What are you "thanking" them for, exactly??? For generating income in order to frighten people away from motor cars shown crashing in inordinately slow motion to induce the worst kind of fears so that you don't think critically on the matter?? Which are you safest in?: - bus crash - train crash - bicycle crash - motorcycle crash - pedestrian crash (with a motor vehicle) - Plane crash - Rover 100 crash Now think about what it is that you _might_ be able to do about it, if you kept a 100... What would you do - based on nothing further than 10 seconds considered *thinking,* to create a safer model?? Next time, think carefully about who it is that you're extending your gratitude towards. They just *_might_* be taking the mickey out of you behind your back.
@@letsdiscussitoversometea8479 what an absolutely bizarre comment. There's nothing wrong with thanking euro NCAP, they have been instrumental in improving car safety over the years.
It will be rejected from iihs if in euroncap did 1 star în 1997, iihs won t even try to. But even then it will get borlth a poor and a possible worst pick
Does it matter? Still a car built and sold 20 years ago. The design of the Honda Jazz is also not a design from 2017. Euro NCAP tests cars as they're sold.
Please, please have someone re-edit this into a usable video. This is an important comparison, and you obviously have excellent raw footage. But the editing is so "cool" and "razzle-dazzle" that we can't really see anything. It's not a music video, it's science and safety. Please let us see it properly.
I was going to say the same thing, this test shows 1-3 second snippets of the test from varied angles but not the whole ... launch? So it doesn't prove/provide anything except that video editing/production has improved. And let's see the dummies after. That's the real comparison.
louis smeets cause it has only driver airbag So sad that they can't recall it cause it already usless if they add more airbags but the structure if the car is bad
Their Long gone out of Production (1997) They were ancient even when they ceased Production back then ( A 17 year run of the same car with just Different Badges put on the Bonnet and an engine that was a staggering 30 years old when the car was first launched in 1980!)
Ah Absolutely..That "A" Series Engine was a good Lump the 850cc 1000cc and the 1.3L fitted to the Cooper. And a Ton of other cars.The "K" Series not so ..anything above the 1.100ccL & 1.400 Abso "Junk" Head gasket Probs due to I"ll Fitted Alloy Cylinders
Security has improved, no doubt but : - Rover 100 has one of the worst if not the worst rating ever scored by a car at Euro NCAP - Rover 100 is based on an 1980 Austin Metro, so it was ingeneered in the late 70's... no wonder it is rubish as hell, the car conception's is in reallity about 40 years old !
My parents had a Rover 100 when I was kid. We made quite a few kilometers in it. Fortunately, no crashes. The car felt quite sturdy. But appearances can be deceiving.
Great video, Ed. I can relate. My daily driver, and only car, is a 1990 Volvo 240 DL Estate. I drive about 40,000 miles a year. Arthur now has nearing 400,000 miles on the clock. I would drive him anywhere. Parts take time to get, but ate readily available and quite reasonable for price.
Back in 1997 the Rover had 1 stars and the 2015 Honda had 5 stars. I'd really like to see a comparison between a 5 star car from the past and a recent 1 star car!
Strax we have one now : say hello to the 2017 fiat punto, which was just a small facelift before the car gets retired next year, and might find it hard to find customers now
Way different parameters of judgement. That car had a 5* rating in 2005 and it's nowhere as unsafe as a 91 Rover such as that. It lacks active safety features, that's why it got a 0. Still not a deadly trap, unlike this junk in the video.
Metro was a good little car of its time. I'd love a turbo now! This vid shows 40 years of design progress. Iv had a head on crash in a metro at 48mph and walked away. My friend also had a head on crash and died at the scene...but that was the mid 90s. In the next 40 years we will probably be driven everywhere by autonomous vehicles safer again.
This is the thing isn't it... You crashed in the way that most people might crash - into another vehicle. Not into a "deformable" block. You would also have crashed very quickly, so there wouldn't have been all this slow motion business to scare you off (if you're somebody who is influenced that easily). And you wouldn't have had a CLEAR focusing in of your car, against a black background either, just to reinforce the fear. A MUCH stronger vehicle can hit a lorry head on, and kill the driver just like that. The differences are relatively marginal with all things considered - I think this program was inputted into peoples' minds, to put them off driving.
The 1997 rover 100 is really a largely unchanged 1980 Metro design, so although it makes for sensational viewing, it's not really a valid comparison here as it's an almost 40 year old design! Why not test an equivalent Honda design that was new in 1997?
@namefinder, You're missing the point, they are trying to claim it's improved more than it has by passing a 38 year old car design off as 20 years old.
Lord_Edge Even though Rover 100 was based on old designs, it was still considered new at one point. And as a new car it suited safety regulations back then, so this video is still valid. It might not be 20 year old car, but its 20 year old standards if nothing else.
If it was euro ncap that made Rover 100 sales collapse, it was disgusting that Rover were still trying to sell this rubbish in '97, compare the crash test to a similar era VW Polo, which had been on sale since '94.
@deanosaur808 I forgot I wrote that comment lol, wow I didn't think there were that many left, I hadn't seen 1 for years when I wrote that comment and I've only seen 3 since, something else I meant to add to my original comment is I'm surprised they would crash a metro in such good condition after surviving for so long especially as I've heard values for those cars are increasing.
@@deanosaur808load a lies lol, there’s only 577 rover metros on UK roads with a valid MOT, I have 3 out of the 577, should do research on something you obviously don’t know anything about 😂
Amazes me how the rover 100 here performs identically to the one 25 years ago. It well illustrates how precise and repeatable it is, but it's a shame as that metro must've been mint.
I like how some call the Rover 100 the Metro in the comments. We're all clearly showing our age! The Metro was an old car when I was at secondary school and I'm 38 this year!!
its only a front and rear facelift plus addition of airbag over the original Mini metro 1980 first production car.. the windscreen is the same throughout its production run. the front end was mainly to modernise and change from a series to k series engine. the a piller back is essentially the same. I have a 1982 mg metro - I never ever want to be in a crash in it...
Happy 20 years Euro NCAP. When EURO NCAP was first launched the maximum score was 4 stars! Shock horror - the first tests showed: 2 stars - Mercedes 2 stars - BMW 2 stars - Audi 2 stars - Saab (believe it or not!) 3 stars - Ford 3 stars - Nissan 4 stars - Volvo Moral: Don't believe the manufacturers, as in the recent Dieselgate scandal... Oh, they're German too, what a surprise...!
The Rover is based on a 1980 design, first launched as Leyland Mini Metro. Should use a car that was acutally new design in 1997. Results would be different.
You are better off driving slower and being more alert. Even if you crash in a well built car that does not change the deceleration your brains have to deal with.
In USA the roads have lot of obstacles at the side of the way like poles, signals, trees.... even in highways and interstates. In Europe this is not a problem, most of the main roads have fences that protect us from this objetcts if we lost control and go out the lane, and in the case who those roads that have two or more lanes for each direction, in USA often aren't fisically separated with fences or concrete.
I don't know. Today Euroncap makes more tests than ever. Maybe, but in USA it's neccesary because there is a real important risk to suffer an accident as the test described, small overlap against a fixed obstacle, but in Europe isn't a great risk. Anyway, today with the globalization, lot of american cars are made with the same platform than other cars sold in Europe or Japan. For example, Renault doesn't sell cars in USA, but Nissan Rogue uses the same CMP platform than Megane, Espace, new Scenic... And, Ncap in China, Japan, Latin Amierica or Australia, have its own set of test, best adapted with the territory characteristics.
Volumex Thanks for reply. Although, I have to point out that large percent of European roads do not have fences, or fences are being planted only sporadically (on critical places), and they are going through woods, mountains, villages etc... so, plenty of dangerous objects at their sides. Also, while the European highways in most cases are secured with fences, there's still tens of thousands of kilometers of regular two-lane motorways where collisions with the vehicles going in opposite direction are happening every day.
Enquanto assistimos a comparação entre carros com 20 de diferença temos que atentar que o processo de reparação no Brasil está mais de 50 anos atrasada diante dos materiais, técnicas e equipamentos e insumos utilizados na reparação. Qualquer colisão de médio porte gera donos estruturais que as oficinas e os reparadores não estão habilitados para realizarem.
This would have been very interesting if it hadn't been edited but some action movie director wannabe. I can't compare anything before it jumps all over the damn place.
The Rover 100 is like being presumed DEADLY while the Honda Jazz (which my mom owns) is like so safe like its a Japanese car and Japanese cars are like so safe like Japanese cars make their cars so safe like idk (i don't know) why
This is exactly why newer cars are better. Sure, they might fall apart or be written off from minor bumps (which is annoying), but when it matters, they are far more likely to save your life. It's a shame that you never put a Volvo 940 through this test, just to show people that driving a so-called "old tank" really isn't what they think it is.
Benjamín Valenzuela yes you are right, and that three stars is w/o safety pack, basicly its passive safety is 5 stars. Well that is something impressive :)
This is not silly, it was the first car they crash tested 20 years ago, compared to a modern car that, adjusted for inflation, costs about as much today.
Modern cars have considerably better secondary safety but at the cost of over-complexity, bloat and poorer visibility. All of which impact primary safety.
Modern cars are so heavy they now have to drive at reduced speeds in the city 🤷 The metro will become safer in future when everyone is forced to drive 5 mph 🤣
Back in the day I had a Rover Metro... unfortunately I was involved in a crash. You can view it here classicroverforum.net/index.php?threads/my-2001-crash-in-rover-metro.43203/
airbag in the rover successfully protected the steering wheel
Task failed unsuccessfuly successfuly
This is fantastic, and also terrifying. Thank you Euro NCAP
blabla62871 Such as?
What are you "thanking" them for, exactly???
For generating income in order to frighten people away from motor cars shown crashing in inordinately slow motion to induce the worst kind of fears so that you don't think critically on the matter??
Which are you safest in?:
- bus crash
- train crash
- bicycle crash
- motorcycle crash
- pedestrian crash (with a motor vehicle)
- Plane crash
- Rover 100 crash
Now think about what it is that you _might_ be able to do about it, if you kept a 100...
What would you do - based on nothing further than 10 seconds considered *thinking,* to create a safer model??
Next time, think carefully about who it is that you're extending your gratitude towards.
They just *_might_* be taking the mickey out of you behind your back.
@@letsdiscussitoversometea8479 You're an insufferable twazzock, and I look forward to blocking and ignoring you
@@letsdiscussitoversometea8479the fuck are you talking about
@@letsdiscussitoversometea8479 what an absolutely bizarre comment. There's nothing wrong with thanking euro NCAP, they have been instrumental in improving car safety over the years.
Just imagine the Rover in an IIHS small-overlap crash test :o
would probably just sheer the side off it given that it's made of cheese and the car would just continue on down the road with the side missing
Toxy and get a poor rating.
Because the car acted so poorly in a crash it deserves a ''Poor'' rating anyway.
It will be rejected from iihs if in euroncap did 1 star în 1997, iihs won t even try to. But even then it will get borlth a poor and a possible worst pick
The Rover may have been registered and built 20 years ago but the platform and design is MUCH older than that!
Samuel Brooks The Rover 100 is based to austin metro 1981,is normal his badly safety.
Correct,posted elsewhere that by 1997 platform was almost 20 years old in design terms,cars from same era would have been no better.
No, it has some roots from Civic 3-Gen of the beggining of 80s...
Does it matter? Still a car built and sold 20 years ago. The design of the Honda Jazz is also not a design from 2017. Euro NCAP tests cars as they're sold.
J. Martinni Yes it matters and you've totally missed the point!
Please, please have someone re-edit this into a usable video. This is an important comparison, and you obviously have excellent raw footage. But the editing is so "cool" and "razzle-dazzle" that we can't really see anything. It's not a music video, it's science and safety. Please let us see it properly.
just put 25% speed and you'll see everything)
Yes. Really too bad.
agreed
Just watch it like a normal video. You won't have any context if it just jumps into the video.
I was going to say the same thing, this test shows 1-3 second snippets of the test from varied angles but not the whole ... launch? So it doesn't prove/provide anything except that video editing/production has improved. And let's see the dummies after. That's the real comparison.
I bet 20 years ago Rover was advertising big way that it had an airbag.... too bad it's useless
louis smeets cause it has only driver airbag
So sad that they can't recall it cause it already usless if they add more airbags but the structure if the car is bad
And side impact protections. There is an old Rover 100 introduction video with this.
@louis smeets
rover 100 5 stars safe?
Airbag didn't do shit on the Rover 100 lmao.
Dauge Yo useless if the structure is bad
Dauge Yo usless if the airbag just one and bad structure
Also YEE
They are there to protect the seats 😝
The Rover 100 is technically an early eighties care not late nineties. They just facelifted it in the 90's to make it look a bit more modern.
Or very late 70s since it's design was completed in 1979
And the Honda is also closely related to the Mk1 Jazz, introduced in 2002. So when do you think its chassis was originally designed?
One of my best friend owns a Rover 100, i'm going to show her this. Might finally talk her in to getting rid of it.
Their Long gone out of Production (1997) They were ancient even when they ceased Production back then ( A 17 year run of the same car with just Different Badges put on the Bonnet and an engine that was a staggering 30 years old when the car was first launched in 1980!)
MiniOne82 the 1.3 engines are good though
Ah Absolutely..That "A" Series Engine was a good Lump the 850cc 1000cc and the 1.3L fitted to the Cooper. And a Ton of other cars.The "K" Series not so ..anything above the 1.100ccL & 1.400 Abso "Junk" Head gasket Probs due to I"ll Fitted Alloy Cylinders
Lord fauntleroy yeah. My neighbour buys metros with a series engines just for mini conversions
MiniOne82 good idea
Security has improved, no doubt but :
- Rover 100 has one of the worst if not the worst rating ever scored by a car at Euro NCAP
- Rover 100 is based on an 1980 Austin Metro, so it was ingeneered in the late 70's...
no wonder it is rubish as hell, the car conception's is in reallity about 40 years old !
Not the worst, the ford siera is "The worst" if not designed to kill the driver : ruclips.net/video/bsxtse3FK8A/видео.html
Actually it wasn't the worst. It scored better than some newer cars.
@deanosaur808 That's partly because the standard has gotten harder. I think everyone would rather be in the 0 star 2017 Fiat Punto than that Rover
"so baby pull me closer in the back seat of your rover"
_woman realises the car is a rover 100_
*woman immediately runs away*
isnt that a bit from a song by chainsmokers
When I was younger all my friends had the metro later re named Rover 100, glad we never had a crash.
Something I find more amazing, they managed to find one of the finest examples of a Rover 100
And they destroyed it 😢
It's even finer now.
Song: Aaron Sapp - Turing Test (Main)
Thanks! ❤
My parents had a Rover 100 when I was kid. We made quite a few kilometers in it. Fortunately, no crashes. The car felt quite sturdy. But appearances can be deceiving.
There's no "fortunately" about it.
It's a perfectly safe item to sit in.
Ever heard of the fear factor, and what it does to critical thinking??
The rust failed hence the devastation in the video 😂
Great video, Ed. I can relate. My daily driver, and only car, is a 1990 Volvo 240 DL Estate. I drive about 40,000 miles a year. Arthur now has nearing 400,000 miles on the clock. I would drive him anywhere. Parts take time to get, but ate readily available and quite reasonable for price.
Child in the back gave the driver a goodbye kiss.
Ouch, that Metro would be lethal =0
Back in 1997 the Rover had 1 stars and the 2015 Honda had 5 stars. I'd really like to see a comparison between a 5 star car from the past and a recent 1 star car!
I don't think any modern car nowadays hits less than three stars. Wouldn't be able to be sold otherwise.
Strax we have one now : say hello to the 2017 fiat punto, which was just a small facelift before the car gets retired next year, and might find it hard to find customers now
Way different parameters of judgement. That car had a 5* rating in 2005 and it's nowhere as unsafe as a 91 Rover such as that. It lacks active safety features, that's why it got a 0. Still not a deadly trap, unlike this junk in the video.
lestyanrobi A 1997 Lexus LS would kick that Rovers ass!
yes you save millions of people life.
There was never one million of these cars on the road lol
Metro was a good little car of its time. I'd love a turbo now! This vid shows 40 years of design progress. Iv had a head on crash in a metro at 48mph and walked away. My friend also had a head on crash and died at the scene...but that was the mid 90s. In the next 40 years we will probably be driven everywhere by autonomous vehicles safer again.
This is the thing isn't it...
You crashed in the way that most people might crash - into another vehicle.
Not into a "deformable" block.
You would also have crashed very quickly, so there wouldn't have been all this slow motion business to scare you off (if you're somebody who is influenced that easily).
And you wouldn't have had a CLEAR focusing in of your car, against a black background either, just to reinforce the fear.
A MUCH stronger vehicle can hit a lorry head on, and kill the driver just like that.
The differences are relatively marginal with all things considered - I think this program was inputted into peoples' minds, to put them off driving.
that was absolutely astoundingly bad, how these could ever be sold is criminal
The 1997 rover 100 is really a largely unchanged 1980 Metro design, so although it makes for sensational viewing, it's not really a valid comparison here as it's an almost 40 year old design!
Why not test an equivalent Honda design that was new in 1997?
because that is beside the point of the video? this is not about Rover being bad, it's about how much car safety has improved over 20 years.
@namefinder, You're missing the point, they are trying to claim it's improved more than it has by passing a 38 year old car design off as 20 years old.
Lord_Edge Even though Rover 100 was based on old designs, it was still considered new at one point. And as a new car it suited safety regulations back then, so this video is still valid. It might not be 20 year old car, but its 20 year old standards if nothing else.
a 1997 honda could easily survive this test with only partial deformation of the passenger cell.
If it was euro ncap that made Rover 100 sales collapse, it was disgusting that Rover were still trying to sell this rubbish in '97, compare the crash test to a similar era VW Polo, which had been on sale since '94.
Puy Lentil yep
Sales were collapsing anyway. Sales were lower than the car it replaced 😅
I'm surprised they managed to find a rover 100 in such good nick!
Like iihs when they used that old bel air
There are plenty in good nick. 1500 still licensed and on the road, and another 2900 SORN
Add to that 5500 Metro's 😅
@deanosaur808 I forgot I wrote that comment lol, wow I didn't think there were that many left, I hadn't seen 1 for years when I wrote that comment and I've only seen 3 since, something else I meant to add to my original comment is I'm surprised they would crash a metro in such good condition after surviving for so long especially as I've heard values for those cars are increasing.
@@deanosaur808load a lies lol, there’s only 577 rover metros on UK roads with a valid MOT, I have 3 out of the 577, should do research on something you obviously don’t know anything about 😂
Amazes me how the rover 100 here performs identically to the one 25 years ago. It well illustrates how precise and repeatable it is, but it's a shame as that metro must've been mint.
As someone who owns a similar model of metro I find it a shame too
I like how some call the Rover 100 the Metro in the comments. We're all clearly showing our age! The Metro was an old car when I was at secondary school and I'm 38 this year!!
its only a front and rear facelift plus addition of airbag over the original Mini metro 1980 first production car.. the windscreen is the same throughout its production run. the front end was mainly to modernise and change from a series to k series engine. the a piller back is essentially the same. I have a 1982 mg metro - I never ever want to be in a crash in it...
Happy 20 years Euro NCAP.
When EURO NCAP was first launched the maximum score was 4 stars!
Shock horror - the first tests showed:
2 stars - Mercedes
2 stars - BMW
2 stars - Audi
2 stars - Saab (believe it or not!)
3 stars - Ford
3 stars - Nissan
4 stars - Volvo
Moral: Don't believe the manufacturers, as in the recent Dieselgate scandal... Oh, they're German too, what a surprise...!
Its also twice the size
would've been great if you crashed them against each other... just saying ;)
i dontknow why they didnt crash each other
@@iva9129 doing so would've shown that the Rover was - in reality - a much safer car than this sort of propaganda would have led you to believe.
The Rover is based on a 1980 design, first launched as Leyland Mini Metro. Should use a car that was acutally new design in 1997. Results would be different.
Congratulations for 20 years
I think I need a newer car...
Nah
No, the Rover was the worst performing car EuroNcap jas EVER tested so it’s fine your car is probably better than the Rover
You are better off driving slower and being more alert. Even if you crash in a well built car that does not change the deceleration your brains have to deal with.
What did you really expect though? The Rover 100 wasn't prepared for the test, mainly because it was the first EuroNCAP test.
Great, amazing results
The name of the music???
Turing Test (MAIN) - VideoHelper
Are the crash test speeds much higher now that the old car got obliterated so violently?
Shocking how far we've come but equally the jazz is about 1.5feet longer in the front too
I agree that the Jazz's larger size helps, but a Smart ForTwo would give the same result and that basically has no bonnet.
They should have tested a 20 year old honda... They put rover because they cant harm the reputation of a non existing company :D
NGT There's a video out there of an old Chevrolet Bel Air vs new Chevrolet Malibu. Same car company decades apart.
Why did you not test a 1997 Toyota Corolla against a 2016 Toyota Corolla?
Wouldn't have been as exciting. A 1997 Corolla is worlds better then the Rover.
But is Rover 100 settings applied to the Metro one
What is the NCAP's current stance on small overlap tests performed by Americans?
In USA the roads have lot of obstacles at the side of the way like poles, signals, trees.... even in highways and interstates. In Europe this is not a problem, most of the main roads have fences that protect us from this objetcts if we lost control and go out the lane, and in the case who those roads that have two or more lanes for each direction, in USA often aren't fisically separated with fences or concrete.
Volumex
So, NCAP doesn't have plans to include small overlap test?
I don't know. Today Euroncap makes more tests than ever. Maybe, but in USA it's neccesary because there is a real important risk to suffer an accident as the test described, small overlap against a fixed obstacle, but in Europe isn't a great risk. Anyway, today with the globalization, lot of american cars are made with the same platform than other cars sold in Europe or Japan. For example, Renault doesn't sell cars in USA, but Nissan Rogue uses the same CMP platform than Megane, Espace, new Scenic...
And, Ncap in China, Japan, Latin Amierica or Australia, have its own set of test, best adapted with the territory characteristics.
Volumex
Thanks for reply. Although, I have to point out that large percent of European roads do not have fences, or fences are being planted only sporadically (on critical places), and they are going through woods, mountains, villages etc... so, plenty of dangerous objects at their sides. Also, while the European highways in most cases are secured with fences, there's still tens of thousands of kilometers of regular two-lane motorways where collisions with the vehicles going in opposite direction are happening every day.
1997 Rover 100 (Austin Metro) - 1 star
1999 Rover 75 - 4 stars (5 stars with curtain airbags)
what the music ???
Turing Test (MAIN) - VideoHelper
Hello NCAP! Pleas test the Volvo 850!!!!
happy 20th aniversery
0:15 ayo the when the mans head hit the airbag, the airbag went off the steering wheel nice job protecting a man rover airbag
Airbag in the rober sent the occupants head INTO the pillar 😬
whats the music
Turing Test (MAIN) - VideoHelper
When you test the new Citroen C3 ?
That specific Rover 100 may have been built in 1997 but it's effectively still an early 80s design
Сделайте же тест распила. Интересно знать как поведет себя кузов после восстановления, а именно вытяжки и приварки деталей с донора.
у адак такие тесты есть, с гольфом
Crash dummy : Woooooow, lets do it again. 😊
Airbag in the Rover when it crashes: imma head out
Кажется, что ровер еще до удара начал деформироваться)) ЖЕСТЬ лютая!!!!!
Claro pero el Rover 100 no es de 1997, es de 1991.....
Bro took the worst safety car of the 90s vs a normal safety car from the 2010s, that's not even fair
the point is to show the difference 😂
@@sw20vp he should have taken the best from the 90s vs the best from the 2010s, to really understand how it changed
What music is that?
Song: Turing Test (MAIN) - VideoHelper - Boutique Music Library
That's great... but let's see how today's small car fares on a head-on collision with today's CUV's and SUV's.
Enquanto assistimos a comparação entre carros com 20 de diferença temos que atentar que o processo de reparação no Brasil está mais de 50 anos atrasada diante dos materiais, técnicas e equipamentos e insumos utilizados na reparação.
Qualquer colisão de médio porte gera donos estruturais que as oficinas e os reparadores não estão habilitados para realizarem.
This would have been very interesting if it hadn't been edited but some action movie director wannabe. I can't compare anything before it jumps all over the damn place.
Shane Francis !!!
Someone know the song ?
The Rover 100 is like being presumed DEADLY while the Honda Jazz (which my mom owns) is like so safe like its a Japanese car and Japanese cars are like so safe like Japanese cars make their
cars so safe like idk (i don't know) why
Is a rover what do u expect? Better than Chinese cars?
No chinese cars are safer, you can see the crash tests
You know your car has a shit safety rating when the steering wheel takes out the passengers face
Поздравляю!
AFAIK Rover 75 got 4 star, so they (and BMW) wasn't totally clueless about car safety.
The rear seat survived perfectly. Just remove the front seats and enjoy! 🥳
Dramatic I love it❤
the airbag on the rover did next to fuck all to protect the driver
Rover в плане безопасности на большинство наших тачек похож)
дык англичане никогда машины делать не умели и не умеют.
@austinrover2005 бывают и хуже) ну да. Соотношение цены и качества не ахти. Иначе бы зачем введены запретительные пошлины на японцев.
I want Rover 100 small overlap tets
This is exactly why newer cars are better. Sure, they might fall apart or be written off from minor bumps (which is annoying), but when it matters, they are far more likely to save your life. It's a shame that you never put a Volvo 940 through this test, just to show people that driving a so-called "old tank" really isn't what they think it is.
Crashed a Rover 114i in September 1999 - front crash into a tree - totally crashed the car - didnt wear a safety belt - still alive without injuries;)
But what about the tree?? 🤣
Rover 100 : it's 1997 and we are so safe cause we have airbags!
Euro NCAP: uh I think you forgot to say for make-up
Would love a metro
27 years
Oh i really wanted an old rover
Viva Euroe Ncap!
English security.....
But i respect the rover
6519 Wallace Meadow
I would be verry impress if that two car weight roughly the same...
Check the Suzuki Ignis crash test, it only weighs 820 kg but scores 3 stars in EuroNcap, much better than the Rover that weighs the same!
Benjamín Valenzuela yes you are right, and that three stars is w/o safety pack, basicly its passive safety is 5 stars. Well that is something impressive :)
This jump cut edit is terrible, just show us the crash video, what car crashes not exciting enough?
Congratulations euro ncap 21 years of safety
majority vehicle bed forth burst now favorite register box ban.
Rover is not an 20 years old car. This car was released in 1980. This comparison is silly
Dawid Zawała maybe 1980 rover 100 was not like the 1997 (i guess)
This is not silly, it was the first car they crash tested 20 years ago, compared to a modern car that, adjusted for inflation, costs about as much today.
wow! the rover inside is acary: even the steering blasts your face. maybe i must be careful on my 114...
Poor Rover...
I survive in a car accident without an airbag, seatbelt save my life and also just a blunt trauma in my chest.
you cant compare a one star 1997 car with a five star car... okay if you compared for example a 1997 Passat with a 2017 passat
It's all over when you drive a Rover.
ale mi test porównać Rover i Hondą co to za marka Rover haha
ローバー100はメトロの骨格設計が基本だから、安全規格としては40年近く前だよね。20年前の試験でも最低ランクの車体なので、比較対象としては恣意的選択過ぎる。
Mizerně rychlý záběry , člověk si ani pořádně neuvědomí ten rozdíl.
For 1997, that rover was rubbish!! Compare tgat whimpy Honda Fit to a 1997 Lexus LS!!
Modern cars have considerably better secondary safety but at the cost of over-complexity, bloat and poorer visibility. All of which impact primary safety.
Modern cars are so heavy they now have to drive at reduced speeds in the city 🤷
The metro will become safer in future when everyone is forced to drive 5 mph 🤣
They are sisters 👯♀️
Johnpaul Walks
Back in the day I had a Rover Metro... unfortunately I was involved in a crash. You can view it here
classicroverforum.net/index.php?threads/my-2001-crash-in-rover-metro.43203/