this test is from 1990, not 1992.
Nissan Maxima BMW 520I Opel Omega Mercedes 200 Renault 25 Fiat Croma Honda Legends Volvo 740 и Audi 100
Audi Best
Boy! He have come a long way in automotive safety! Some of those where terrible!😱
All of them were terrible
@@ELValenin Your talking bullshit
The mercedes, bmw and audi were good, the volvo was decent and ALL cars (expect the fiat) are survivable
@@WarCrimeGaming all were terrible for today's standards. That's what I'm saying
@@ELValenin Nah, the jeep wrangler is still unsafe in 2019
@@WarCrimeGaming keep in mind this wasn't the usual 64kph but 55.
абсолютно не объективное сравнение тут. набрали с разных годов машин и сравнивают. практика и реалия повседневности показывают что Вольво и Сааб на вершине безопасности. Сколько бы не было подушек безопасности - если сама конструкция (как тут у большинства) просто деформируется и складывается - не спасет жизнь. Подушки смягчают ушибы, сотрясения итд, но не спасают от переломов и сжатия в корпус кузова.
немецкий Audi бронированный танк японский Тойота фольга консервная банка
что ты несешь..
Правду...
хонда вначале тоже неахти...
Мерседес и Ауди круто держатся. Мерс лучше всех выдержал.
Вот что все же надо покупать.
1.Mercedes
2.Audi
3.Volvo
Yes
1. Audi...
I'm confused, this is 1992, but there are no driver's airbags. I know in the US, driver's airbags were standard in 1990. My 1990 Audi 100 had it, as well as my 1990 Mercury Grand Marquis. What gives?
In the US, cars were required to have an airbag. In Europe, they were not.
I have audi 100
good choice urszula
Yeahhh...Audi rules :-) Like my Baby, an AUDI 4A C4 100 2,3E with the legendary 5-cylinder-engine :-)
Hum.... but not the turbo version, that is the legendary engine ;)
@IL GWENT Yeah rules because this is the C4 100.
Bmw and Audi.
У ауди руль утопает при ударе там трос есть который проходит за кпп. При ударе кпп тянет трос и руль утопает в панель. Кто снимал кпп на ауди знает как трос крепится на кпп
Ive had accidents in both the Opel and the Audi, my 1992 s4, did have an airbag tho :)
I had accidents in all 9 of them!
1990 120 fps slow motion
thtaswhy german cars will always be remembered as best cars
,,,and Billy, this is how airbags were invented,,,
And didn't airbags starting being common place in the EU from 1993 onwards? But safety standards of today compared to just 30 years ago is chalk and cheese.
Мерседес 124 и Ауди 100 показали хороший результат!
The German magazine is lying to the benefit of German manufacturers. The Volvo is the best, Audi may be a bit better, but it's much more recent ....
No, that head impact was extreme in the Volvo even though the structure held up equally well to the MB and the Audi. The MB and the Audi were the best performers because their steering wheels deformed properly to reduce injury to the driver. All of them would have been better served by and airbag, though.
I remember that Auto Motor und Sport didn't publish the results of the (new) Audi 100 back then so that BMW and Mercedes-Benz wouldn't be put out of favour. I read every magazine back then as a teenager. Today, as an adult, I have to admit: they didn't want Audi in the premium class of German car manufacturers. Well...the German manufacturers have all become mediocre, Ferdinand Piëch has died, as has Fritz B. Busch. Greetings to Motor Presse Stuttgart. Even your TV format has become ridiculous. The only suitable person who understands and appreciates engineering is Alexander Bloch.
but saab 9000 used same unibody as the croma
The commentator is bias. The impact of the drivers head on the steering wheel in the Benz is the same as the Volvo.
No the steering wheel of the Volvo moved backwards more then the one from Mercedes
Almost. The HIC cutoff between “good” and “marginal” they used was 1,250. “Poor” was 1,500 or higher. The Volvo’s HIC was 1,349, in the better part of the marginal range. The Benz was 1,238, narrowly landing in the good range.
January 20, 2020 7:40 am
Однозначно Ауди 100 лучший авто того времени.
Наверное поэтому в такси (да и не только)были мерсы)))ещё не от одного механика не слышал о надёжности ауди,а вот мерсы уважают за надёжность.
All German cars passed especially the Audi.
audi is 👍👍👍👑
Super,Labombastic,Fantastic,Školastic!!!👍👏🤘👃👂🦵💪🤝🐟🦑✈️🤿🌠🪐🐢🐬💯😇🙏👀🚣🏄🪂🐘🐪🐫🌴🌵🏖️⚓🧭🚦⛽😍🏍️💓
A Yugo would have won this test
Dean Sapp If they tested a Yugo in this test the dummy would have been broken in half.
January 20, 2020 7:34 am
@@whattheheck1000 Actually, the yugo was safer than most hatchbacks at the time(especially for the 70s and 80s) so, it whould beat defenitly some cars, so stop saying that bs!
@@WarCrimeGaming The cars in this video, even the Legend, passed the NHTSA full-frontal crash test, which is performed at around the same speed as this test, but with the whole front end instead of just half of it. They became structurally overwhelmed in this test because only half of the front end had to take the same energy, making the test in this video twice as hard on the structure as the NHTSA full-frontal test.
The Yugo couldn't pass the NHTSA test, so it definitely couldn't pass a test that required twice the structural rigidity. It wasn't a narrow failure, either - the NHTSA test required a head injury criterion of less than 1,000 to pass. The Yugo got 1,855. A HIC of 1,855 has an almost 50% chance of causing fatality.
That means the Yugo did worse than all of these cars in a test that was only half as difficult. So if the Yugo was put in this test, it would probably be a certain fatality for the driver with massive deformation of the occupant compartment, far worse than any of these cars.
From a structural engineering standpoint, all the cars tested in this video - especially the BMW, Mercedes, Volvo, and Audi - were far better designed than the Yugo. These were higher-end cars whose designs came out in the mid-to-late 1980s. The Yugo was based on a Fiat economy car whose design came out in 1969. Its safety was average for a hatchback from about 1975. By the time it was made, 1985-1992, it was behind the ball.
October 4, 2020 1:44 am
@@whattheheck1000 I remember being it safe...
@@whattheheck1000 So true
Победил мерс.Видно,что у мерса зона деформации лучше продумана,а ауди словно кирпич.Мерс тех лет лучше ауди по всем показателям-мнение немцев.
Mercedes nie miał podejścia do Audi pod względem przyspieszenia.
volvo 740 is from 1982
Sasha Petit
And BMW IS FROM 1986
And the commentator said that Mercedes Bmw and Audi showed great results , all 3.
LedZeppelin 1987 true
Ike N yes I agree
And why wasn't the SAAB 9000 inwolved in the test? The safest car of it's time.
Because the germans didn't wanted to look weak and stupid, and therefore didn't bring in the safest contender.
@@runepedersenDK Safest contender was the w124. Of all. Including Saab. 740 has better stats than the 9000
деу матиз - купил , купи гроб.
100 ка рулит японы сука картон
Татьяна Беляева 100%
124 лудши в любом случае он лучше даже по безопасности
Не лучший, с 100 он чуть похуже
@@ruslan9566 нет поверь я на нем каждый день была Ауди у меня с4 тоже не плохая но мерен больше понравился во всем
@@ДАРИДОБРО-ч8щ так и у меня и 124 был и сотка была в С4, сотка больше во всем понравилась, 124 какой то древний в салоне
@@ruslan9566 ну на вкус и цвет товарищей нет
@@ruslan9566 ну смотря какой и объем у меня 3,2
Knew the fiat would fail badly, still crap to this day
The old fiats were good cars, but not safe...
Today, it's the opposite
Y.....para cuando la versuin en español???
yes shure BMW and Mercedes performed well in 50% because the engine is longitudinal and absorbs the impact, but in a IIHS small overlap the merc and BMW would had performed worst as all other front zheel driven transversal engine cars
Did you not hear what he said about the Honda? Engines do not absorb impacts. They get pushed in the lap of driver if the car is designed poorly.
@@sekopiski yes 40 years ago. New hondas are on par with american crash standards today and are way superior as german sponsored euro n cap
@@215alessio that's not what i meant. You said that engines absorb impacts. They do not.
Volvo for life.
Audi king
Мерседес 124 жесткий!Ауди тоже!
Ауди чуть лучше,хоть и у него Фара отправилась в полет😂.Тут Ауди победила.Хоть я и ярый Фанат w124.😊
Таких соток ауди больше не будет, что печально! Безопасный, главное надежный авто!
German outfit??
ауди есть ауди..
Of course the Audi passed, it had to.
Only Swedish cars and Mercedes were really serious about safety.
Other company's had to go with it. So that's 2-1.
Audi is here the new one, mind you the Volvo is 10 years older.
The Merc is 8 years older.
The BMW is only 6 years older, so the most inferior of the better ones.
The rest was already known for not to take safety in to consideration.
So thanks to Audi is was then 2-2.
Many people will be saved because of company's that used their intelligence.
Thank you Volvo, Mercedes, Saab and Audi.
Very nice upload.
See also: www.folksam.se/polopoly_fs/1.11226!/webbversioneng_R6546.pdf
Eelco Petra
Owned two of them maxima and audi. for the driving pleasure only Maxima.