Karl on Cars

My personal "crash car" would be a Lexus LS with the pre collision system, a Acura RL with their pre collison system or, the new volvo s80. I belive all of these are very safe cars. I can see the resoning behind having an Suv insted of a car, but i think that a full sized car can be made just as safe as an SUV.

Just what we need, a large, heavy SUV with more power than 90% of owners can handle. How about the safety of all the small and compact cars around you? Not to pick on Volvo, as god knows there are plenty of others, but you talk of this being you favorite for accident survival. How about survival of a family in a small car if you hit it and shred everyone inside to pieces because you are driving a tall SUV? Promoting large and tall SUVs as safe family cars is just wrong. You would be just as safe in a V70 wagon and would enjoy the "sporty" aspect even without the huge V-8.
 
As far as roll over, you are wrong. All it takes for a XC90 to roll over is a small nudge from behind by a car. I have seen it happen. A SMALL nudge, like 10-15 mph.

VVK, I used to be on your side, the side that looks out for the greater good, the "Why can't we all drive similar-sized cars? It would be safer than this arms-race suvs are in"; and then I started driving with infants in the back. Ya know what? My tune changed, and fast. Suddenly I was looking at Touaregs instead of Passats. Why? Because in a collision my momentum will prevent the impact-force from hurting my cargo, even if it means someone else may be.
It's a cruel reality but there it is.
 
Oh, and your anti-suv paranoia is off the mark,; a 15mph crash, especially from the rear, is not going to flip an 80's K-5 Blazer, let alone the XC90.

As boxermike notes, it's actually pretty difficult to get any vehicle to roll over (despite Hollywood's favorite action tactic and/or the 5 o'clock newsreels that run over and over and over and over). I know the core "I HATE ALL SUVS!" group will never acknowledge this, but that doesn't change the fact. Now add in the realatively low center of gravity on the XC90 (certainly by SUV standards) and the anti-rollover technology that specifically intervenes if it senses a rollover and the position that this is "just another top-heavy SUV waiting to land on its roof" looks pretty weak.
  
However, IF it somehow rolls over, it's got side curtain airbags for all three rows and the strongest roof in the industry.
  
Again, I know the SUV haters will never acknowledge anything with greater than 6-inches of ground clearance and a third-row seat, but this vehicle is simply super safe...sorry.
  
Oh, one other news flash -- when push comes to shove (or crash) my family is more important to me than anyone elses. Sorry again (not really).

I aggree with Karl and Boxermike, I want my mom to get an suv not because she really needs one, but in case some ignorant jerk hits her, she won't be wearing a cute little car like a suit.

Although it doesn't have the interior of the XC90, the Forester XT (with the 5-speed) would probably be more fun to drive and just as safe, if not safer than the XC90. The 2006 model had a 5-star NHTSA rating and was an IIHS best pick. It's too bad it has that "toxic" interior though.
 
Even the "jaws of life" can't cut through Subaru B-pillars
http://www.subarudrive.com/Sum06_WhatsInside.htm
Firehouse magazine article
Page 1 - http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/5219/picture0999se.jpg
Page 2 - http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3299/picture1007ny.jpg
 
Why Subaru AWD > Volvo AWD (and many others'...I wish some Audis would've been tested as well)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7dVFY5CxT0

boxermike, you are still on my side, as I drive an infant in the back, too. So I know the feeling. Still, we would all be far safer if we all drove normal cars instead of 5000 lb monstrosities. And we would all have more fun doing it!
 
Karl, I saw a small car hit an XC90 in the left rear and flip it over in an instant. They were both going in the same direction and the speed differential was about 10-15 mph. People think SUVs are so safe but they are wrong.

VVk -- I need a link to that video, or some other way to view it. Curious to know if other elements were involved (curbs or other immovable objects, angle or impact, etc.).

Boron reinforced roof not withstanding, I'll add that the Subaru Tribeca has a better rating for structural integrity in the IIHS Side Impact test than does the XC90, and it has Subaru's excellent AWD system, on which the company has built its reputation. For '08, the vehicle adds a whole bunch more scoot , going from 3.0 to 3.6L, with revised transmission and lower weight(and gets restyled- praise Jesus!). Plus, its a quite a good deal cheaper than the XC90....
 
But, maybe I'm a bit biased since I love Subarus, lol.....
~alpha

Most rollovers involve "tripping" of some sort, so it's not like it doesn't count if that XC90 hit a curb. But a Volvo's not a bad place to be if you're going to roll over. My friend's old Volvo 850 sedan had a prominent roof reinforcement beam from one B-pillar to the other, and this was before rollover was a buzzword.
 
And as a diehard low car driver, the XC90 doesn't bother me. It's got mass, but from what I've read, its designers kept compatibility with other cars in mind. It won't decapitate me or be too rigid. I've never had a problem with its headlights behind me, either.
 
But a good number of my near misses in traffic are caused by parents distracted by their kids, so don't expect me to respect the "screw everyone else" attitudes I'm seeing here.

Karl,
 
Sorry, I did not have a camcorder with me :) As far as I remember, no curbs involved. Typical SUV changing lanes without looking. Middle of city intersection, too (many people don't realize that's illegal). The small car nailed him from behind while braking hard. I would say about a 30 degree angle. Hooked him under the rear bumper and over he went, sliding another 10-15 yards on the roof. Roof held, of course. All SAABs and Volvos had very high strength roofs since mid-60s, I believe.

If a vehicle is so safe that the only place we can nit pick it is in it's roof in a roll over...then it's pretty safe in my book.

Two things that the XC90 suffers from: poor reliability (see consumer reports) and a thirsty engines, which i guess just got thirstier!

Sddoc07, don't fall into Consumers Report's trap. There are few new models nowadays that have poor reliability. The XC90's reliability is below average, which isn't the same as poor. The difference between the average car and one that's 50% below average is 2 versus 3 problems/car over a period of about 5 years.
  
As for fuel economy, the new I6 has the same EPA rating as the old I5. The V8 has the same rating as the turbo I6 it replaced.

i agree with the whole small car vs large car experiance.
 
My mom and i were going to atlanta in it and took I95. Thats know as trucker way. We were crusing and a trucker was 3 lanbes over and began to cross over into our lane. We thought it was going to be over but some guy behind us in an Explorer pulled right to our bumper and the trucker saw him and went back into his lane.
 
She still has her miata and would love if she got a bigger convertible (it impossible to talk her into anything else...) like the saab 9-3, bmw 323/325/330CI (E46), or anything bigger than her "go kart".

Yeah boron rocks, thanks for posting those links SubyTrojan, I didn't realize that Subaru was also using it in their B-pillar structures. The XC90 posted amazingly low roof deflection numbers in the company's static and dynamic roof crush tests, I'm guessing if it weren't for the cost a lot more manufacturers would be using it.
  
The Murano in the YouTube video cracked me up... how worthless of an AWD system is that!?? It would have been interesting to see an Audi or two, as a true permanent 4WD system like Quattro would be a good comparo to Subie's Symmetrical AWD (maybe that's why an Audi wasn't included!).

Not saying that Volvo is bad in any way, but I dont believe they have the advantage in safety that they used to posess. There are numerous vehicles that can match or exceed Volvo in safety.
 
It used to be when I heard "Volvo" I automatically thought of safety. Today when I hear Volvo I just think of......well.....Volvo! Kudos to Volvo for adding the Yamaha V8 to the lineup.

Late to the party, but I had to point something out. A collision at 10-15 mph is not the same as a collision between two vehicles moving the same direction and having a speed differential of 10-15 mph. While the impact might be, the actual momentum of both vehicles may be far greater, and if the vehicle in front gets clipped on the rear corner at, say, 45+ mph, causing it to swing to the side, all that momentum is still going to try to carry the vehicle forward in the direction it was going (now possibly completely perpendicular to the direction the wheels rotate). Tripping would be fairly easy in this condition..
 
So I would stand by Karl and others' assessment that most vehicles are VERY hard to get to roll from a simple rear corner collision, unless you add in a dose of speed and likely something for the wheels to trip the vehicle on once it's no longer aimed the direction it's (still) travelling.
 
Oh, and while there are plenty of morons in large heavy vehicles driving like maniacs that could potentially crumple someone in their small car into a tight little ball, I see *far more* folks in small (sporty?) lightweight cars driving like maniacs. While I understand the temptation to enjoy all that handling and power-to-weight advantage thoroughly, it's hard to blame the owner of the big vehicle when the small car cuts in front of him at 80+ mph to make the next off-ramp and lays on the brakes hard. That same inertia that aids tripping comes into play here as the larger vehicle can't slow down nearly as quickly and might end up reducing the trunk space of the vehicle in front by a few cubic feet!
 
I actually experienced a similar situation: Imagine early morning rush hour traffic. Three lanes of interstate traffic in each direction. Semi-corolla-80's model pickup-Nissan Altima-Nissan Altima all in the right lane. Speeds varying (rapidly) between 25 and 50 mph. Off ramp about 1/2 mile ahead. Small Miata racing up the center lane trying to get to the ramp ahead of the semi swerves into the lane in front of him (just as the traffic further up slows again). The truck, which originally had more than enough following distance to account for the current conditions, suddenly finds himself about to park on the Miata. Me (behind the truck) witness the smoke from the trailer brakes as the trucker frantically locks them up. The Miata owner swerves over onto the off ramp and continues on, totally unaware of the chaos he has caused to ensue. I (in my small Corolla) have little problem outbraking the semi in front of me (and even allowed a bit of extra space to account for more gradual braking for the traffic slowdowns). But the pickup behind me, unable to match my hard braking and slowing doesn't, and narrowly misses NOT hitting my rear end, resulting in said reduction of luggage capacity in my own car. Meanwhile the two Altimas behind the truck fair even worse, as they've been following far too closely or are asleep at the wheel and react late. The front car hits the (now) stopped pickup, bounces off a bit, collides with the front of the rearmost car, then strikes the truck a second time. THAT (the front) Altima is a serious mess, and the most heavily damaged of all the vehicles in this chain reaction pileup. The driver goes to the hospital (never did hear how she was). The last Altima had more minor front end damage, my Corolla had heavy rear end damage, and the pickup had a few scratches on its bumpers.
 
All that sounds like a good argument for smaller vehicles for *everybody*, right? Not really. More of an argument for *better driving* by everybody. And it all came down to one person in a tiny sporty car that KNEW he / she could make that gap in front of the truck (thanks to the handling and power of their car), but didn't bother to consider anybody else in traffic.
 
(cont.)

That also happened to be about the time that I decide bigger vehicles weren't bad, if driven right. I try to be a responsible driver in my Avalanche. I allow adequate following distances, pay close attention to what the people around me are doing (including the driving styles they exhibit, so I know to especially be on the lookout when passing / being passed by certain drivers), mind speed limits, and just generally try to be a good citizen of the road. That's also why I notice what types of vehicles are most commonly driven dangerously (to others on the road, at the least). Small sporty cars and german coupes seem especially likely to go wizzing by, swerving from lane to lane, or even (recently observed) dropping onto the emergency shoulder area to pass cars (going at or slightly above the speed limit) when the drivers just can't wait for the common person to finish a pass and get over.
 
But basically, since I can't trust nor control the other drivers on the road, I'll always choose to safeguard myself and my family over any consideration of the other cars I might potentially some day collide with. If everyone drove sensibly I might have a different view of things. But this is the real world. If those drivers are so thoughtless of others while on the road, then I have little patience for complaints when they *do* find out that the guy in the Suburban has a higher chance of surviving an accident than they in their little car do.